[🇧🇩] Trump's Victory/Tariff/ Bangladesh

[Saif]

Undeterred Trump opts for more aggressive tariffs

With the US Supreme Court (SC) upholding the lower court ruling that the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is illegal, its fallouts were supposed to be sobering enough to dissipate the turmoil in global trade the tariff policy c

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Undeterred Trump opts for more aggressive tariffs

Neil Ray
Published :
Feb 22, 2026 23:12
Updated :
Feb 22, 2026 23:12

With the US Supreme Court (SC) upholding the lower court ruling that the reciprocal tariffs President Trump imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is illegal, its fallouts were supposed to be sobering enough to dissipate the turmoil in global trade the tariff policy caused. But when a man of Trump's ilk is in the White House, it would be too much to expect. No sooner had the US SC ruled the use of the president's executive power under the IEEPA illegal, than he announced imposition of 10 per cent global tariff under the Trade Act of 1974. Even this decision was changed within hours to raise the rate of tariff to 15 per cent. What is most worrying is the fact that the new tariff rate will come into effect from tomorrow.

The question now is, after the ruling of the US court, will the agreements signed earlier with different countries including Bangladesh remain valid or not? Since Trump has called the SC ruling 'a disgrace' because, according to him, foreign interests have given priority to that of America and he has invoked other laws to protect his 'America First' policy, the trade agreements the US signed with other countries have become null and void. Naturally, the same should happen to the agreement signed between the US and the interim government only three days before the election.

Before aggressive tariff war launched by Donald Trump, the average tariff rate on Bangladeshi products exported to America was 15 per cent. However apparel exports faced duties starting from zero per cent to over 32 per cent. If the new countervailing tariff rate is imposed from tomorrow, the average duty rate will be 30 per cent. But what the duty rate would be for specific goods such as readymade garment is yet to be known. In the just struck down agreement reached between US and Bangladesh, there was provision to the effect that apparels made from cotton imported from America would enjoy duty-free access to that country. If this privileged option is retained, Bangladesh is unlikely to suffer much as the RMG export fetches 82-84 per cent of the total revenue earned by the country.

Experts in Europe claim that the latest decision to use the 1974 Trade Act by Trump will also be brought under court scrutiny. What happens then can have its bearing on the global trade. Meanwhile, another question raised by trade experts is worth noting. This is the fate of the duty already paid according to the terms and conditions of the agreements enforced under the IEEPA. Will the money be refunded to the US importers and the exporters of the source countries?

Trump and his treasury secretary are buoyant that the use of sections of the 1974 Trade Act for enacting the new tariffs "will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026". Well, that may be to the advantage of America but small countries like Bangladesh may have to bear the brunt if the difference is on the higher side by just five per cent. If it is 15 per cent higher, the rate would be unaffordable for Bangladesh.

Here is a US president who is hell-bent on carrying out any programme he once sets his eyes on. However, the irony is that many of his executive orders somehow could not be implemented because of a lack of congress and senate support. There lies the beauty of check and balance in democracy. Unfortunately, this does not happen all the time. The presidential prerogative prevails and insanity gets the better of rationality.

Now the question of refund process has been dismissed by Trump. But what if the SC rules that the duty US importers paid has to be repaid! In that case, Trump indicated, "We'll end up being in court for the next five years". This is exactly how he wants to stall payment of the already realised duty. This shows how desperate the US president is to go about the business of protecting his country's interests. Let the rest of the world suffer but America must stand tall and unscathed. Such a partisan view is against the cooperative and collaborative spirit that has helped maintain a kind of global order and peace following the World War II.​

 

[Saif]

New US tariffs come in at lower 10pc rate

The United States imposed a new tariff from Tuesday of 10 percent on all goods not covered by exemptions, the US Customs and Border Protection said, the rate first announced by President Donald Trump on Friday rather than the 15 percent he promised a day later. Reacting to the US Supreme Court rul

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

New US tariffs come in at lower 10pc rate

REUTERS
Published :
Feb 24, 2026 20:42
Updated :
Feb 24, 2026 20:42

The United States imposed a new tariff from Tuesday of 10 percent on all goods not covered by exemptions, the US Customs and Border Protection said, the rate first announced by President Donald Trump on Friday rather than the 15 percent he promised a day later.

