FOR RELEASE: Tuesday, May 6th, 2025
Contact:
Zac Rogers, Ph.D.
Logistics Manager’s Index Analyst
Associate Professor, Supply Chain Management
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
(970) 491-0890
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.the-lmi.com
Contact:
Zac Rogers, Ph.D.
Logistics Manager’s Index Analyst
Associate Professor, Supply Chain Management
Department of Management
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado
(970) 491-0890
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.the-lmi.com
April 2025 Logistics Manager’s Index Report®
LMI® at 58.8
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels and Transportation Utilization
LMI® at 58.8
Growth is INCREASING AT AN INCREASING RATE for: Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, and Transportation Prices.
Growth is INCREASING AT A DECREASING RATE for: Inventory Levels and Transportation Utilization
(Fort Collins, CO) — The April Logistics Manager’s Index reads in at 58.8, up (+1.6) from March’s reading of 57.1. This represents a slight uptick after the index’s 5.6-point fall from February to March. This reading of 58.8 is similar to the readings we observed in Q4 of 2024. However, the factors leading to this score, as well as the dynamics of the overall economy, have shifted notably since then.
The small positive movement in the overall index was the result of counteracting forces among our eight sub-metrics. Inventory Levels continued increasing, but at a slower (+4.2) rate of 57.1. This represents a return to normal seasonal inventory buildup, which is a departure from the frantic Inventory Level increases we observed throughout Q1. Despite this, Inventory Costs increased (+5.0) to 75.6. Our two inventory metrics generally move together, so the 18.5-point delta between these two metrics represents a diversion from what we would expect under normal circumstances. Warehousing Prices were up to an even greater extent (+11.2) to 72.3. The increases in Inventory Costs and Warehousing Prices suggest that much of the inventory that was rushed in during Q1 is still sitting stagnant in storage facilities and not being sold to consumers. The movements in inventories we observed from January to mid-March are very similar to the movements we would normally see from August to mid-October. The difference being that when inventories crest in mid-October, it is because they are about to be sold during the holiday season. The inventories that have been built up now will likely be sold more slowly, leading to higher storage costs across the board.
Transportation metrics showed some strength in April, as Transportation Prices were up (+5.8) to 62.3. Transportation metric expansion was driven by Downstream respondents, who reported significantly faster levels of expansion in both Transportation Utilization (59.6 to 50.6) and Transportation Prices (71.2 to 58.3). It will be interesting to see whether the market continues to show strength if there is a pullback in imports. There are also some early signs suggesting that transportation in 2025 could have similar dynamics to 2019, when the B2B and long-haul sectors struggled, but B2C and short-haul remained resilient. Whether or not these dynamics hold remains to be seen.
Researchers at Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Florida Atlantic University, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, and in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) issued this report today.
Results Overview
The LMI score is a combination of eight unique components that make up the logistics industry, including: inventory levels and costs, warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices, and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The LMI is calculated using a diffusion index, in which any reading above 50.0 indicates that logistics is expanding; a reading below 50.0 is indicative of a shrinking logistics industry. The latest results of the LMI summarize the responses of supply chain professionals collected in April 2025.
The LMI read in at 58.8 in April, up (+1.7) from March’s reading of 57.1 which had been the lowest overall reading since August 2024, which in turn followed February’s nearly three-year high reading of 62.1. April’s readings were characterized by the somewhat confounding forces of slowing Inventory Level buildups (-4.2 to 57.1) and costs increasing across the board. The aggregate logistics cost measure (and aggregation of Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Prices) was up (+22.0) to 210.1 in April. Over half of these cost increases were due to the jump (+11.2) in Warehousing Prices to 72.3. This dynamic is due to the accumulation of inventories that were built up through the first quarter of 2025 as firms pushed to stay ahead of tariffs. We now see that this buildup is slowing, and inventories are becoming static, with slow movements and high storage costs. Future predictions from respondents suggest that this will continue at the retail level, with Downstream firms predicting overall index expansion of 67.9 – significantly higher than Upstream expectations of 57.7. As will be discussed below, this difference is largely due to expectations of high costs due to increased inventories.
The rush of inventory was the primary reason that U.S. GDP declined by 0.3% in Q1. This was primarily driven by the gap between imports and exports, Imported goods were up by 50.9% in the quarter as firms attempted to avoid potential tariffs. This includes a 22.5% increase in equipment purchases, suggesting that manufacturers attempted to front-load capital expenditures as well[1]. This is the most that the trade deficit has effected GDP in any reading since 1947[2]. This economic uncertainty is reflected in the opinions of consumers. U.S. consumer sentiment was down 8% from March to February. This is down 32.4% year-over-year and down 32% since January. This three-month drop is the steepest since the 1990 recession. The decrease in confidence is due to uncertainty regarding trade policy, and the uncertain job market, and expectations of a 6.5% increase in inflation. This marks four consecutive months of inflation expectation increases of 0.5% or more and the highest expectation for year-over-year inflation since 1981[3]. This is consistent with the findings of a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research which shows that the approximately 70% of the adults in the U.S. are expecting prices to increase in the next 12 months[4]. Despite this, at the moment it seems that consumers still are willing to spend, as Mastercard reported that U.S. spending was up 9% in gross dollar volume in Q1, with strong trends continuing into April[5].
It is not all bad economic news. The U.S. added 177,000 jobs in April. While this is down from the 185,000 positions added in March, it is still higher than most analysts were expecting. The rush of inventories pouring into the U.S. ahead of tariffs was positive for the logistics sector, as 29,000 positions were added to transportation and warehousing in April[6]. The growth in jobs also means that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to feel significant pressure to pull back interest rates at their June meeting. The positive news regarding the jobs report and tech stock earnings (other than Apple) lifted U.S. markets, marking nine consecutive days of overall gains. However, the S&P 500 is still down 7.4% from the highs it hit in February when traders were excited about the possibility of tax and regulation cuts[7]. The drop in that index is the more precipitous first-100 day drop since Gerald Ford in 1974[8].
The impacts of tariffs are being felt everywhere. Chinese exports were up 12% year-over-year in March (6% in U.S. dollars). The increase in exports drove Chinese GDP to increase 5.4% in Q1, up slightly from the 5% growth it enjoyed during 2024[9]. The EU also saw their own increase in exports to the U.S., helping their economy grow by 1.4% in Q1, which is above expectations[10]. It seems unlikely that this global export expansion can continue post-tariffs. Chinese shipments to the U.S. dipped in April, and the Chinese Manufacturing PMI dropped (-1.5) to contraction at 49.0 – its lowest reading in 16 months[11]. Some factories in the Guangzhou region of China have temporarily closed due to the lack of clarity around tariffs and potential orders from U.S. customers[12]. Much as the U.S. has diversified away from China as a supplier, China has diversified away from the U.S. as a customer. According to a government spokesperson the U.S. market only accounts for 15% of Chinese exports, meaning they are less exposed to U.S. trade regulations than they would have been in the past. Despite the increase in exports, the domestic Chinese economy is still struggling with higher unemployment and lower consumer spending due to the continued weakness in their real estate market – something that has been an issue for several years since COVID-19. Despite these challenges, the IMF expects the Chinese economy to grow 4.6% in 2025[13]. While there are reports that the U.S. and China have begun negotiating on reducing tariffs, there is still no hard evidence of reduced tensions between the world’s two largest economies[14].
The IMF predicts that tariffs will weaken the world economy and drive-up inflation but not lead to an overall global recession. This is a departure from their January prediction that had postulated that economic activity would pick up in 2025[15]. The IMF is also predicting restrained growth for North Africa and the Middle East due to a combination of tariffs and depressed oil prices due to tariffs[16]. Japan’s economy is predicted to grow at just 0.5% in the fiscal year that just began in April. This is less than half of the 1.1% growth rate the Japanese Central Bank had forecast in December. The change is due the “unprecedented level” of U.S. tariffs[17].
While Inventory Levels continued to build in April, the rate of 57.1 is down (-4.2) from March’s reading and is the lowest reading of 2025. This is not abnormal as April and May are often slower times for overall logistics (although for certain industries like construction they can be quite busy). This slowdown is due to a combination of the high levels of inventory that many firms have on-hand as well as the implementation of significant global tariffs on April 2nd. At the same time, Inventory Costs continue to increase (+5.0) to 75.6, which we would classify as a significant rate of expansion. It is somewhat unusual for costs to increase this much faster than inventories – at the moment Inventory Levels are expanding 18.5 points faster than Inventory Costs (75.6 to 57.1).
