tag

In rolling out the most aggressive tariff regime in the US in nearly a century, President Donald Trump has leaned heavily on emergency powers that had never been used before to impose import taxes. Two federal courts ruled in May that he wrongfully invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to justify sweeping “reciprocal” duties targeting America’s trading partners, as well as separate levies aimed at China, Canada and Mexico. The Trump administration appealed both decisions. Its appeal in the case brought by Democratic-led states and a group of small businesses went before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which upheld in August that Trump exceeded his authority by using IEEPA to impose tariffs. The duties remain in effect for now and the appeals process could go all the way to the Supreme Court. If the IEEPA tariffs are ultimately deemed unlawful, the vast majority of the levies Trump has imposed so far in his second term could come undone. But there are other means by which his tariffs campaign could continue. While the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and duties, lawmakers have delegated some of their authority to the executive branch through a number of statutes. These laws give Trump at least five fallback options to try to justify his tariffs. In general, these alternatives come with more limits and procedural restrictions, meaning there’s less leeway for Trump to impose tariffs virtually immediately and set the rates as high as he chooses. “The difference between them is how much process they require,” said Ted Murphy, co-leader of the global arbitration, trade and advocacy practice at law firm Sidley Austin. “Why they chose IEEPA, I think in part, was because it comes with no required process. It’s a determination that the president can make on his or her own initiative: There’s no hearing, there’s no report, there’s no nothing.” Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 What it permits: Section 232 gives the president power to use tariffs to regulate the import of goods on national security grounds. Limitations: These tariffs can’t be imposed instantly — the president can only act after an investigation by the Commerce Department determines that importing these products threatens to impair national security. After a probe is initiated, the Commerce Secretary must report the conclusions to the president within 270 days. Unlike the blanket tariffs Trump imposed using IEEPA, Section 232 is designed to be applied to imports in individual sectors, rather than from entire countries. There’s no cap on the level of the duties or their duration. Current uses: Trump used Section 232 to set tariffs on steel and aluminium imports in 2018 during his first term in office. He resumed his focus on these two industrial metals upon returning to the White House, leaning on the findings of the 2018 investigations to impose 50% tariffs. He also introduced levies on imports of automobiles and auto parts based on the conclusions of a Section 232 investigation completed in 2019. Trump directed the Commerce Department in February to open a Section 232 investigation into copper imports, and after receiving the findings announced that a 50% tax would be charged on deliveries of semi-finished and so-called derivative copper products from August 1. There could be more Section 232 tariffs on the way. The Commerce Department has open investigations into the national security effects of imports of timber and lumber, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, trucks, critical minerals, commercial aircraft and jet engines, unmanned aircraft systems, polysilicon (a key raw material for solar panels), and wind turbines. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 What it permits: Section 201 authorises the president to impose tariffs if an increase in imports is causing or threatening serious injury to American manufacturers. Limitations: Section 201 tariffs can’t be rolled out immediately either. The US International Trade Commission must first conduct an investigation and has 180 days after a petition is filed to deliver its report to the president. Unlike the Section 232 probes, the ITC is required to hold public hearings and solicit public comments. Section 201 is also focused at the industry level rather than broad taxes on all imports from trading partners. The tariffs are capped at 50% above the rate of any existing duties. They can be imposed for an initial period of four years and extended to a maximum of eight years. If the levies are in place for more than a year, they must be phased down at regular intervals. Current uses: Trump used Section 201 to place tariffs on imports of solar cells and modules, as well as residential washing machines in 2018. The solar tariffs were extended and modified by President Joe Biden; the washing machine tariffs expired in 2023. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 What it permits: Section 301 allows the US Trade Representative, under the direction of the president, to impose tariffs in response to other nations’ trade measures it deems discriminatory to American businesses or in violation of US rights under international trade agreements. Limitations: Again, this avenue doesn’t enable an instant rollout of tariffs as the USTR must first conduct an investigation. The agency is required to request consultation with the foreign government whose trade practices are being probed, and solicit public comments, which can result in public hearings. There’s no limit on the tariff rate that can be introduced. The duties automatically terminate after four years unless USTR receives a request for continuation, in which case the levies can be extended. Section 301 investigations focus on one country, but USTR can conduct