SIXTEEN years ago, when Lloyd’s List first began compiling its annual roll call of influence, individuals still largely shaped the industry.

The list was dominated by larger‑than‑life shipowners whose bold bets on tonnage and timing could tilt markets. Agency was personal and the cycles of shipping rewarded those willing to gamble big.

That era has not entirely disappeared. There are still figures whose decisions reverberate across the industry and institutions whose choices carry weight by proxy. Yet with each passing year, the limits of that agency become more apparent. Shipping today is less a master of its own destiny than it once was.

This year’s number one on our list is a case in point. Love him or loathe him, US President Donald Trump stands arguably as the most influential figure in shipping right now.

His actions — whether through trade wars, tariffs, port fees, sanctions, the derailment of climate negotiations, or sheer political posturing — have left markets in perpetual turbulence.

Fresh shocks have arrived on an almost weekly basis, keeping the industry and its stakeholders constantly on edge and second‑guessing Trump and his administration’s next move.

What this shows is a broader shift in the nature of influence itself. Traditionally, the levers of power in shipping were narrow but clear: buy the right ships, play the right markets, sell at the right point in the cycle.

Those choices remain, but they are increasingly overshadowed by forces beyond the industry’s control. Geopolitics, macroeconomics and regulatory upheaval now dictate the terms. Shipping does not decide how it interacts with these forces; it only decides how to respond.

Disruption has become the defining feature of the past five years. The Covid pandemic proved how volatility could be profitable, as supply chains buckled and freight rates soared.

But disruption is not a permanent dividend. Wars, sanctions and fractured trade routes now show that volatility can just as easily become a cost. The bifurcation of global trade along political lines threatens to leave shipowners with only one choice: on which side to stand.

Influence today lies in two domains, namely the efficiency of assets and the partnerships forged. Yet even here, the paradox is stark. The industry debates future fuels and vessel‑level efficiency, but the global supply chain itself is less efficient than it was a decade ago.

Conflict, political bans and diverted routes have eroded the gains of ship‑level optimisation. A ship may be greener, faster and more efficient, but the system in which it operates is slower, costlier and more fractured.

Meanwhile, the division within shipping grows sharper. At the top end, owners wrestle with costly compliance and complicated regulation. At the other, more than 20% of the global tanker fleet sails outside the system entirely, ignoring standards and profiting at the expense of those who play by the rules.

Influence in 2025 means confronting an industry split between compliance and opportunism, between those who invest in a regulated future and those who exploit the shadows.

This duality raises uncomfortable questions. How much capacity remains for those who choose to play by the rules? Can progressive coalitions of shipowners, financiers and regulators push the industry towards a sustainable future, or will their efforts be undermined by geopolitical headwinds and shadow fleets?

The optimistic answer is collective action, whereby coalitions of like‑minded players act together for a better future. The harder question is whether that is enough to counteract the centrifugal forces pulling trade apart.

Trump’s influence epitomises the dynamic at play. His administration has shown time and again how external political decisions reverberate instantly through shipping. Tariffs reconfigure trade flows, sanctions divert fleets and the sheer weight of political manoeuvring is enough to derail climate negotiations.

For shipowners, the lesson is clear: power is shrinking and the industry’s destiny is increasingly dictated elsewhere.

Ultimately, influence today is about decision‑making under constraint. Do you believe in a future of globalised, free trade? Or do you accept that trade is increasingly coloured by geopolitical allegiance?

That is the choice facing shipping’s power brokers right now. And it is a choice made not in the open waters of market cycles, but in the narrowing channels of geopolitics, regulation and disruption.