Reacting to the US Supreme Court ruling that threw out tariffs it deemed were illegally justified on grounds of an emergency, Trump initially announced a new temporary global tariff of 10%. He said on Saturday he would increase it to 15 percent.

But in a notice described as intended to “provide guidance regarding the Feb 20, 2026 Presidential Proclamation,” CBP said that, aside from products covered by exemptions, imports would “be subject to an additional ad valorem rate of 10 percent.”

UNCLEAR WHY LOWER RATE IS IMPOSED

The move added to confusion surrounding US trade policy, with no explanation offered in the notice for why the lower rate had been used. The Financial Times quoted a White House official as saying the increase up to 15 percent would come later. Reuters could not immediately confirm this.

“Remember that Trump is delivering the State of the Union address tonight, so it’s possible we might get a better sense of the next steps on tariffs,” Deutsche Bank said in a note.

“Net-net we still think the effective tariff rate will fall this year and that the world post-SCOTUS will see lower tariffs than the pre-SCOTUS world,” its analysts said, using the acronym for the Supreme Court of the US.

Despite the fact that a 10 percent tariff is less punitive than had been expected, traders cited uncertainty about the trade outlook as one reason why European shares opened lower on Tuesday, although the pan-European STOXX 600 index was later trading flat.

The new tariffs took effect at midnight, while collection of the tariffs annulled by the Supreme Court was halted. They had ranged from 10 percent to as much as 50 percent.

It remains unclear whether and how companies will be refunded for tariff payments made under the regime annulled by the Supreme Court.

The Section 122 law allows the president to impose the new duties for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits and “fundamental international payments problems.”

Trump’s tariff order argued that a serious balance-of-payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual US goods trade deficit, a current account deficit of 4 percent of GDP and a reversal of the US primary income surplus.

TRUMP WARNS AGAINST RENEGING ON TRADE DEALS

On Monday Trump warned countries against backing away from any previously negotiated trade deals with the US, warning he would hit them with much higher duties under different laws.

Japan said it had asked the United States to ensure its treatment under a new tariff regime would be as favourable as in an existing agreement. The European Union, Britain and Taiwan all indicated a preference to stick to their deals too.

Carsten Brzeski, global head of macro at ING, noted that even with the 150-day limit of the current set of measures, the trade uncertainty was unlikely to go away soon.

“Because the next thing that he (Trump) could do is always, with the interruption of one day, theoretically endlessly extend by 150 days,” he said.

China meanwhile urged Washington to abandon its “unilateral tariffs”, indicating it was willing to hold another round of trade talks with the world’s largest economy, the country’s commerce ministry said in a statement on Tuesday.​

 

[Saif]

Why Trump's tariff policy suffers reversal

In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump of America presented an update of the United States, highlighting his successes in the first year of his second term. But amid the rising tension over the conflict between the USA and Iran, he stopped short of mentioning the exact time for a

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

Why Trump's tariff policy suffers reversal

Nilratan Halder
Published :
Feb 26, 2026 23:33
Updated :
Feb 26, 2026 23:33

In his State of the Union address, President Donald Trump of America presented an update of the United States, highlighting his successes in the first year of his second term. But amid the rising tension over the conflict between the USA and Iran, he stopped short of mentioning the exact time for a possible attack on Iran. True, his 'America first policy' has earned him popularity at home but still the number of disgruntled people is growing. According to a survey conducted between January 27 and 30, the majority of US adults consider that their president is taking the country in the wrong direction. As high as 55 per cent adults think the change brought about by Trump is for the worse. This marks a 13-point increase from around the same time during his first presidency.

The State of the Union speech is made before the joint session of the United States Congress and support or opposition to the speech follows down the party line. Ninety per cent Democrats hold the view that the country is worse off than a year ago and 82 per cent Republicans consider the situation has improved. But a similar research in March 2025 found that 43 per cent of respondents expressed their confidence in the democratic system where there are checks and balance with the distribution of power among the president, Congress and the court. That percentage has dropped to 32 per cent after almost a year.

A Pew Research Center survey conducted in January this year finds that Trump's exercise of executive power was not popular. Only 27 per cent Americans endorsed all or most of his policies and plans. Even his agendas have fewer supporters among the Republicans, 75 per cent of whom thought he had enough mental fitness to do his job but after a year the percentage has dropped to 66 per cent. Trump won the 2024 national election with a plurality of 49.8 per cent. Roughly half of the votes cast or by extension half of American adults' verdict went in his favour. Assuming that the Republican voters and the swing voters endorsed his presidential credential, about half of the 173.85 million registered voters voted for him. Intriguingly, not all voting-age population registered to become voters; only 73.6 per cent of them registered and of them 65.30 per cent cast their votes.