parallel reviews of a common concern that relates to multiple countries. It did so during Trump’s first term, looking at the digital services taxes of 11 jurisdictions, including France and the UK. Current uses: The first Trump administration used Section 301 to impose tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of imports from China in 2018, following an investigation into China’s policies on technology transfer, intellectual property and innovation. The duties on China are still in effect — though some are the subject of ongoing legal challenges — and during his term Biden increased tariffs on certain products from China including electric vehicles. In July of this year, USTR initiated a Section 301 investigation into Brazil, looking at the country’s trade and IP policies, deforestation practices, and ethanol market access. As that probe proceeds, Trump announced that 50% tariffs on many imports from Brazil would commence on August 6 and these duties were imposed using IEEPA. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 What it permits: Section 122 gives the president the ability to impose tariffs to address “fundamental international payments problems”. Limitations: The president doesn’t need to wait for a federal agency to conduct an investigation before he can implement the tariffs. The conditions for using Section 122 powers are to remedy “large and serious” US balance-of-payments deficits, to help correct an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, or to prevent an “imminent and significant” depreciation of the dollar. The tariffs are capped at 15% and can only be imposed for up to 150 days. Congressional approval is required to keep the duties in place for longer. Current uses: Section 122 has never been used before. In one of the challenges to Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs V.O.S. Selections, Inc v. Trump, the case brought by five small business owners and 12 states the US Court of International Trade pointed out that if Trump wanted to impose tariffs to remedy trade deficits, this would fall under the purview of Section 122, not IEEPA. Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 What it permits: The Depression-era provision empowers the president to introduce tariffs on imports from nations “whenever he shall find as a fact” that these countries impose unreasonable charges or limitations, or engage in discriminatory behaviour against US commerce. Limitations: There’s no prerequisite for a federal agency to conduct an investigation before the president can apply tariffs. Section 338 duties are capped at 50%. Current uses: Section 338 has never been used before to impose tariffs. If Trump were to lean on this provision, such an unprecedented move may invite legal challenges. The possibility that Trump could tap Section 338 has alarmed some Democrats in the House of Representatives five lawmakers introduced a resolution in March to repeal this section of the 1930 law.

Turkiye’s economic growth remained resilient in the second quarter despite an emergency interest-rate hike by the central bank in March.Gross domestic product expanded 1.6% on a quarterly basis, up from a revised 0.7% in the preceding three-month period when adjusted for seasonality and working days, Turkiye’s statistics office said on Monday. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists projected an expansion of 0.6%.The economy grew 4.8% annually, compared with the median estimate of 4.1% in the survey and a revised 2.3% in the preceding quarter. The acceleration was largely down to the higher number of working days Turkiye had this year compared to 2024, QNB Turkiye economists led by Erkin Isik said in a research note ahead of the data release.The surprise boost came after the Turkish central bank raised interest rates in an unscheduled meeting in March to mitigate the market fallout following the jailing of a prominent opposition politician, reversing a cycle of rate cuts it had just begun. Even so, domestic demand climbed at the fastest pace in more than a year, leading the surge in annual growth. The central bank resumed its cuts in July, lowering the main policy rate to 43% from 46%.Spending by households, which is the main driver of Turkiye’s economy, rose 5.1%, the highest rate since the first quarter of 2024, Turkstat said.“On the surface, Turkiye’s especially strong growth data for the second quarter could be seen as reason to derail the central bank’s easing path. But activity is likely to post slower gains ahead and we maintain our call for rate cuts at all remaining meetings this year amid falling inflation,” says Selva Bahar Baziki, economist, Bloomberg Economics.“Today’s figures provide worrying evidence that domestic demand is too strong, which may prevent the current account deficit from narrowing further and inflation from falling as quickly as policymakers want,” Capital Economics’ chief emerging markets economist William Jackson said in a note. Though August inflation figures, which will be released on Wednesday, will give a better sense of that, Monday’s GDP report suggests the central bank “will not lower interest rates as quickly as we currently expect,” he said. Jackson currently sees the main policy rate reduced to 37% at the end of the year.Gross fixed capital formation, a measure of investments by businesses, soared by nearly 9% in the second quarter from a year earlier, while exports of goods and services increased by 1.7% from a year earlier, and up from 0.1% the prior quarter.The lira was little changed after the data release, trading 0.1% higher at 41.1182 per the US dollar at 10.57am in Istanbul.Monday’s release marks the first time Turkstat published revised growth data, which the agency said was carried out for better compliance with international peers.