Amazon and many of their third-party sellers brought in large volumes of inventory in the first quarter of the year. As a result of that, most prices have not yet increased significantly[18]. However, given the headlines in the last week of April regarding Amazon considering adding a “tariff cost” to their pricing model, it seems unlikely that prices will remain stagnant if inventories are heavily impacted by tariffs. While inventories are high at the moment, retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Ikea have stated that a prolonged trade ware will eventually lead to product shortages, particularly for lower margin items like toys, apparel, and home goods[19]. This could be particularly pronounced during the back-to-school shopping season when a significant level of children’s apparel is sold. This will be case for families looking for footwear as well, as Adidas recently stated that prices of their products will go up for U.S. consumers is tariffs continue, and have refrained from even offering guidance to investors due to the uncertainty[20]. This is reflected in the sky-high expectations for Future Inventory Costs from Downstream respondents, which read in at a would-be record of 94.0 – a number that represents near-universal expectations for increased costs. Upstream firms are also predicting robust Inventory Cost increases at 70.6.
These come despite Upstream future predictions of contraction in Inventory Levels at 45.4. The possibility for low inventories can seen already. The combination of fewer imports in, and fewer exports out, of the U.S. are leading to an increase in blank sailings and empty containers. At end of April, very few blank sailings were scheduled across the Pacific, that is predicted to increase to 40% of all Trans-Pacific sailings by August[21]. According to the Port of Los Angeles, there are currently over 56,000 empty containers sitting on their docks, the majority of which have been idle for at least 13 days. Empty containers now make up over 64% of the containers at the port, which is a significant percentage[22]. This is because those containers do not need to be sent back to China, where bookings are down 60% in the last week of April[23]. The Port of Las is predicting that TEUs in the first full week of May will be down 35% year-over-year, marking a significant shift from 2024’s flurry of spring and summer activity[24]. The shortages in inventory are already being reflected in the auto industry, which dropped from having 91 days of inventory on-hand in early March to only 70 days on hand in April[25]. Conversely, Downstream firms are predicting Inventory Levels to continue increasing over the next 12 months at 72.0. When taken together with the high predicted Inventory Costs (94.0), this suggests that Downstream firms will continue importing goods while also paying higher prices.
The types of shipments that do flow through U.S. ports will likely change due to the enforcement of tariffs on de minimis shipments. De minimis regulations, which apply to shipments with a value of less than $800, had avoided all trade controls as well as scrutiny from customs in the past. Due to the ease of de minimis imports, fast fashion companies like Shein and Temu had driven de minimis shipments into the U.S. up from just over 400 million shipments in 2018 to 1.36 billion in 2024[26]. The shift in this policy means that not only will the cost of such shipments increase significantly, but also the time required to process them through customs will skyrocket, slowing down imports of all types. This will likely end de minimis shipments for many firms, as the high costs and slower service will run counter to many of the things that attracted U.S. consumers to these types of products in the first place. As a result, DHL has ended its movement of de minimis shipments, and Temu will stop using this method as well[27] – something which could effectively end its presence in the U.S. Additional costs will also come in port fees for Chinese ships. U.S. trade representatives are continuing the plan to put a fee on any Chinese ship calling at a U.S. port. The charges are $50 per net ton, with plans to increase those fees by an additional $30 per ton over the next three years. There is some relief however as these fees will only be charged once per trip, instead of for each port entry as had been originally planned[28]. This will allow Chinese ships to call at multiple ports more efficiently, easing the need to imports to be rerouted to more export-focused ports or vice-versa.
All of these increased costs, along with higher levels of inventory, are reflected in our warehousing metrics. Warehousing Price expansion increased significantly (+11.2) in April to 72.3. This growth looks likely to continue over the next 12 months, especially for Downstream respondents, who predicted an increase of 84.8 (Upstream firms predicted a lower, but still robust expansion of 75.4). Part of this increase is due to limited capacity; our Warehousing Capacity continues to expand (+3.1) at the very mild rate of 55.4. Prologis concurs with this, expecting that the increase in inventories due to tariffs will lead to increased demand for warehousing spaced overall. Although it is possible that some facilities near ports will see demand decline slightly as more goods are routed across land borders. An increase in demand would be welcome news for the industrial real estate sector, as warehousing vacancy rates read in at 7% in Q1 2025, up significantly from the heady days of 2022 when vacancy rates were near 3%[29]
.
Warehousing Capacity is expected to remain tight Upstream, as respondents predicted movements of 53.0 over the next year. This is a much different reading than we received from our Downstream respondents, who predicted expansion at 67.4. At the same time, Downstream firms predict a significantly higher rate of Warehousing Utilization at 70.8, which dwarfs the anemic Upstream utilization prediction of 51.5. These differences further highlight the split in expectations between consumer-facing businesses and those that operate mainly in the B2B space. Essentially it appears that Downstream firms will continue to ramp up inventories, and the distribution networks needed to support those inventories in expectation that U.S. consumers will continue to show up. There is evidence of this in Amazon’s recent announcement regarding their attempt to shorten delivery routes and improve offerings to under-served communities by significantly increasing their rural footprint. They have invested $4 billion into their goal of having 210 delivery stations dedicated to rural service. This shift is partially due to Amazon moving away from their partnerships with USPS or UPS, who have generally handled their lower-margin rural deliveries[30]. It is doubtful they would do this if they expected a significant consumer pullback.
Generally, our future numbers suggest that we may see dynamics similar to what we saw in the freight recessions of 2019 and 2022. Both of those downturns were led by decreases in B2B activity, during which Upstream activity contracted or expanded very meekly. Downstream activity was a different story during these freight recessions, as U.S. consumers continued spending, leading to more consistent activity at the retail level. Whether or not this dynamic will continue remains to be seen, as consumers have now dealt with inflation for years, which could limit their ability to “spend their way through to the other side”. For now however, it seems that retailers are betting that the consumer will continue to show up, even with higher prices.
On the surface our transportation metrics showed less movement than the inventory or warehousing metrics. This is best epitomized by Transportation Utilization, where there was very little overall movement (-0.7) as the metric read in at 53.3. While this is a minimal difference from March, it continues the steady decline of utilization of available capacity that has gone on since reaching a recent peak of 60.5 in October and November of last year. In fact, this month’s reading is the lowest reading for this metric since November 2023. The minimal overall movement also obscures more nuanced differences in Transportation Utilization. For instance, Transportation Utilization grew at a robust rate of 59.6 in the first half of April, before dipping into contraction at 45.9 in the second half of the month. This shift likely correlates with differences between Upstream and Downstream responses. Downstream respondents reported significantly higher rates of expansion in Transportation Utilization at 59.6 than their Upstream counterparts, who reported close to no change at 50.6. This represents the continued movement of inventories down to the retail level and a slowdown Upstream as flood of imports we observed in Q1 has slowed. There is also a component of this that is slowed B2B activity. FreightWaves’ Sonar data shows that short-haul trucking demand has grown over the last year while long-haul volumes are down significantly[31]. Relatedly, tender rejection rates for flatbed loads were up to 40% in March – their highest level since early 2022 before the previous freight recession. Some of this volume can be chalked up to a seasonal influx of construction materials (at possibly increased rates due to tariff concerns)[32].
While there was a rush to get goods into the U.S., there is less urgency to get them to store shelves. For instance, intermodal demand has benefited in the short-term (at the expense of over the road long hauls). This is because so much of the inventory coming in has been ordered early, so the slower, cheaper mode of transportation has become more appealing to many importers[33]. This may be at least part of the reason that the majority of Class I North American railroads have not reduced their guidance to investors, distinguishing them from many other modes of transportation[34]. While the tariffs have had some short-term benefits for the freight market the long-term effect is less clear. The level of uncertainty in logistics networks was cited by UPS in their decision to eliminate 20,000 positions and shuttering operations at 73 locations[35].
