(PCC)Did you know that you can ship a commercial container from Iran’s biggest seaport, Shahid Rajaee Port, to Chicago, Illinois, all by water, never hitting dry land? 8^th grade geography teaches us this!

This week, the world was terrified to learn that Ukraine had filled shipping containers with kamikaze drones, shipped them to the heart of Russia, and then released them, resulting in devastating effects.

Now, shipping containers have become the go-to’ delivery method for Trojan Horse tactical military strikes.

With this new information, the question becomes ‘when,’ not ‘what if.’

Here is an honest question: How vulnerable is the U.S. to weaponized shipping containers from China, Russia, and Iran?

The United States, as a global superpower and consumer economy, processes millions of shipping containers annually at its ports. Yet, behind this staggering volume lies a glaring vulnerability. These containers, while often filled with electronics, textiles, or machinery, could become modern Trojan horses. Not with explosives, but with electromagnetic weapons like magnetic degaussers and EMP (electromagnetic pulse) devices capable of devastating U.S. communications, digital infrastructure, and national security.

Think weaponizing shipping containers is tin-foil-hat territory? Then consider this. Here is the scope of imports, by volume and exposure, for the US.

In 2024, the U.S. imported approximately 11.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) from China alone, representing 38% of total containerized imports (28.2 million TEUs). While tariffs in 2025 reduced that volume, China remains the U.S.’s largest shipping partner by far.

Russia and Iran present rather smaller volumes but are no less significant from a security standpoint. Although obtaining exact numbers is challenging due to sanctions and trade secrecy, Russia engages in limited containerized trade by using circumvention tactics, such as routing shipments through third countries or proxy companies. Iran’s exports to the U.S. in 2024 totaled over $6.29 million, but the mere possibility of sanctioned goods slipping through via indirect routes or forged manifests cannot be ignored.

Has the US increased the inspections of shipping containers? Let’s find out.

The crux of this threat lies in the current inspection system:

• Less than 5% of containers are physically inspected at U.S. ports.
• Bills of lading, documents susceptible to falsification or manipulation, serve as the sole basis for clearing most containers.
• Container screening focuses on traditional weapons or contraband, not on magnetic, electronic, or EMP-based threats.

Given the sheer volume of cargo, it is logistically and economically unfeasible to scan every container, creating an exploitable blind spot.

Explosive devices are actually easier to find, but the electromagnetic threat is far more problematic.

Devices such as magnetic degaussers and portable EMP generators have the potential to severely damage electronics.

• Degaussers use powerful magnetic fields to erase data from hard drives and magnetic media, rendering them unusable.
• EMP devices emit pulses capable of frying circuit boards, disrupting communications, and disabling digital infrastructure.

Containers near sensitive infrastructure could deploy such devices.

For example:

• Placed on a cargo ship offshore, a container could contain high-powered EMP gear.
• Triggered remotely or on a timer, the pulse could affect military bases, airports, and financial institutions.
• Drones launched from containers could target power grids, satellites, or data centers.

This is not mere speculation. Several military strategists are saying the possibility of containerized drone attacks has likely been tested covertly by foreign actors, particularly China, but they fail to address the high-powered magnetic degaussers being discharged in ports of highly dense cities.

Imagine thousands of containers sitting at ports or distributed across inland terminals, many owned or operated by foreign-linked entities. Some of these containers could possess EMP devices or magnetic emitters. These devices wouldn’t trigger alarms on a manifest, nor would standard port scanners easily detect them.

This tactic is a Trojan Horse in the digital age: weapons hidden inside commercial shipments, waiting for remote activation.

It could be:

• The strategy could involve coordinating with cyberattacks to paralyze the response.
• It could be timed with geopolitical escalations to maximize its impact.
• The strategy was implemented through legal shipping infrastructure, thereby circumventing military defenses completely.

The state of shipping security is currently in a precarious situation, with no apparent solution in sight! The threat of electromagnetic attacks via shipping containers is no longer theoretical. The U.S. depends heavily on global shipping, particularly from adversarial or sanctioned nations like China, Russia, and Iran. With millions of containers flowing in and minimal inspection protocols, the risk of Trojan-style EMP or degausser devices is substantial.

To mitigate this risk, the U.S. must:

1. Upgrade inspection technology to detect electromagnetic components.
2. Mandate random physical inspections, especially of containers from high-risk origins.
3. Enhance intelligence-sharing between customs, military, and cybersecurity agencies.
4. Invest in EMP shielding and backup systems for critical infrastructure.

The next major threat may not come through the skies but through the ports, in plain sight, labeled as consumer electronics or furniture. The U.S. must act before this Trojan Horse is unleashed from within.

Final Word: With over 16 million twenty-foot equivalent foreign units coming into the US every year, how many Trojan horse containers would it take to bring America to its knees… 1