Connect with us

Business

How were Donald Trump’s tariffs calculated?

In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.

Published

on

329 Views

Charts credit: White House/ BBC Verify

US President Donald Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on goods from most countries being imported into the US, with even higher rates for what he calls the ”worst offenders”.

But how exactly were these tariffs – essentially taxes on imports – worked out? BBC Verify has been looking at the calculations behind the numbers.

What were the calculations?

When Trump presented a giant cardboard chart detailing the tariffs in the White House Rose Garden it was initially assumed that the charges were based on a combination of existing tariffs and other trade barriers (like regulations).

But later, the White House published what might look like a complicated mathematical formula.

But the actual exercise boiled down to simple maths: take the trade deficit for the US in goods with a particular country, divide that by the total goods imports from that country and then divide that number by two.

A trade deficit occurs when a country buys (imports) more physical products from other countries than it sells (exports) to them.

For example, the US buys more goods from China than it sells to them – there is a goods deficit of $295bn.

The total amount of goods it buys from China is $440bn. Dividing 295 by 440 gets you to 67% and you divide that by two and round up. Therefore the tariff imposed on China is 34%.

Similarly, when it applied to the EU, the White House’s formula resulted in a 20% tariff.

Are the Trump tariffs ‘reciprocal’?

Many commentators have pointed out that these tariffs are not reciprocal.

Reciprocal would mean they were based on what countries already charge the US in the form of existing tariffs, plus non-tariff barriers (things like regulations that drive up costs).

But the White House’s official methodology document makes clear that they have not calculated this for all the countries on which they have imposed tariffs.

Instead the tariff rate was calculated on the basis that it would eliminate the US’s goods trade deficit with each country.

Trump has broken away from the formula in imposing tariffs on countries that buy more goods from the US than they sell to it.

For example the US does not currently run goods trade deficit with the UK. Yet the UK has been hit with a 10% tariff.

In total, more than 100 countries are covered by the new tariff regime.‘

Lots of broader impacts’Trump believes the US is getting a bad deal in global trade.

In his view, other countries flood US markets with cheap goods – which hurts US companies and costs jobs.

At the same time, these countries are putting up barriers that make US products less competitive abroad.So by using tariffs to eliminate trade deficits, Trump hopes to revive US manufacturing and protect jobs.

‎‎‎But will this new tariff regime achieve the desired outcome?

BBC Verify has spoken to a number of economists. The overwhelming view is that while the tariffs might reduce the goods deficit between the US and individual countries, they will not reduce the overall deficit between the US and rest of the world.

“Yes, it will reduce bilateral trade deficits between the US and these countries.

But there will obviously be lots of broader impacts that are not captured in the calculation”, says Professor Jonathan Portes of King’s College, London.

That’s because the US’ existing overall deficit is not driven solely by trade barriers, but by how the US economy works.For one,

Americans spend and invest more than they earn and that gap means the US buys more from the world than it sells. So as long as that continues, the US may continue to keep running a deficit despite increasing tariffs with it global trading partners.

Some trade deficits can also exist for a number of legitimate reasons – not just down to tariffs. For example, buying food that is easier or cheaper to produce in other countries’ climates.

Thomas Sampson of the London School of Economics said: “The formula is reverse engineered to rationalise charging tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade deficit.

There is no economic rationale for doing this and it will cost the global economy dearly.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

BREAKING: First Abu Dhabi Bank to establish branch in Nigeria

First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) is the UAE’s largest bank, formed in 2017 by the merger of First Gulf Bank and National Bank of Abu Dhabi.

Published

on

By

13 Views

•Photo: Nigeria’s Minister of State for Finance, Dr Doris Uzoka- Anite with the executives of First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB)

First Abu Dhabi Bank is prepared to establish a branch in Nigeria.

This was the outcome of a strategic discussion  between Nigeria’s Minister of State for Finance, Dr Doris Uzoka- Anite with the executives of First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) on enhanced financial collaboration ahead of the Bank’s plans to establish a branch in Nigeria. 

“This engagement reflects growing confidence in Nigeria’s reforms and our commitment to attracting credible global capital to support growth and development,” said the minister on her X.

Uzoka- Anite emphasised that the engagement focused on opportunities for strengthened financial intermediation, increased capital flows, and expanded banking services to support Nigeria’s economic reforms and development priorities.

Uzoka-Anite reaffirmed Nigeria’s commitment to creating an enabling environment for global investors, noting that the planned entry of FAB reflects growing international confidence in Nigeria’s reforms and improving investment climate.

A background check on the Bank showed that First Abu Dhabi Bank (FAB) is the UAE’s largest bank, formed in 2017 by the merger of First Gulf Bank and National Bank of Abu Dhabi.

Headquartered in Abu Dhabi, it offers corporate, investment, and personal banking services across 20+ markets. FAB is recognized as one of the world’s safest institutions.