The burst of activity at the retail level was apparent in Transportation Prices as well. Downstream firms reported robust expansion at 71.2, which was significantly higher than the Upstream reading of 58.3. This increase came despite U.S. diesel prices reading in at $3.514 per gallon in the last week of April, which is down 2 cents from a week before and 43.3 cents lower than the same time a year ago[36]. The softness in fuel prices led Exxon Mobil to report their lowest levels of Q1 profits in several years, with earnings down just over $500 million year-over-year. U.S. oil companies find themselves in a difficult position as the price of crude is under $60 ($58.30 on May 2nd) while at the same time the cost of inputs like steel are up due to tariffs . Essentially they are facing a combination of both higher input prices and decreased consumer demand[37]. Overall, Transportation Prices were up (+5.8) to 62.3. At the same time, Transportation Capacity loosened up slightly (+1.6) to 55.2. These combined readings mean that the negative freight inversion (in which Transportation Capacity expands faster than Transportation Prices) that we saw in the second half of March did not continue into April, meaning that the transportation market is still officially in expansion. Transportation Capacity actually contracted slightly (48.9) for larger respondents but increased (59.7) for smaller respondents. Smaller firms had been reporting a busier freight market earlier in the year. This inversion likely reflects that smaller firms brought inventories in earlier to avoid tariff costs, whereas larger firms have more to bring over, and are still working through it (and also may be able to absorb additional costs – although that is certainly not their preference). The transportation market has remained resilient through the first four months of 2025. However, with the slowdown in imports on the horizon, it remains to be seen whether this momentum will continue through the summer.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index were 60.6, which is identical to their March forecasts. Respondents are predicting moderate levels of Inventory Level expansion at 53.3 (although as will be seen below this is due to predictions of expansion Downstream with contraction Upstream). Despite the very moderate rate of Inventory Level growth, respondents predict significant expansion in Inventory Costs at 77.5. When combined with the prediction of Warehousing Price expansion of 78.0 this suggests that firms will be very cautious in expanding inventories, at least partially because of the high costs purchasing and storing those inventories (likely due to tariff-related cost increases). Interestingly, the transportation market appears robust, with Transportation Capacity growing slowly at 53.4, and Transportation Prices expanding at 72.3. The predicted health of transportation relative to the static predictions for inventories and warehousing may reflect the more robust spot market for transportation, relative to the planning and longer-term contracts associated with warehousing.
The small positive movement in the overall index was the result of counteracting forces among our eight sub-metrics. Inventory Levels continued increasing, but at a slower (+4.2) rate of 57.1. This represents a return to normal seasonal inventory buildup, which is a departure from the frantic Inventory Level increases we observed throughout Q1. Despite this, Inventory Costs increased (+5.0) to 75.6. Our two inventory metrics generally move together, so the 18.5-point delta between these two metrics represents a diversion from what we would expect under normal circumstances. Warehousing Prices were up to an even greater extent (+11.2) to 72.3. The increases in Inventory Costs and Warehousing Prices suggest that much of the inventory that was rushed in during Q1 is still sitting stagnant in storage facilities and not being sold to consumers. The movements in inventories we observed from January to mid-March are very similar to the movements we would normally see from August to mid-October. The difference being that when inventories crest in mid-October, it is because they are about to be sold during the holiday season. The inventories that have been built up now will likely be sold more slowly, leading to higher storage costs across the board.
Transportation metrics showed some strength in April, as Transportation Prices were up (+5.8) to 62.3. Transportation metric expansion was driven by Downstream respondents, who reported significantly faster levels of expansion in both Transportation Utilization (59.6 to 50.6) and Transportation Prices (71.2 to 58.3). It will be interesting to see whether the market continues to show strength if there is a pullback in imports. There are also some early signs suggesting that transportation in 2025 could have similar dynamics to 2019, when the B2B and long-haul sectors struggled, but B2C and short-haul remained resilient. Whether or not these dynamics hold remains to be seen.
Researchers at Arizona State University, Colorado State University, Florida Atlantic University, Rutgers University, and the University of Nevada, Reno, and in conjunction with the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) issued this report today.
Results Overview
The LMI score is a combination of eight unique components that make up the logistics industry, including: inventory levels and costs, warehousing capacity, utilization, and prices, and transportation capacity, utilization, and prices. The LMI is calculated using a diffusion index, in which any reading above 50.0 indicates that logistics is expanding; a reading below 50.0 is indicative of a shrinking logistics industry. The latest results of the LMI summarize the responses of supply chain professionals collected in April 2025.
The LMI read in at 58.8 in April, up (+1.7) from March’s reading of 57.1 which had been the lowest overall reading since August 2024, which in turn followed February’s nearly three-year high reading of 62.1. April’s readings were characterized by the somewhat confounding forces of slowing Inventory Level buildups (-4.2 to 57.1) and costs increasing across the board. The aggregate logistics cost measure (and aggregation of Inventory Costs, Warehousing Prices, and Transportation Prices) was up (+22.0) to 210.1 in April. Over half of these cost increases were due to the jump (+11.2) in Warehousing Prices to 72.3. This dynamic is due to the accumulation of inventories that were built up through the first quarter of 2025 as firms pushed to stay ahead of tariffs. We now see that this buildup is slowing, and inventories are becoming static, with slow movements and high storage costs. Future predictions from respondents suggest that this will continue at the retail level, with Downstream firms predicting overall index expansion of 67.9 – significantly higher than Upstream expectations of 57.7. As will be discussed below, this difference is largely due to expectations of high costs due to increased inventories.
The rush of inventory was the primary reason that U.S. GDP declined by 0.3% in Q1. This was primarily driven by the gap between imports and exports, Imported goods were up by 50.9% in the quarter as firms attempted to avoid potential tariffs. This includes a 22.5% increase in equipment purchases, suggesting that manufacturers attempted to front-load capital expenditures as well[1]. This is the most that the trade deficit has effected GDP in any reading since 1947[2]. This economic uncertainty is reflected in the opinions of consumers. U.S. consumer sentiment was down 8% from March to February. This is down 32.4% year-over-year and down 32% since January. This three-month drop is the steepest since the 1990 recession. The decrease in confidence is due to uncertainty regarding trade policy, and the uncertain job market, and expectations of a 6.5% increase in inflation. This marks four consecutive months of inflation expectation increases of 0.5% or more and the highest expectation for year-over-year inflation since 1981[3]. This is consistent with the findings of a recent poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research which shows that the approximately 70% of the adults in the U.S. are expecting prices to increase in the next 12 months[4]. Despite this, at the moment it seems that consumers still are willing to spend, as Mastercard reported that U.S. spending was up 9% in gross dollar volume in Q1, with strong trends continuing into April[5].
It is not all bad economic news. The U.S. added 177,000 jobs in April. While this is down from the 185,000 positions added in March, it is still higher than most analysts were expecting. The rush of inventories pouring into the U.S. ahead of tariffs was positive for the logistics sector, as 29,000 positions were added to transportation and warehousing in April[6]. The growth in jobs also means that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to feel significant pressure to pull back interest rates at their June meeting. The positive news regarding the jobs report and tech stock earnings (other than Apple) lifted U.S. markets, marking nine consecutive days of overall gains. However, the S&P 500 is still down 7.4% from the highs it hit in February when traders were excited about the possibility of tax and regulation cuts[7]. The drop in that index is the more precipitous first-100 day drop since Gerald Ford in 1974[8].
The impacts of tariffs are being felt everywhere. Chinese exports were up 12% year-over-year in March (6% in U.S. dollars). The increase in exports drove Chinese GDP to increase 5.4% in Q1, up slightly from the 5% growth it enjoyed during 2024[9]. The EU also saw their own increase in exports to the U.S., helping their economy grow by 1.4% in Q1, which is above expectations[10]. It seems unlikely that this global export expansion can continue post-tariffs. Chinese shipments to the U.S. dipped in April, and the Chinese Manufacturing PMI dropped (-1.5) to contraction at 49.0 – its lowest reading in 16 months[11]. Some factories in the Guangzhou region of China have temporarily closed due to the lack of clarity around tariffs and potential orders from U.S. customers[12]. Much as the U.S. has diversified away from China as a supplier, China has diversified away from the U.S. as a customer. According to a government spokesperson the U.S. market only accounts for 15% of Chinese exports, meaning they are less exposed to U.S. trade regulations than they would have been in the past. Despite the increase in exports, the domestic Chinese economy is still struggling with higher unemployment and lower consumer spending due to the continued weakness in their real estate market – something that has been an issue for several years since COVID-19. Despite these challenges, the IMF expects the Chinese economy to grow 4.6% in 2025[13]. While there are reports that the U.S. and China have begun negotiating on reducing tariffs, there is still no hard evidence of reduced tensions between the world’s two largest economies[14].
The IMF predicts that tariffs will weaken the world economy and drive-up inflation but not lead to an overall global recession. This is a departure from their January prediction that had postulated that economic activity would pick up in 2025[15]. The IMF is also predicting restrained growth for North Africa and the Middle East due to a combination of tariffs and depressed oil prices due to tariffs[16]. Japan’s economy is predicted to grow at just 0.5% in the fiscal year that just began in April. This is less than half of the 1.1% growth rate the Japanese Central Bank had forecast in December. The change is due the “unprecedented level” of U.S. tariffs[17].