During a year of tumultuous events in geopolitics, much of the global economy, and stock prices, have remained buoyant. This may not be the contradiction it appears. Despite what appears to be significant potential for economic disruption, some investors have adopted an attitude of ‘nothing ever happens’, to counter a tendency to over-react to events provoking headlines that have – or may have – little lasting economic impact. The buoyancy of the stock market despite geopolitical tensions and trade wars highlights the risk of over-reacting to the news. Some investors adopt a mantra of ‘nothing ever happens’ – but are they under-estimating looming risks? The ‘nothing ever happens’ mantra is not a matter of ignoring global events, but rather coolly assessing the actual economic impact. Of course, some turbulent events in geopolitics are notable more for their potential, than the short-term reality. Threats or hints of nuclear weapons being used are unlikely to lead to an actual nuclear war, but the risk of nuclear weapons being fired in anger is not zero, so it is one to watch. In the financial markets, weak signals that could herald a shock on the scale of 2008 are observable – high valuations in the stock market, also in crypto at a time of weak regulation – but it is impossible to gauge if these signals are a harbinger of an impactful crash, or whether they remain weak. And if there is a shock, could it occur this year, or in five years’ time? If one looks historically at the events that have had a major economic impact, there have been few. Examples include the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and 1979-81 which led to stagflation in many economies, and the financial crash and banking bailouts of 2008 – although the impact of the latter was largely confined to western economies which had banks directly exposed; Gulf countries were largely unaffected. Of greater impact globally was the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-22, owing the strict lockdowns. It is long established in the academic disciplines of cognitive behavioural psychology and behavioural finance that, as a species, we are more drawn to dramatic and negative developments than benign ones; loss aversion is more powerful than the prospect of gains, and bad or shocking news is effective as clickbait. This means that the discipline of staying informed through news media can result, paradoxically, in a skewed understanding of global developments. Complicating the issue is that much news is gathered through social media that is not fact-checked. In its 2024 Global Risks Report, the World Economic Forum cited disinformation as the most serious destabilising factor for the short-term, citing the use of deepfake videos and other misuses of AI. These phenomena lend weight to the idea of downplaying the significance of narratives shaped by headlines. Another element is that, far from ‘nothing’ happening, there is too much. The projections from early 2025 by many economists of the impact of President Trump’s tariff policy have been way off, with a typical estimate of 0.1% reduction of GDP for each 1% added to tariffs proving to be inaccurate. The issue may be the sheer complexity and interconnectedness of the global economy, which makes it is doubtful that it can be modelled or projected in a meaningful way. Economic historians note that protectionist policies were likely a significant cause of the Great Depression in the 1930s. In the 2020s, trade of goods is, proportionately, a smaller part of the economy, compared with services, including much activity that is online. Entrepreneurialism and business growth are now global phenomena. It would probably be impossible accurately to quantify this proportion, but one proxy indicator is that only around 17% of the earnings on the S&P 500 are directly affected by tariffs, according to an analysis by Deutsche Bank. Moreover, while the US is the biggest market, it is around 24% of global GDP, compared with over 40% in the 1960s. There is a risk that the ‘nothing ever happens’ movement could under-estimate the impact of a succession of developments which, individually, may not amount to much but which cumulatively can become impactful. These include President Trump’s tariffs, his firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the rise of public debt in the US and other western economies, the concentration of stock market gains within just a few tech firms, Trump’s threats to the chairman of the Federal Reserve, his deregulation of crypto. Some of these individually may be judged to be of minor significance, but the accumulation may be beginning to be felt. Of these, probably of greatest long-term significance is rising debt, which means an increasing proportion of government expenditure being devoted to interest payments placing pressure on public services, and the progressive erosion of value of fiat currencies. The prices of tangible assets, such as gold, property and land, have been appreciating. This slow, long-term development will almost certainly become of greater magnitude, in economic terms, than many of the more dramatic developments that prompt headlines. The author is a Qatari banker, with many years of experience in the banking sector in senior positions

Qatar Chamber has affirmed that Qatar enjoys close co-operation with Nepal, particularly in the economic and trade fields, noting the wide scope for collaboration between the Qatari private sector and its Nepali counterpart.This came during the meeting of board member of Qatar Chamber Mohamed bin Ahmed al-Obaidli with President of the Federation of Nepalese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Chandra Dhakal where both sides discussed areas of co-operation and investment opportunities available in the two countries, as well as the activation of the Qatari-Nepali Joint Business Council.Al-Obaidli stressed that Nepal is an important country for Qatar and Qatari investors, given its large population and abundant investment opportunities. He also pointed to Qatar’s keen interest in investing in Asian markets, which represent significant growth potential. He added that Qatar has become a major hub for business and investment, with strong interest in sectors such as banking, digitalisation, and trade.Dhakal praised Qatar’s success in developing its infrastructure and achieving remarkable progress. He highlighted the numerous investment opportunities in Nepal that are open to Qatari investors, particularly in the tourism, mining, and services sectors.He further noted that Nepal offers a range of incentives for foreign investors, calling on Qatari businessmen to explore these opportunities and build partnerships with their Nepali counterparts.He also underscored the importance of activating the Qatari-Nepali Joint Business Council to help strengthen co-operation between the business sectors of both countries and to increase joint meetings between businessmen to explore opportunities for partnership and collaboration.