Aiming to be the best Arab bank for the Arab world, it recently reported a 22% increase in net profit for Q4 2024, driven by strong business volumes.

Continue Reading

Business

Nigeria’s economy may be back from the brink — The Economist

Improvements in macroeconomic stability are restoring investor confidence.

Published

on

By

57 Views

President Bola Tinubu

A spate of painful reforms is beginning to show results.

When nigeria returned to civilian rule in 1999, Olusegun Obasanjo, the elected president, set out to clean up the economy after years of mismanagement by military governments.

Initially dismissed by critics, by the end of his second term Mr Obasanjo’s liberal policies had tamed inflation, spurred investment and raised annual gdp growth to around 7 percent.

It didn’t last. Over the past decade gdp per person has fallen.

Yet evidence is now mounting that another stretch of “golden years”, as one analyst calls the period following Mr Obasanjo’s liberalisation, may be on the cards.

In the past two and a half years Bola Tinubu, who in Mr Obasanjo’s day was the governor of Lagos and was elected president in 2023, has been enacting his own set of structural reforms.

As he gears up to run for a second term in 2027, they may be starting to pay off.

It is difficult to overstate the mess Mr Tinubu inherited.

When he took office in 2023, the country’s central bank had $7 billion (equivalent to 1.4% of gdp at the time) in obligations it could not meet, prompting international investors to flee en masse.

The bank’s credibility had been dented by a recklessly loose monetary policy, its mismanagement of dwindling foreign-exchange reserves and efforts to maintain an unsustainable tiered exchange-rate system.

Poverty has risen. But it looks as though Mr Tinubu’s bitter medicine is helping.

In 2022 alone the cash-strapped government spent some $10 billion, equivalent to 2.2% of gdp, on a ruinous fuel subsidy.

To fix things, Mr Tinubu’s government got on with a package of drastic structural reforms. It abolished the fuel subsidy and abandoned that multi-tiered system of dollar-pegged exchange rates, largely allowing the naira to float.

The Central Bank aggressively tightened monetary policy to curb the resulting bout of inflation.

The government also moved to improve security in the Niger Delta and offered a range of tax incentives to investors to boost dwindling oil production.

Nearly three years on, Nigeria’s 230 million people, especially the poor and the middle class, are still reeling from increases in fuel and food prices.

Poverty has risen. But it looks as though Mr Tinubu’s bitter medicine is helping.

The annual inflation rate, which hit a nearly 30-year high of 34.8% in December 2024, fell to 15.2% in December 2025.

Growth is returning.

The IMF expects the economy to expand by 4.4% in 2026.

Following two steep devaluations in 2023, the naira has stabilised (see chart).

The Central Bank’s foreign-exchange reserves have risen to $46 billion, their highest level in seven years.

Improvements in macroeconomic stability are restoring investor confidence.

On January 22nd Shell, a British company, said it hopes in 2027 to finalise plans, with partners, to develop a $20 billion offshore oilfield that has been sitting untapped for over 20 years.

Exxon Mobil, an American firm, has committed $1.5 billion to deep water development until 2027.

Local business leaders are more upbeat, too.

Oil-and-gas production is rising, much of it driven by local firms plugging leaks and improving output in onshore projects in the Niger Delta, which has become safer thanks to Mr Tinubu’s focus on security there.

All this should give the government some fiscal breathing room, particularly as the cheaper naira begins to raise the competitiveness of Nigeria’s non-oil exports such as cocoa and cashew nuts.

Recent reforms to taxation and tax collection, Mr Tinubu’s latest project, should help improve revenues further in the coming years.

Falling inflation should eventually begin to ease the cost-of-living pain.

However, even optimists have plenty of reasons to be cautious.

Savings from the fuel subsidy have largely been spent on servicing the public debt, which is still rising as the government continues to borrow against future sales of oil to fund its deficit.

Currently, some 60% of revenues are consumed by debt service.

On January 20th Nigeria’s finance minister said the government hoped to borrow less this year, but current budget projections suggest that is not realistic.

“The government is broke.

There’s nothing to invest in the future, that’s the truth,” says Esili Eigbe of Escap, a Nigerian consultancy.

Unless the government cuts civil-service salaries, another big chunk of spending, or is able to restructure loans to make them cheaper, the extra revenue from recent tax reforms looks unlikely to be available for improving infrastructure or to pay for public health care and education.

“They’ve brought the deficit down, but they don’t seem to show any greater ability to get capital projects out of the door,“ says David Cowan, an economist at Citi, an American bank.

All this means that it will take a long time for ordinary Nigerians, who until now have mostly borne the pain of Mr Tinubu’s reforms, to feel any benefit.