While Inventory Levels continued to build in April, the rate of 57.1 is down (-4.2) from March’s reading and is the lowest reading of 2025. This is not abnormal as April and May are often slower times for overall logistics (although for certain industries like construction they can be quite busy). This slowdown is due to a combination of the high levels of inventory that many firms have on-hand as well as the implementation of significant global tariffs on April 2nd. At the same time, Inventory Costs continue to increase (+5.0) to 75.6, which we would classify as a significant rate of expansion. It is somewhat unusual for costs to increase this much faster than inventories – at the moment Inventory Levels are expanding 18.5 points faster than Inventory Costs (75.6 to 57.1).
Amazon and many of their third-party sellers brought in large volumes of inventory in the first quarter of the year. As a result of that, most prices have not yet increased significantly[18]. However, given the headlines in the last week of April regarding Amazon considering adding a “tariff cost” to their pricing model, it seems unlikely that prices will remain stagnant if inventories are heavily impacted by tariffs. While inventories are high at the moment, retailers such as Walmart, Home Depot, and Ikea have stated that a prolonged trade ware will eventually lead to product shortages, particularly for lower margin items like toys, apparel, and home goods[19]. This could be particularly pronounced during the back-to-school shopping season when a significant level of children’s apparel is sold. This will be case for families looking for footwear as well, as Adidas recently stated that prices of their products will go up for U.S. consumers is tariffs continue, and have refrained from even offering guidance to investors due to the uncertainty[20]. This is reflected in the sky-high expectations for Future Inventory Costs from Downstream respondents, which read in at a would-be record of 94.0 – a number that represents near-universal expectations for increased costs. Upstream firms are also predicting robust Inventory Cost increases at 70.6.
These come despite Upstream future predictions of contraction in Inventory Levels at 45.4. The possibility for low inventories can seen already. The combination of fewer imports in, and fewer exports out, of the U.S. are leading to an increase in blank sailings and empty containers. At end of April, very few blank sailings were scheduled across the Pacific, that is predicted to increase to 40% of all Trans-Pacific sailings by August[21]. According to the Port of Los Angeles, there are currently over 56,000 empty containers sitting on their docks, the majority of which have been idle for at least 13 days. Empty containers now make up over 64% of the containers at the port, which is a significant percentage[22]. This is because those containers do not need to be sent back to China, where bookings are down 60% in the last week of April[23]. The Port of Las is predicting that TEUs in the first full week of May will be down 35% year-over-year, marking a significant shift from 2024’s flurry of spring and summer activity[24]. The shortages in inventory are already being reflected in the auto industry, which dropped from having 91 days of inventory on-hand in early March to only 70 days on hand in April[25]. Conversely, Downstream firms are predicting Inventory Levels to continue increasing over the next 12 months at 72.0. When taken together with the high predicted Inventory Costs (94.0), this suggests that Downstream firms will continue importing goods while also paying higher prices.
The types of shipments that do flow through U.S. ports will likely change due to the enforcement of tariffs on de minimis shipments. De minimis regulations, which apply to shipments with a value of less than $800, had avoided all trade controls as well as scrutiny from customs in the past. Due to the ease of de minimis imports, fast fashion companies like Shein and Temu had driven de minimis shipments into the U.S. up from just over 400 million shipments in 2018 to 1.36 billion in 2024[26]. The shift in this policy means that not only will the cost of such shipments increase significantly, but also the time required to process them through customs will skyrocket, slowing down imports of all types. This will likely end de minimis shipments for many firms, as the high costs and slower service will run counter to many of the things that attracted U.S. consumers to these types of products in the first place. As a result, DHL has ended its movement of de minimis shipments, and Temu will stop using this method as well[27] – something which could effectively end its presence in the U.S. Additional costs will also come in port fees for Chinese ships. U.S. trade representatives are continuing the plan to put a fee on any Chinese ship calling at a U.S. port. The charges are $50 per net ton, with plans to increase those fees by an additional $30 per ton over the next three years. There is some relief however as these fees will only be charged once per trip, instead of for each port entry as had been originally planned[28]. This will allow Chinese ships to call at multiple ports more efficiently, easing the need to imports to be rerouted to more export-focused ports or vice-versa.
All of these increased costs, along with higher levels of inventory, are reflected in our warehousing metrics. Warehousing Price expansion increased significantly (+11.2) in April to 72.3. This growth looks likely to continue over the next 12 months, especially for Downstream respondents, who predicted an increase of 84.8 (Upstream firms predicted a lower, but still robust expansion of 75.4). Part of this increase is due to limited capacity; our Warehousing Capacity continues to expand (+3.1) at the very mild rate of 55.4. Prologis concurs with this, expecting that the increase in inventories due to tariffs will lead to increased demand for warehousing spaced overall. Although it is possible that some facilities near ports will see demand decline slightly as more goods are routed across land borders. An increase in demand would be welcome news for the industrial real estate sector, as warehousing vacancy rates read in at 7% in Q1 2025, up significantly from the heady days of 2022 when vacancy rates were near 3%[29]
.
Warehousing Capacity is expected to remain tight Upstream, as respondents predicted movements of 53.0 over the next year. This is a much different reading than we received from our Downstream respondents, who predicted expansion at 67.4. At the same time, Downstream firms predict a significantly higher rate of Warehousing Utilization at 70.8, which dwarfs the anemic Upstream utilization prediction of 51.5. These differences further highlight the split in expectations between consumer-facing businesses and those that operate mainly in the B2B space. Essentially it appears that Downstream firms will continue to ramp up inventories, and the distribution networks needed to support those inventories in expectation that U.S. consumers will continue to show up. There is evidence of this in Amazon’s recent announcement regarding their attempt to shorten delivery routes and improve offerings to under-served communities by significantly increasing their rural footprint. They have invested $4 billion into their goal of having 210 delivery stations dedicated to rural service. This shift is partially due to Amazon moving away from their partnerships with USPS or UPS, who have generally handled their lower-margin rural deliveries[30]. It is doubtful they would do this if they expected a significant consumer pullback.
Generally, our future numbers suggest that we may see dynamics similar to what we saw in the freight recessions of 2019 and 2022. Both of those downturns were led by decreases in B2B activity, during which Upstream activity contracted or expanded very meekly. Downstream activity was a different story during these freight recessions, as U.S. consumers continued spending, leading to more consistent activity at the retail level. Whether or not this dynamic will continue remains to be seen, as consumers have now dealt with inflation for years, which could limit their ability to “spend their way through to the other side”. For now however, it seems that retailers are betting that the consumer will continue to show up, even with higher prices.
On the surface our transportation metrics showed less movement than the inventory or warehousing metrics. This is best epitomized by Transportation Utilization, where there was very little overall movement (-0.7) as the metric read in at 53.3. While this is a minimal difference from March, it continues the steady decline of utilization of available capacity that has gone on since reaching a recent peak of 60.5 in October and November of last year. In fact, this month’s reading is the lowest reading for this metric since November 2023. The minimal overall movement also obscures more nuanced differences in Transportation Utilization. For instance, Transportation Utilization grew at a robust rate of 59.6 in the first half of April, before dipping into contraction at 45.9 in the second half of the month. This shift likely correlates with differences between Upstream and Downstream responses. Downstream respondents reported significantly higher rates of expansion in Transportation Utilization at 59.6 than their Upstream counterparts, who reported close to no change at 50.6. This represents the continued movement of inventories down to the retail level and a slowdown Upstream as flood of imports we observed in Q1 has slowed. There is also a component of this that is slowed B2B activity. FreightWaves’ Sonar data shows that short-haul trucking demand has grown over the last year while long-haul volumes are down significantly[31]. Relatedly, tender rejection rates for flatbed loads were up to 40% in March – their highest level since early 2022 before the previous freight recession. Some of this volume can be chalked up to a seasonal influx of construction materials (at possibly increased rates due to tariff concerns)[32].
While there was a rush to get goods into the U.S., there is less urgency to get them to store shelves. For instance, intermodal demand has benefited in the short-term (at the expense of over the road long hauls). This is because so much of the inventory coming in has been ordered early, so the slower, cheaper mode of transportation has become more appealing to many importers[33]. This may be at least part of the reason that the majority of Class I North American railroads have not reduced their guidance to investors, distinguishing them from many other modes of transportation[34]. While the tariffs have had some short-term benefits for the freight market the long-term effect is less clear. The level of uncertainty in logistics networks was cited by UPS in their decision to eliminate 20,000 positions and shuttering operations at 73 locations[35].