Yet the percentage of American voters approving Trump as their president is quite high. That is an awful lot of people looking up to him as their deliverer. This means that his popularity base was broad and strong. Now his rating and approval may experience slight erosion but the development is far from alarming. His triumph in the 2024 election, therefore, proves the adage that people get the government they deserve. Sure enough, there are dissenting voices opposed to the presidential exercise of power beyond limit. At the State of the Union address, the Supreme Court judges are invited by custom and Tuesday's event was no exception to this rule. But only four of them including the chief justice and another who was an appointee by Trump but ruled against the president's reciprocal tariff attended the event. Trump reined in his lambasting of the judges but was still moderately critical of the SC ruling and briefly gave a confrontational look at his appointee.

The message is clear that more Americans than their domestic opponents now want to see that American interests are better protected by aggressive Trump policies even if the global order of business and relations are rendered topsy-turvy. Then are the surveys conducted by various independent agencies including the CNN and the Pew Research Center giving an indication of a change in public minds, the independent among them to be precise? The CNN poll conducted by SQL Server Reporting Services (SSRS), a Microsoft server-based platform, finds that only 32 per cent of Americans consider Trump has had the right priorities and 68 per cent reckon he has not paid enough attention to the country's most pressing problems. Such expression of no-confidence in Trump's governance is contrary to his election rating. What is remarkable is that not all such surveys can give a wrong indication.

Well, there is nothing wrong with the American interests proving an overriding concern for the president and the people of that country. But when it clashes with those of the rest of the world throwing all cautions in to the wind, the limit has to be wisely set. After the reversal Trump's reciprocal tariff met at the Supreme Court, he immediately found an alternative route to impose a 15 per cent tariff on all goods entering America. His invocation of the Section 122 of the Trade Act, 1974, allows him to impose up to 15 per cent for 150 days at the maximum. Its continuation depends on Congressional approval. Most importantly, this legal provision can be used only to address a "fundamental international payment problem". Here the issue is no such problem and therefore, like his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is likely to prove illegal in court.

Whatever happens to the law, validating or invalidating the imposition of 15 or 10 per cent duty, its realisation makes it a complicated problem. FedEx has already sued US government for refund of money the logistics giant paid for tariffs Trump imposed under the IEEPA. If Section 122 is struck down by the SC, there will be double trouble for both the US government and the importing companies there. By this time, however, the damage global trade suffers will be incalculable. There is every possibility that Trump will have to pay a heavy price personally and as the leader of the Republicans in the forthcoming mid-term Congressional election.​

 

[Saif]

US tariff issue still evolving: Minister

The issues of reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States and the related trade agreement are still evolving, Commerce Minister Khandaker Abdul Muktadir has said, noting that the government will review them further before making any decision. He made the remarks on Wednesday in the context of

thefinancialexpress.com.bd

US tariff issue still evolving: Minister
MoC holds meeting with business leaders on reciprocal trade agreement
FE REPORT
Published :
Feb 26, 2026 08:17
Updated :
Feb 26, 2026 08:17

The issues of reciprocal tariffs imposed by the United States and the related trade agreement are still evolving, Commerce Minister Khandaker Abdul Muktadir has said, noting that the government will review them further before making any decision.

He made the remarks on Wednesday in the context of the recent ruling by the US Supreme Court, which declared the reciprocal tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump illegal.

In response, the US administration later issued directives to impose new global tariffs.

Against this backdrop, Bangladesh's Ministry of Commerce held a meeting with business leaders to determine the next course of action regarding the tariffs and the trade agreement signed between Bangladesh and the United States.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting at the ministry, the commerce minister said the situation remained fluid.

State Minister for Commerce Md Shariful Alam, Commerce Secretary Mahbubur Rahman, senior government officials, and representatives of the business community were present at the meeting.

"The situation in the United States is still evolving -- what we call an evolving scenario in English," the minister said.

He explained that the US Supreme Court had ruled that the previously imposed tariffs were not maintainable.