Buying food has been a particular struggle, not just for the 42% of Nigerians who live on less than $3 a day, the World Bank’s definition of extreme poverty, but also for the urban middle class.

The price of a kilo of rice has nearly quadrupled since May 2023, while wages have barely budged.

Even though inflation is now falling, many still struggle to afford enough to eat.

Mr Obasanjo’s reforms in the early 2000s aimed to increase economic dynamism and improve people’s lives by attracting fresh capital investment into newly privatised sectors.

By the end of his second term in 2007, domestic companies were worth $85 billion, up from $3 billion in 1999.

Mr Tinubu, by contrast, has so far focused on restoring stability and reviving the country’s ailing oil-and-gas sector. To bring about more golden years for Nigerians, he needs to go beyond that. ■

Credit: The Economist

Continue Reading

Business

FOBTOB seeks fresh dialogue over ban on alcohol in sachets and PET bottles

Therefore, while NAFDAC states that factories will not be shut down, the policy will result in economic shutdown, particularly for indigenous manufacturers and informal-sector participants.

Published

on

By

49 Views

Food, Beverages and Tobacco Senior Staff Association (FOBTOB) said on Thursday that the NAFDAC’s blanket ban on satchets alcohol is economically destructive.

FOBTOB, there call out for a fresh dialogue comprising the stakeholders in the industry, the National Assembly, the Federal Ministry of Health, NAFDAC and Civil society organizations to engage in open, transparent, and evidence-based dialogue aimed at crafting policies that protect public health without destroying livelihoods or creating regulatory contradictions.

Reacting to a press release issued by the Director-General of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) today regarding the enforcement of a ban on alcoholic beverages packaged in sachets and small containers below 200ml, FOBTOB President, Jimoh Oyibo, disclosed that while the association acknowledge and fully supports the shared objective of protecting children, adolescents, and vulnerable populations from the harmful use of alcohol

“We must express deep concern that the approach adopted by NAFDAC is disproportionate, economically disruptive, and inconsistent with broader regulatory and public health realities in Nigeria,” he said.

PUBLIC HEALTH IS IMPORTANT — BUT POLICY MUST BE BALANCED AND EVIDENCE-BASED

No reasonable stakeholder disputes that excessive alcohol consumption is harmful.

However, public health challenges require holistic, data-driven, and enforceable solutions, not blanket prohibitions that fail to address root causes.

Alcohol abuse among minors is primarily a challenge of effective enforcement, parental responsibility, public education, and social regulation, rather than one of packaging format.

The size of an alcohol container does not in itself, confer safety, nor does increasing pack sizes prevent access by minors.

The global public health evidence consistently demonstrates that behavioural regulation, age-restriction enforcement, education-driven interventions, and appropriate sanctions are more effective in addressing underage alcohol consumption than blanket product bans.

NAFDAC’S CLAIM ON UNINTERRUPTED COMPANY OPERATIONS – CONTRADICTED BY EVIDENCE

Notwithstanding representations made by affected stakeholders, access to these depots has not been restored by NAFDAC, and this is affecting normal business operations negatively.

As a labour union, the livelihoods of our members will be adversely affected by the closure of manufacturers’ depots.

We have compiled records of these enforcement actions for reference and ongoing engagement, which are presented alongside this article.

ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES CANNOT BE IGNORED

For many indigenous distillers, blenders, and distributors, sachet and sub-200ml packaging does not constitute a marginal segment of their operations but rather is the foundation of the core business model.

These packaging formats were intentionally developed to serve low-income consumers, informal retail channels, and rural markets where considerations such as affordability, portability, and unit pricing determine demand.

Also, the claim that the policy only affects “two packages” does not fully convey the magnitude of the impact.

In operational terms:

Production lines are configured specifically for sachet and small-format bottling.

Distribution networks are optimized for high-volume, low-unit sales

Retail reach is largely dependent on maintaining affordability at the lowest price points.

For many small and medium-scale operators, this transition will not be financially attainable.

Therefore, while NAFDAC states that factories will not be shut down, the policy will result in economic shutdown, particularly for indigenous manufacturers and informal-sector participants.

The ban on sachets and small containers below 200ml also risks tilting the market in favour of larger, better-capitalized multinational players who can absorb retooling costs and pivot to premium pack sizes.

Smaller local producers, who rely overwhelmingly on sachet sales, are disproportionately harmed, raising concerns about market concentration and unfair competitive outcomes.

Public health and economic survival are not mutually exclusive.

Nigeria deserves policies that are balanced, humane, enforceable, and fair.

The solution lies in moderation, education, and enforcement, not in policies that punish many while failing to address the real drivers of abuse.

SIGNED BYJIMOH OYIBONATIONAL PRESIDENT FOOD, BEVERAGE AND TOBACCO SENIOR STAFF ASSOCIATION (FOBTOB

Continue Reading

Trending