The burst of activity at the retail level was apparent in Transportation Prices as well. Downstream firms reported robust expansion at 71.2, which was significantly higher than the Upstream reading of 58.3. This increase came despite U.S. diesel prices reading in at $3.514 per gallon in the last week of April, which is down 2 cents from a week before and 43.3 cents lower than the same time a year ago[36]. The softness in fuel prices led Exxon Mobil to report their lowest levels of Q1 profits in several years, with earnings down just over $500 million year-over-year. U.S. oil companies find themselves in a difficult position as the price of crude is under $60 ($58.30 on May 2nd) while at the same time the cost of inputs like steel are up due to tariffs . Essentially they are facing a combination of both higher input prices and decreased consumer demand[37]. Overall, Transportation Prices were up (+5.8) to 62.3. At the same time, Transportation Capacity loosened up slightly (+1.6) to 55.2. These combined readings mean that the negative freight inversion (in which Transportation Capacity expands faster than Transportation Prices) that we saw in the second half of March did not continue into April, meaning that the transportation market is still officially in expansion. Transportation Capacity actually contracted slightly (48.9) for larger respondents but increased (59.7) for smaller respondents. Smaller firms had been reporting a busier freight market earlier in the year. This inversion likely reflects that smaller firms brought inventories in earlier to avoid tariff costs, whereas larger firms have more to bring over, and are still working through it (and also may be able to absorb additional costs – although that is certainly not their preference). The transportation market has remained resilient through the first four months of 2025. However, with the slowdown in imports on the horizon, it remains to be seen whether this momentum will continue through the summer.
Respondents were asked to predict movement in the overall LMI and individual metrics 12 months from now. Respondent predictions for the overall index were 60.6, which is identical to their March forecasts. Respondents are predicting moderate levels of Inventory Level expansion at 53.3 (although as will be seen below this is due to predictions of expansion Downstream with contraction Upstream). Despite the very moderate rate of Inventory Level growth, respondents predict significant expansion in Inventory Costs at 77.5. When combined with the prediction of Warehousing Price expansion of 78.0 this suggests that firms will be very cautious in expanding inventories, at least partially because of the high costs purchasing and storing those inventories (likely due to tariff-related cost increases). Interestingly, the transportation market appears robust, with Transportation Capacity growing slowly at 53.4, and Transportation Prices expanding at 72.3. The predicted health of transportation relative to the static predictions for inventories and warehousing may reflect the more robust spot market for transportation, relative to the planning and longer-term contracts associated with warehousing.
We observe some differences when comparing feedback from Upstream (blue bars) and Downstream (orange bars) respondents in April. These differences are most pronounced in our transportation metrics. Downstream respondents report faster rates of expansion for both Transportation Utilization (59.6 to 50.6) and Transportation Prices (71.2 to 58.3). This likely reflects the movement of inventories down from the manufacturing/wholesale level to retailers. We know anecdotally that short-haul is in greater demand than long-haul in late April meaning that not only do retailers need greater levels of transportation, but also the increased demand may be pushing up the cost. There were no significant differences across the other six sub-metrics. If this delta remains it may indicate a movement toward a dynamic similar to 2019 when Downstream logistics remained robust and Upstream operations went into a downturn.
Evidence of this split can be seen in the gulf in the future predictions made by Upstream (green bars) and Downstream respondents (purple bars). There is an unusual level of variance between the predictions by supply chain position this month. Downstream retailers are predicting a significant rate of expansion for Inventory Levels (72.0) while their Upstream counterparts predict moderate contraction (45.0). Interestingly, Upstream firms predict high levels of Inventory Cost expansion (70.6) despite the moderate decline, suggesting that inventories may not be built up quickly due to an expectation of large volumes of post-tariffs static inventory. That expansion rate of 70.6 pales in comparison however to the Downstream prediction of Inventory Cost expansion of 94.0 which would be the fastest rate of expansion for this metric in the history of the index and likely reflects a plan to continue building up inventories and absorbing the higher costs due to tariffs. . Downstream firms are also predicting related expansion in Warehousing, with significantly higher rates of Warehousing Utilization (70.8 to 51.5) and Warehousing Prices (84.8 to 75.4). Interestingly, Downstream respondents are also predicting significantly higher rates of expansion for Warehousing Capacity (67.4 to 53.0), which may add credence to the notion that Upstream firms will have static inventory filling up their warehouses.
We observe some interesting differences at play in April between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. Following the pattern we observed in March, we saw tight Warehousing Capacity early in the month (4/1-4/15) as it came in at 50.0 and no change. This loosened up in the second half of the month (4/16-4/30) to 61.4. This suggests that as imports slowed down throughout the month that perhaps the competition for available warehousing space declined. This also may reflect Upstream firms seeing looser capacity as products flowed downstream. The other major difference we saw was a significant (13.7-point) shift in Transportation Utilization, which moved from steady growth at 59.6 in the first half of April to contraction at 45.9 in the second half of the month. This shift towards contraction corroborates the idea that inventories have grown stagnant in the second half of the month.
We observe some interesting differences at play in April between responses that were collected early (gold bars) and late (green bars) in the month. Following the pattern we observed in March, we saw tight Warehousing Capacity early in the month (4/1-4/15) as it came in at 50.0 and no change. This loosened up in the second half of the month (4/16-4/30) to 61.4. This suggests that as imports slowed down throughout the month that perhaps the competition for available warehousing space declined. This also may reflect Upstream firms seeing looser capacity as products flowed downstream. The other major difference we saw was a significant (13.7-point) shift in Transportation Utilization, which moved from steady growth at 59.6 in the first half of April to contraction at 45.9 in the second half of the month. This shift towards contraction corroborates the idea that inventories have grown stagnant in the second half of the month.
We also compare smaller firms (those with 0-999 employees, represented by maroon lines) to larger firms (those with 1,000 employees or more, represented by gold lines) in April. The readings are similar across many of the metrics. However, in a reverse of what we saw last month, it is the larger firms reporting significantly tighter Transportation Capacity contracting at 48.9, and smaller firms reporting fairly robust expansion at 59.7. this is the mirror image of last month when it was the smaller respondents reporting contraction (44.4) for Transportation Capacity, and larger respondents increasing at 61.3). This may reflect that smaller firms were quicker to bring inventory in as they may have had less flexibility to pay the higher costs associated with tariffs than their larger counterparts.
The index scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers’ Index, as well as the overall index score, are presented in the table below. The rate of expansion for the overall index is 58.8 which is up (+1.6) from March’s reading of 57.1 which was the slowest rate of expansion since August 2024. Unlike March, the majority (6 of 8) of our sub-metrics expanded at a faster rate in April 2025. This was led by increases in all of our cost and price metrics, as Inventory Costs (+5.0), Warehousing Prices (+11.2), and Transportation Prices (+5.8) were all up significantly this month. These increases came despite a slowdown in the expansion of Inventory Levels, suggesting that after a quarter of rapid build up to avoid tariffs, that inventories have become more stagnant, and therefore more expensive to hold.
The index scores for each of the eight components of the Logistics Managers’ Index, as well as the overall index score, are presented in the table below. The rate of expansion for the overall index is 58.8 which is up (+1.6) from March’s reading of 57.1 which was the slowest rate of expansion since August 2024. Unlike March, the majority (6 of 8) of our sub-metrics expanded at a faster rate in April 2025. This was led by increases in all of our cost and price metrics, as Inventory Costs (+5.0), Warehousing Prices (+11.2), and Transportation Prices (+5.8) were all up significantly this month. These increases came despite a slowdown in the expansion of Inventory Levels, suggesting that after a quarter of rapid build up to avoid tariffs, that inventories have become more stagnant, and therefore more expensive to hold.
Historic Logistics Managers’ Index Scores
This period’s along with prior readings from the last two years of the LMI are presented table below:
This period’s along with prior readings from the last two years of the LMI are presented table below:
LMI®
The overall index reads in at 58.8 in April, up (+1.7) from March’s reading of 57.1, which had been the lowest reading for the overall index since August 2024. This movement came due to a slowdown in Inventory Levels, but increased costs across the board as the cumulative effect of rapid inventory buildup is now taking its toll on storage capacity. This is month’s reading is up 5.9 points from the year before and up 7.9 points from April 2023. We see no significant differences between current Upstream/Downstream responses, late/ early responses, or small/large firm responses.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 60.6 which is identical to March’s future prediction. There is an expectation for much more robust expansion Downstream (67.9) relative to Upstream (57.7), a delta that is largely fueled by heightened expectations for Inventory Levels and the associated costs at the Downstream retail level.