Subsequently, the US announced a 10 per cent tariff for all countries, which was later revised to 15 per cent, he said.

"However, so far, we have only heard these announcements through various channels. We have not received any official written communication at the government level," he said, adding that under US law, certain legal provisions required approval by the US Congress within 150 days.

"Beyond that, whatever we are seeing is coming through television reports. No official documents have reached us yet. That is why I would again say the scenario is evolving," he added.

Referring to the trade agreement signed with the United States by the previous government, the minister said it was still too early to make definitive comments.

"We are examining the agreement to understand both its pros and cons. Any agreement naturally has two sides. After reviewing these aspects, we will decide on the next steps," he said.

Responding to journalists' questions on whether the interim government rushed into the agreement or kept its details secret, the minister said some non-disclosure agreements were involved during the negotiation phase.

"This was a sensitive issue, and the country we signed the agreement with is also very important for us. In such an evolving situation, making any unwarranted comments would not be appropriate," he said.

On business leaders' views regarding tariffs and the agreement, the minister said representatives from various sectors were invited to the meeting and their concerns were discussed in detail, including sector-specific problems.

Commenting on the current commodity price situation, he said the prices of items monitored by the Ministry of Commerce remained stable in the market.

However, the prices of some vegetables rose temporarily due to panic buying, he said.

"At the beginning of Ramadan, many people purchase a month's supply at once. Sellers also take advantage of the situation and the short supply. For example, lemons priced at Tk 40-50 rose to Tk 120 at one point, but later returned to their previous levels," he said.

Asked about extortion, the minister said successive governments had promised to curb the practice but failed to deliver.

"Wait and see. We will show results through action," he said.​

 

[Saif]

How Trump’s tariffs have failed the US economy

Trump's 2025 tariffs inflated prices and slowed growth, showing that slogans cannot override economic reality.

www.thedailystar.net

How Trump’s tariffs have failed the US economy

M.G. Quibria

I think I have seen this film before. And I didn't like the ending.

— Taylor Swift, “exile”

A year after Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced on April 2, 2025, the economic case for the policy looks weaker than its supporters promised. What was presented as an assertion of leverage has instead become a case study in how trade barriers raise costs at home while delivering only limited and uneven benefits.

The logic is simple. Tariffs make imported goods more expensive. Those costs do not remain at the border. They work their way through supply chains into production costs and, ultimately, consumer prices. That is why economists have long treated tariffs less as strategic instruments than as taxes with broad indirect effects.

The rest of the world did not wait for Washington’s trade war; it adjusted. Trading partners lowered barriers among themselves, redirected commerce, and reduced their exposure to the American market. American households, meanwhile, faced higher prices and fewer low-cost options, while exporters encountered a subtler penalty: not always retaliation, but a loss of preference, as foreign buyers turned to suppliers that came with fewer political risks.

This article traces the economic effects of the 2025 reciprocal tariffs using analysis from leading American policy research institutions, especially the Budget Lab at Yale, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and the American Enterprise Institute.

Price Effects

US average effective tariff rate, 1934–2025. The 2025 regime pushed the effective rate to its highest level since the mid-1930s. Source: The Budget Lab at Yale.


Recent analysis from the Budget Lab at Yale shows that the 2025 tariff regime pushed the US effective tariff rate to levels not seen since the 1930s. In its September 2025 update, Yale estimated the overall effective rate facing consumers at 17.9 percent; by November, after exemptions and policy changes, it put the figure at 16.8 percent — still the highest since 1935.

Yale’s estimates also show why the burden matters. Its early April 2025 analysis, reflecting the tariff regime at its peak, projected a short-run increase in consumer prices of about 2.3 percent and an average household loss of roughly $3,800 a year. By November 2025, after partial moderation through exemptions and trade deals, the estimated price effect had fallen to about 1.2 percent, with an average household loss of around $1,700.

Tariffs do change behaviour. But changing behaviour is not the same as creating a net gain. The relevant question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. So far, the evidence suggests they do not: price increases are visible and widespread, while the gains remain modest and concentrated in a limited number of protected industries.

The price effects also unfold over time. Firms can initially soften the shock by absorbing part of the cost or drawing down inventories, but those buffers do not last. As they fade, more of the tariff burden is passed through. In its April 2026 retrospective, Yale concluded that the observed price effect after one year appeared smaller than the highest early estimates, but still significant — roughly 0.5 to 1 percent above the no-tariff baseline.