The overall index reads in at 58.8 in April, up (+1.7) from March’s reading of 57.1, which had been the lowest reading for the overall index since August 2024. This movement came due to a slowdown in Inventory Levels, but increased costs across the board as the cumulative effect of rapid inventory buildup is now taking its toll on storage capacity. This is month’s reading is up 5.9 points from the year before and up 7.9 points from April 2023. We see no significant differences between current Upstream/Downstream responses, late/ early responses, or small/large firm responses.
When asked to predict what conditions will be over the next 12 months, respondents foresee a rate of expansion of 60.6 which is identical to March’s future prediction. There is an expectation for much more robust expansion Downstream (67.9) relative to Upstream (57.7), a delta that is largely fueled by heightened expectations for Inventory Levels and the associated costs at the Downstream retail level.
Inventory Levels
The Inventory Levels index is 57.1, this is the slowest rate of expansion so far in 2025 and is also down (-4.1) from March’s reading of 61.2. This is still elevate from what we normally observe in April, as Inventory Levels are 6.1 points higher than a year ago, and 6.2 points higher than two years ago at this time. Inventories expanded consistently across the supply chain, with Downstream firms reporting expansion at 54.0, and Upstream reporting an expansion of 57.6. Small firms reported Inventory Levels of 55.6, and large firms reported slightly higher Inventory Levels at 59.2.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 53.3, down (-2.4) from March’s future prediction of 55.7. There are major prediction differences by supply chain position. Upstream respondents expect a small decrease, at 45.4. If Inventory Levels came in at this value, it would be the lowest Inventory Level value since December, 2023. It seems quite likely that these Upstream respondents are expecting decreases related to the tariffs. Downstream respondents, by comparison, returned a value of 72.0, expecting significant increases in inventory.
The Inventory Levels index is 57.1, this is the slowest rate of expansion so far in 2025 and is also down (-4.1) from March’s reading of 61.2. This is still elevate from what we normally observe in April, as Inventory Levels are 6.1 points higher than a year ago, and 6.2 points higher than two years ago at this time. Inventories expanded consistently across the supply chain, with Downstream firms reporting expansion at 54.0, and Upstream reporting an expansion of 57.6. Small firms reported Inventory Levels of 55.6, and large firms reported slightly higher Inventory Levels at 59.2.
When asked to predict what conditions will be like 12 months from now, the average value is 53.3, down (-2.4) from March’s future prediction of 55.7. There are major prediction differences by supply chain position. Upstream respondents expect a small decrease, at 45.4. If Inventory Levels came in at this value, it would be the lowest Inventory Level value since December, 2023. It seems quite likely that these Upstream respondents are expecting decreases related to the tariffs. Downstream respondents, by comparison, returned a value of 72.0, expecting significant increases in inventory.
Inventory Costs
Inventory costs read in at 75.6, which is up (+5.0) from March’s reading of 70.6, and fairly consistent with February’s reading of 77.3. The current value is 7.1 points higher than last year at this time, and 10.5 points higher than two years ago. Inventory Costs are expanding across the supply chain, with Up0stream respondents reporting expansion at 75.8 and Downstream at 74.0 – both of which represent significant rates of expansion. Last month, early respondents returned an Inventory Cost index of 72.8, and later respondents returned a value of 67.9. This month, we see a similar trend. Early respondents returned an Inventory Cost level of 77.6, and later respondents returned 73.2. The most noticeable thing is that from the second half of last month to the first half this month, the value increased by almost 10 points. We also see smaller respondents struggling under the burden of costs, as they reported a value of 78.8, higher than the (still-high) expansion of 71.1 reported by smaller firms.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 77.5, up (+5.9) from March’s future prediction of 70.6. Inventory Cost predictions have been a roller coaster in 2025. In January predictions were 69.8, went up to 80.2 in February, down to 70.6 in March, and now back up to 77.5 in April. It is unusual for there to be this much variance in future predictions. This volatility demonstrates the high levels of uncertainty throughout supply chains. Upstream respondents predict that Inventory Prices will expand at 70.7 over the next 12 months. That is a significant rate of expansion, but it pales in comparison to the 94.0 predicted by Downstream respondents. A number that signals expectations for tariffs to significantly impact the cost of consumer goods.
Inventory costs read in at 75.6, which is up (+5.0) from March’s reading of 70.6, and fairly consistent with February’s reading of 77.3. The current value is 7.1 points higher than last year at this time, and 10.5 points higher than two years ago. Inventory Costs are expanding across the supply chain, with Up0stream respondents reporting expansion at 75.8 and Downstream at 74.0 – both of which represent significant rates of expansion. Last month, early respondents returned an Inventory Cost index of 72.8, and later respondents returned a value of 67.9. This month, we see a similar trend. Early respondents returned an Inventory Cost level of 77.6, and later respondents returned 73.2. The most noticeable thing is that from the second half of last month to the first half this month, the value increased by almost 10 points. We also see smaller respondents struggling under the burden of costs, as they reported a value of 78.8, higher than the (still-high) expansion of 71.1 reported by smaller firms.
Predictions for future Inventory Cost growth is 77.5, up (+5.9) from March’s future prediction of 70.6. Inventory Cost predictions have been a roller coaster in 2025. In January predictions were 69.8, went up to 80.2 in February, down to 70.6 in March, and now back up to 77.5 in April. It is unusual for there to be this much variance in future predictions. This volatility demonstrates the high levels of uncertainty throughout supply chains. Upstream respondents predict that Inventory Prices will expand at 70.7 over the next 12 months. That is a significant rate of expansion, but it pales in comparison to the 94.0 predicted by Downstream respondents. A number that signals expectations for tariffs to significantly impact the cost of consumer goods.
Warehousing Capacity
For the second month in a row, the rate of change for Warehousing Capacity is on the rise, where the reading for April's Warehousing Capacity of 55.4 is up 3.1-points from the month prior. This reading is up 1.4-points from the reading one year ago and is up less than 1-point from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.9-point split between Upstream (54.4) and Downstream (58.3) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet of note is that this month breaks the previous “see-saw” trend of Upstream and Downstream jostling between contraction and expansion, where now they are both in expansionary territory. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 55.5 and 55.3, respectively. This .2-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to expand at 56.6, up from the contraction of 45.5 that had been predicted in both February and March. Future Upstream Warehousing Capacity is expected to rise into expansionary territory at 53.0 and Downstream’s future prediction is expected to come in at a much higher 67.4. This 14.4-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
For the second month in a row, the rate of change for Warehousing Capacity is on the rise, where the reading for April's Warehousing Capacity of 55.4 is up 3.1-points from the month prior. This reading is up 1.4-points from the reading one year ago and is up less than 1-point from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 3.9-point split between Upstream (54.4) and Downstream (58.3) which was not statistically significant (p>.1), yet of note is that this month breaks the previous “see-saw” trend of Upstream and Downstream jostling between contraction and expansion, where now they are both in expansionary territory. Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 55.5 and 55.3, respectively. This .2-point split was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Capacity is expected to expand at 56.6, up from the contraction of 45.5 that had been predicted in both February and March. Future Upstream Warehousing Capacity is expected to rise into expansionary territory at 53.0 and Downstream’s future prediction is expected to come in at a much higher 67.4. This 14.4-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
Warehousing Utilization
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 60.1 for the month of April 2025, reflecting a minimal .4-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 5 points from both the reading one year ago, and from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a negligible .4-point split between Upstream (59.6) and Downstream (60.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 58.2 and 62.8, respectively. This 4.6-point split was not statistically significant (p >.01).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Utilization is expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out 56.5, down (-4.3) from March’s future prediction of 60.8 and 10.7 points down from February’s future prediction of 67.2. Future Upstream Warehousing Utilization (51.5) is predicted to be dramatically lower than Downstream expectations (70.8), with the difference between these two dramatically increasing from last month, and where this 19.3-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
The Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 60.1 for the month of April 2025, reflecting a minimal .4-point increase from the month prior. This reading is up 5 points from both the reading one year ago, and from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a negligible .4-point split between Upstream (59.6) and Downstream (60.0) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 58.2 and 62.8, respectively. This 4.6-point split was not statistically significant (p >.01).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Utilization is expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out 56.5, down (-4.3) from March’s future prediction of 60.8 and 10.7 points down from February’s future prediction of 67.2. Future Upstream Warehousing Utilization (51.5) is predicted to be dramatically lower than Downstream expectations (70.8), with the difference between these two dramatically increasing from last month, and where this 19.3-point difference was statistically significant (p<.01).
Warehousing Prices
In the warehousing segment, pricing say the largest movement, where the Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 72.3 -points for the month of April 2025, reflecting a substantial 11.3 -point increase from the month prior, which is notable given that last month there was the opposite effect (i.e. February 2025 to March saw a 16 point decrease, thereby reflecting a 27 point swing from February to now). This reading is up 8.5 points from the reading one year ago, and also up 2.5-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.6 -point split between Upstream (71.3) and Downstream (73.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 70.5 and 75.0 reflecting a 4.5-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Prices are expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 78.0, up significantly (+11.3) from March’s reading of 66.7 and in line with February’s future prediction of 78.4. Future Upstream Warehousing Prices (75.4) are predicted to be increasing at a slower rate than Downstream expectations (84.8), now for a third month in a row (and with growth rates increased on both of these). Of note is that the difference between the two has reduced considerably month on month it is down nearly 10 points). This month's 9.4-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
In the warehousing segment, pricing say the largest movement, where the Warehousing Utilization index registered in at 72.3 -points for the month of April 2025, reflecting a substantial 11.3 -point increase from the month prior, which is notable given that last month there was the opposite effect (i.e. February 2025 to March saw a 16 point decrease, thereby reflecting a 27 point swing from February to now). This reading is up 8.5 points from the reading one year ago, and also up 2.5-points from the reading two years ago. In addition, there was a 2.6 -point split between Upstream (71.3) and Downstream (73.9) which was not statistically significant (p>.1). Comparing the differences between small (<999 employees) and large (>999) employees we see that these values are 70.5 and 75.0 reflecting a 4.5-point difference between the two which was not statistically significant (p >.1).
Finally, exploring the future predictions for this value we see that Warehouse Prices are expected to continue to stay in expansionary territory one year out at 78.0, up significantly (+11.3) from March’s reading of 66.7 and in line with February’s future prediction of 78.4. Future Upstream Warehousing Prices (75.4) are predicted to be increasing at a slower rate than Downstream expectations (84.8), now for a third month in a row (and with growth rates increased on both of these). Of note is that the difference between the two has reduced considerably month on month it is down nearly 10 points). This month's 9.4-point difference was marginally statistically significant (p<.1).
Transportation Capacity
The Transportation Capacity Index seesawed back to 55.2 in April 2025. There is no significant difference between Upstream and downstream, with Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 53.8 and the downstream index at 59.6. As such, the slight expansion trend in Transportation Capacity remains present both Upstream and Downstream, across supply chains.
The future Transportation Capacity index also ticked slightly higher, and it is now at 53.4, continuing to indicate expectations of a slightly increasing Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. While the Upstream index is at 53.3, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 55.8, both indicating expectations of slight expansion over the next year.
The Transportation Capacity Index seesawed back to 55.2 in April 2025. There is no significant difference between Upstream and downstream, with Upstream Transportation Capacity index at 53.8 and the downstream index at 59.6. As such, the slight expansion trend in Transportation Capacity remains present both Upstream and Downstream, across supply chains.
The future Transportation Capacity index also ticked slightly higher, and it is now at 53.4, continuing to indicate expectations of a slightly increasing Transportation Capacity over the next 12 months. While the Upstream index is at 53.3, the Downstream Transportation Capacity index is at 55.8, both indicating expectations of slight expansion over the next year.
Transportation Utilization
The Transportation Utilization Index continued its downward trend, decreasing .7 points from last month and indicating 53.3 in April 2025. This constitutes the fourth consecutive decrease. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 59.6, while the Upstream index is indicating 50.6, and the difference is marginally significant. As such, it can be inferred that the drop in Transportation Utilization index continues to be driven by upstream supply chain activity. While Downstream activity seems to be expanding, upstream activity remains close to the critical threshold of 50.
The future Transportation Utilization Index drops another 7.2 points from last month, however it is still in the expansion territory at 56.8 for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 55.3 and the Downstream index at 59.6.
The Transportation Utilization Index continued its downward trend, decreasing .7 points from last month and indicating 53.3 in April 2025. This constitutes the fourth consecutive decrease. The Downstream Transportation Utilization Index is now at 59.6, while the Upstream index is indicating 50.6, and the difference is marginally significant. As such, it can be inferred that the drop in Transportation Utilization index continues to be driven by upstream supply chain activity. While Downstream activity seems to be expanding, upstream activity remains close to the critical threshold of 50.
The future Transportation Utilization Index drops another 7.2 points from last month, however it is still in the expansion territory at 56.8 for the next 12 months. There is not much difference between Upstream and Downstream, with the future Upstream Transportation Utilization index at 55.3 and the Downstream index at 59.6.
Transportation Prices
The Transportation Prices Index popped 5.9 points from the previous reading and recorder 62.3 in April 2025. This level is way above recent Transportation Price readings, indicating levels 18.2 points higher than a year ago and 25.5 points higher than two years ago. The upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 58.3, and the Downstream index is at 71.2, and the difference is statistically significant, indicating that the price increase is mainly driven by the Downstream transportation.
The future index for transportation prices also increased from last month, indicating 12.3 points higher, at 72.3. The Downstream future Transportation Prices index is at 75.0 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 70.7, but the difference is not statistically significant.
The Transportation Prices Index popped 5.9 points from the previous reading and recorder 62.3 in April 2025. This level is way above recent Transportation Price readings, indicating levels 18.2 points higher than a year ago and 25.5 points higher than two years ago. The upstream Transportation Prices Index is at 58.3, and the Downstream index is at 71.2, and the difference is statistically significant, indicating that the price increase is mainly driven by the Downstream transportation.
The future index for transportation prices also increased from last month, indicating 12.3 points higher, at 72.3. The Downstream future Transportation Prices index is at 75.0 while the Upstream Transportation Prices index is at 70.7, but the difference is not statistically significant.
About This Report
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
The data presented herein are obtained from a survey of logistics supply executives based on information they have collected within their respective organizations. LMI® makes no representation, other than that stated within this release, regarding the individual company data collection procedures. The data should be compared to all other economic data sources when used in decision-making.
Data and Method of Presentation
Data for the Logistics Manager’s Index is collected in a monthly survey of leading logistics professionals. The respondents are CSCMP members working at the director-level or above. Upper-level managers are preferable as they are more likely to have macro-level information on trends in Inventory, Warehousing and Transportation trends within their firm. Data is also collected from subscribers to both DC Velocity and Supply Chain Quarterly as well. Respondents hail from firms working on all six continents, with the majority of them working at firms with annual revenues over a billion dollars. The industries represented in this respondent pool include, but are not limited to: Apparel, Automotive, Consumer Goods, Electronics, Food & Drug, Home Furnishings, Logistics, Shipping & Transportation, and Warehousing.
Respondents are asked to identify the monthly change across each of the eight metrics collected in this survey (Inventory Levels, Inventory Costs, Warehousing Capacity, Warehousing Utilization, Warehousing Prices, Transportation Capacity, Transportation Utilization, and Transportation Prices). In addition, they also forecast future trends for each metric ranging over the next 12 months. The raw data is then analyzed using a diffusion index. Diffusion Indexes measure how widely something is diffused or spread across a group. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has been using a diffusion index for the Current Employment Statics program since 1974, and the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) has been using a diffusion index to compute the Purchasing Managers Index since 1948. The ISM Index of New Orders is considered a Leading Economic Indicator.
We compute the Diffusion Index as follows:
PD = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Declining,
PU = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Unchanged,
PI = Percentage of respondents saying the category is Increasing,
Diffusion Index = 0.0 * PD + 0.5 * PU + 1.0 * PI
For example, if 25 say the category is declining, 38 say it is unchanged, and 37 say it is increasing, we would calculate an index value of 0*0.25 + 0.5*0.38 + 1.0*0.37 = 0 + 0.19 + 0.37 = 0.56, and the index is increasing overall. For an index value above 0.5 indicates the category is increasing, a value below 0.5 indicates it is decreasing, and a value of 0.5 means the category is unchanged. When a full year’s worth of data has been collected, adjustments will be made for seasonal factors as well.
Logistics Managers Index
Requests for permission to reproduce or distribute Logistics Managers Index Content can be made by contacting in writing at: Dale S. Rogers, WP Carey School of Business, Tempe, Arizona 85287, or by emailing [email protected] Subject: Content Request.