The price effects also tend to unfold gradually. Companies can absorb part of the shock at first or delay it by drawing down inventories. But such buffers are temporary. As they disappear, higher costs are passed through to prices. Yale's one-year review (April 2026) confirmed this dynamic: observed goods prices were running 1.9–2.3 percent above the pre-tariff trend, consistent with partial absorption still unwinding.

Who Bears the Cost? Distributional Burden

Estimated annual tariff cost by household income group. Lower-income households bear a higher cost relative to income. Source: The Budget Lab at Yale; PIIE.


The distributional effects are regressive. The 2025 tariffs cost households across the income scale, but not equally. Wealthier households may lose more in absolute dollars, yet lower-income families lose a much larger share of their income. That is the defining feature of a regressive tax: the less you earn, the harder you are hit. Far from protecting working Americans, the tariffs impose their heaviest relative burden on households least able to bear it.

Sectorally, the picture is mixed. Some protected industries may gain in the short run, but others face higher input costs, weaker competitiveness, or both. Agriculture, construction, logistics, and manufacturing each experience the tariff shock differently, but none is insulated from the wider drag on the economy.

Yale’s sectoral analysis suggests that, over the long run, manufacturing output may rise by about 2.9 percent, while construction contracts by 4.1 percent and agriculture by 1.4 percent. Tariffs do not remove the burden from the economy as a whole; they redistribute it. One sector is sheltered while another absorbs the cost.

Macroeconomic Impact on Growth & Employment

The broader macroeconomic effect matters just as much. Yale estimates that the 2025 tariff regime reduced US real GDP growth by about 0.5 percentage points in 2025 and 0.4 percentage points in 2026, leaving the economy persistently smaller in the long run by roughly 0.3 percent — about $90 billion a year. Unemployment was projected to be 0.3 percentage points higher by the end of 2025 and 0.6 percentage points higher by the end of 2026, with payroll employment roughly 460,000 lower.

Macroeconomic effects relative to a no-tariff baseline: lower GDP growth and higher unemployment. Source: The Budget Lab at Yale.

The economy can still grow under tariffs, just more slowly than it otherwise would. That forgone growth is a real cost, even when it does not produce a dramatic headline.

FDI Bonanza Has Not Been Realised

Despite the president’s promise of an investment boom, the data show something more modest. Inward foreign direct investment into the United States fell to $52.8 billion in the first quarter of 2025, the second-weakest quarterly reading since 2022. Claims of vastly larger “secured” investment commitments also warrant caution. Independent fact-checking found that the White House’s own tracker listed a much smaller figure than the president’s public claims, and that even this total included multi-year aspirations and future purchase commitments rather than realised capital investment. Announcements may generate headlines, but they do not count as investment until they appear in the data.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

Over time, the rhetoric of “Liberation Day” has begun to lose its shine. The phrase suggested renewal, autonomy, and economic strength. But independence is not created by making imports more expensive. It rests on investment, productivity, infrastructure, labour-force quality, and institutional stability. Tariffs are too blunt an instrument to deliver those ends.

To be sure, the concern about dependence on foreign supply chains is not frivolous. The United States has legitimate reasons to think carefully about resilience, especially in strategic sectors. But resilience is not the same thing as protection for its own sake. A more serious industrial strategy would rely on targeted investment and clearer priorities. Broad tariffs are a costly substitute for that work.

What the Evidence Shows

One year on, the record suggests that the tariffs have created more friction than leverage. They have raised prices, complicated business planning, and reduced efficiency, while delivering only modest gains to a narrow set of protected industries. That does not settle every argument about trade policy, but it does narrow the range of credible defences.

The promise that tariffs will restore national strength is as old as trade politics itself. The language changes with each era: jobs, sovereignty, national security. But the underlying economics remain stubbornly familiar. Prices rise. Distortions spread. Protected industries lean on shelter rather than become more competitive. The slogans change. The consequences do not.

Selected Sources: Budget Lab at Yale tariff research; November 2025 tariff update; April 2026 retrospective; Global Business Alliance summary of BEA FDI data; PolitiFact on White House investment claims

Dr. M.G. Quibria is an economist and public affairs commentator whose work explores trade, development, governance, and democratic change in Bangladesh and beyond.​