The authors of the Logistics Managers Index shall not have any liability, duty, or obligation for or relating to the Logistics Managers Index Content or other information contained herein, any errors, inaccuracies, omissions, or delays in providing any Logistics Managers Index Content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. In no event shall the authors of the Logistics Managers Index be liable for any special, incidental, or consequential damages, arising out of the use of the Logistics Managers Index. Logistics Managers Index, and LMI® are registered trademarks.
About The Logistics Manager’s Index®
The Logistics Manager’s Index (LMI) is a joint project between researchers from Arizona State University, Colorado State University, University of Nevada, Reno, Florida Atlantic University, and Rutgers University, supported by CSCMP. It is authored by Zac Rogers Ph.D., Steven Carnovale Ph.D., Shen Yeniyurt Ph.D., Ron Lembke Ph.D., and Dale Rogers Ph.D.
[1] The Editorial Board. (2025, April 30). Opinion | Tariffs Shrink the U.S. Economy. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/opinion/first-quarter-gdp-economy-tariffs-donald-trump-trade-policy-ee60db88
[2] Webb, Q. (2025, April 30). Imports Have Never Made This Big a Dent in GDP Before. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-gdp-inflation-tariffs-04-30-2025/card/imports-have-never-made-this-big-a-dent-in-gdp-before-eDmuHtUW0unvUER7NyX8
[3] Hsu, J. (2025, April 11). Surveys of Consumers. Survey of Consumer - Final Results for April 2025. https://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/
[4] Boak, J. (2025, April 24). Most Americans expect higher prices as a result of Trump’s tariffs, a new AP-NORC poll finds. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-economy-poll-tariffs-inflation-prices-recession-1d320115e8801e4970bd5cccf2742fc4
[5] Bary, E. (2025, May 1). Are consumers under spending pressure? Not according to Mastercard’s earnings. MarketWatch. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-consumers-under-spending-pressure-not-according-to-mastercards-earnings-d16b80f4
[6] Deng, C., & Lahart, J. (2025, May 2). Employers Added 177,000 Jobs in April Despite Tariff Uncertainty. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/jobs/jobs-report-april-2025-unemployment-economy-6ad2bdac
[7] Troise, D., & Veiga, A. (2025, May 2). Wall Street extends its gains to a 9th straight day, reclaiming losses since tariff escalation. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/stocks-market-rates-trump-tariffs-7849168ab82e0abfb26c6b6ed18267f9
[8] Rennison, J. (2025, April 30). Under Trump, Stocks Have the Worst Start to a Presidential Term Since 1974. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/business/trump-stocks-tariffs.html
[9] Kurtenbach, E. (2025a, April 16). China’s economy grew 5.4% in the first quarter as exporters rushed to beat Trump’s tariffs. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-tariffs-trump-beijing-45a04578c3d637465b9043600fc54ca2
[10] MacDonald, A., Dulaney, C., & Miao, H. (2025, May 1). The Rush to Beat Tariffs Is Distorting the Economy. There’s More to Come. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/the-rush-to-beat-tariffs-is-distorting-the-economy-it-has-barely-started-5180be1f
[11] Kurtenbach, E. (2025b, April 30). China’s export orders dip in April as Trump’s tariffs begin to bite. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-tariffs-exports-trump-534bbbc0cbdafa70c43fb90ee5f5ae94
[12] Bradsher, K. (2025, April 10). Inside Factories in China, a Struggle to Survive Trump’s Tariffs. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/09/business/economy/guangzhou-china-exports-tariffs.html
[13] Kurtenbach, E. (2025a, April 16). China’s economy grew 5.4% in the first quarter as exporters rushed to beat Trump’s tariffs. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/china-economy-tariffs-trump-beijing-45a04578c3d637465b9043600fc54ca2
[14] Huang, J. (2025, May 1). Beijing-Backed Accounts Hint at U.S. Outreach on Trade as China Keeps Door Open. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/beijing-backed-accounts-hint-at-u-s-outreach-on-trade-as-china-keeps-door-open-f165993d
[15] Rugaber, C. (2025, April 17). US tariffs will weaken global economy and trigger inflation but not a global recession, IMF says. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/global-economy-tariffs-imf-d15febaaaab65c7df8538cce170231eb
[16] Harb, M. (Director). (n.d.). IMF says global market uncertainty weighing down on economies across Middle East and North Africa [Video recording]. Retrieved May 2, 2025, from https://apnews.com/video/imf-says-global-market-uncertainty-weighing-down-on-economies-across-middle-east-and-north-africa-ef283152051940398a754e1987a9e650
[17] Davis, R. A., & Notoya, K. (2025, May 1). Trump’s ‘Unprecedented’ Tariffs Lead Japan to Slash Its Growth Forecast. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/30/business/bank-of-japan-gdp-forecast.html
[18] D’Innocenzio, A. (2025, May 1). Amazon posts solid first quarter earnings growth, but outlook is tempered by tariff uncertainty. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/amazon-earnings-tariffs-a5ffef130fc2d328ac4ccb023d56dcdd
[19] LaRocco, L. A. (2025, April 24). The trade war’s wave of retail shortages will hit U.S. consumers in stages. Here’s when. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/24/unsustainable-china-trade-war-retail-shortage-warnings.html
[20] Eddy, M. (2025, April 29). Adidas Warns Sneakers Will Cost More in the U.S. as Trump’s Tariffs Take Effect. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/29/business/trump-tariffs-adidas-shoes.html
[21] LaRocco, L. A. (2025, April 24). The trade war’s wave of retail shortages will hit U.S. consumers in stages. Here’s when. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/24/unsustainable-china-trade-war-retail-shortage-warnings.html
[22] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, May 2). Port Optimizer—Control Tower—May 2, 2025. Port of LA Signal - May 2, 2025. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[23] Berger, P. (2025a, April 25). Cargo Shipments From China to U.S. Slide Toward a Standstill. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/cargo-shipments-from-china-to-the-u-s-dwindle-9877596a
[24] Port of Los Angeles. (2025, May 2). Port Optimizer—Control Tower—May 2, 2025. Port of LA Signal - May 2, 2025. https://signal.portoptimizer.com/
[25] Wayland, M. (2025, April 16). U.S. vehicle supply is falling amid tariff fear-buying. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/16/us-vehicle-supply-falls-tariff-fear-buying.html
[26] Young, L., & Lu, S. (2025, May 1). E-Commerce Sellers Brace for End of De Minimis. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/e-commerce-sellers-brace-for-end-of-de-minimis-e1a616bf
[27] Palmer, A. (2025b, May 2). Temu halts shipping direct from China as de minimis tariff loophole is cut off. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/02/temu-halts-shipments-direct-from-china-as-de-minimis-tariff-rule-ends-.html
[28] Paris, L. Y. C. (2025, April 18). U.S. Moves Ahead With Plan to Charge Fees on Chinese Ships. WSJ. https://www.wsj.com/business/logistics/u-s-moves-ahead-with-plan-to-charge-fees-on-chinese-ships-cda09650
[29] Young, L., & Jacob, D. (2025, April 16). Prologis Says Trade War Will Boost Demand for U.S. Warehouse Space. Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/prologis-says-trade-war-will-boost-demand-for-u-s-warehouse-space-d5b53c34
[30] Day, M. (2025, April 30). Amazon Plans to Build Dozens of US Warehouses in Rural Expansion. Bloomberg.Com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-30/amazon-plans-to-build-dozens-of-us-warehouses-in-rural-expansion
[31] Strickland, Z. (2025c, April 20). Look to short-haul freight as an economic bellwether. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/look-to-short-haul-freight-as-an-economic-bellwether
[32] Strickland, Z. (2025a, April 6). Flatbed market benefits from tariff uncertainty. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/flatbed-market-benefits-from-tariff-uncertainty
[33] Strickland, Z. (2025b, April 13). Transportation demand shift looms in the fog of a trade war. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/transportation-demand-shift-looms-in-the-fog-of-a-trade-war
[34] Trains.com Staff. (2025, May 2). Class I railroads keep optimistic outlooks despite trade uncertainty. FreightWaves. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/class-i-railroads-keep-optimistic-outlooks-despite-trade-uncertainty
[35] Dunbar, M. (2025, April 30). UPS cites Trump tariffs as it announces expected layoffs of 20,000 workers. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/ups-layoffs-trump-tariffs
[36] U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2025, April 29). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update. Petroleum & Other Liquids - April 29, 2025. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/index.php
[37] Chapman, M. (2025, May 2). Profits at American oil giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron fall in tandem with waning energy demand. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/exxon-mobil-oil-trump-tariff-recession-8fc6bfd4de13db80b62be1df6c0fb23c