A landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared President Donald Trump’s “emergency” tariffs to be illegal has increased uncertainties about the future of the customs duties collected and trade agreements Washington made with other countries.

The court ruled Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), on which the tariffs put into effect by Trump were based, did not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs.

The 6-3 decision emphasized that the authority to impose customs duties belongs to Congress.

Trump imposed “reciprocal” customs duties on almost all U.S. trade partners last year under the IEEPA, and introduced tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, citing the flow of fentanyl into the country.

Noting that the government interpreted the IEEPA as a law granting the president the authority to “unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will,” the court’s decision pointed out that in the half-century history of the law, no president had used the act to impose any customs duty, let alone tariffs of the size and scope Trump imposed.

The ruling stated that the phrase “regulating” in the law did not sweep Congress’ power to “set tariff policy,” and the power to “regulate … importation” does not fill that void.

Stating that the IEEPA gives the president the authority to regulate imports on various issues, such as investigating, preventing and prohibiting, the decision noted that customs duties or fees were never mentioned in the long list of special powers.

Uncertainty for collected tariffs

While the decision puts a legal block on the Trump administration’s trade policies, it created a massive cloud of uncertainty regarding the fate of billions of dollars in customs duties recently collected under the IEEPA and the U.S. foreign trade commitments.

According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, the amount collected for tariffs under the IEEPA that might need to be refunded was estimated to be more than $175 billion.

The decision did not present a concrete road map for the refund of the customs duties collected, but the court’s release included the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who dissented, that the U.S. may be required to refund billions of dollars to importers and refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury Department.

Trump announces 10% global tariff

Trump, in a news conference held after the ruling, said it was “deeply disappointing” and he was ashamed of some members of the court.

“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities, as recognized by the entire court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress,” said Trump.

Arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision made a president’s authority to regulate trade and impose customs duties stronger and clearer, Trump explained that he thought the tariffs would generate more revenue than before.

Trump announced that he would sign a decision to implement a 10% global tariff in addition to the currently applied tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, adding that they would launch various investigations under Section 301 and other articles to protect the U.S. from the unfair trade practices of other countries and companies.

He later said that this rate would be lifted to 15%.

Trump said on his Truth Social platform that after a thorough review of Friday’s “extraordinarily anti-American decision” by the court to rein in his tariff program, the administration was hiking the import levies “to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

Criticizing the absence of a provision regarding the refund of tariffs in the decision, Trump also suggested that the situation would be the subject of litigation for years.

Regarding the trade agreements negotiated using IEEPA tariffs, Trump said many deals are valid, some will not be valid and will be replaced by “other alternatives.”

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also said that using alternative legal authorities for customs duties would leave tariff revenues “virtually unchanged” in 2026.

Bessent pointed out that the court did not rule against the tariffs, but only that the IEEPA could not be used for that purpose.

India delays trade talks

However, the mood once again shifted among U.S. trading partners, with Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva on Sunday urging Trump to treat all countries equally.

Reportedly, India has, meanwhile, delayed plans to send a trade delegation ​to Washington this week, chiefly because of uncertainty after the U.S. Supreme Court struck ⁠down tariffs, a source in its trade ministry told Reuters on Sunday.

“The decision to defer the visit was taken after discussions between officials of the two countries,” said the source, who sought anonymity as the matter is a sensitive one.

“No new date for the visit has been decided.”

What happens next?

At the same time, import companies are expected to file class-action lawsuits for the refund of the taxes they already paid by citing the court’s decision as a precedent.

Reports in the U.S. media indicate that importers have already filed more than 1,000 lawsuits at the Court of International Trade to demand refunds, and a new influx of lawsuits is expected to begin.

Some small importers might give up the potential refund instead of paying thousands of dollars in legal and court fees to file a lawsuit, it was reported.

While experts warn that the process could technically turn into chaos, it is expressed that legal regulations regarding which product group, in which date range, and how much refund the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) unit will make could take months or even years.

As Kavanaugh expressed in his opinion, it is reported that the ruling did not completely eliminate the president’s authority to impose tariffs, but only ruled that he chose the wrong legal option by imposing customs duties under the IEEPA.

As Trump also stated, it is noted that the U.S. administration can use other federal laws in the upcoming period, such as Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, citing national security, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, authorizing action against unfair trade practices of foreign countries, or Section 122 targeting foreign trade deficits.

However, unlike the IEEPA, those laws require more complex bureaucratic and procedural steps, such as additional investigations, public comments and reports from specific institutions.

Are trade agreements in danger?

While the Trump administration used IEEPA tariffs as a bargaining chip in trade diplomacy with many countries, the Supreme Court’s decision also creates uncertainty for the fate of trade agreements worth trillions of dollars that have already been signed or are under negotiation.

Experts state that trade partners will now increasingly price in the risk that “agreements made with the U.S. President can be overturned by the judiciary.”

It is also noteworthy that Kavanaugh included the statement in his dissenting opinion: “The IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars, including with foreign nations from China to the United Kingdom to Japan, and more.”

“The Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding those trade arrangements.”

Spokespersons for the EU and the U.K. governments stated that they would be in contact with the U.S. to gain more clarity about the effects of the decision.

Another bout of trade policy uncertainty

Ryan Sweet, chief global economist at Oxford Economics, told Anadolu Agency (AA) that the ruling immediately lowers the effective tariff rate sharply, from 12.8% to 8.3%.

Sweet noted that any boost to the economy from lowering tariffs in the near-term is likely to be partly offset by a prolonged period of uncertainty, and with the administration likely to rebuild tariffs through other, more durable means, the overall tariff rate may yet end up settling close to current levels.

Sweet stated that the 6-3 ruling was unambiguous in striking down the emergency declaration underpinning much of the reciprocal by-country tariffs put in place last year.

He added that the Supreme Court did not rule on whether the administration must refund the more than $130 billion in tariffs already paid under the declarations, which will likely trigger a prolonged legal battle.

Sweet highlighted that the administration has frequently emphasized other powers it could use to rebuild much of the tariff regime struck down by the decision.

The White House may turn to Section 122 to immediately implement an up to 15% tariff on all imports for as many as 150 days before requiring congressional approval for an extension, he said.

That could serve as a bridge while the administration pursues other trade authorities, which require investigations but are more legally durable, he stated.

“Even if the administration is able to replicate the overall level of tariffs using other means, the by-sector and by-country implications could end up looking very different, which will create another bout of trade policy uncertainty for business, investors, and households,” said Sweet.

He warned that the uncertainty is a key downside risk that could ding, rather than derail, growth this year.

Trade agreements at risk

Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings, stated that the 10% tariff may ultimately help reduce uncertainty once the dust finally settles.

Sonola noted, however, that at this point, it is still unknown whether the 10% blanket tariff is truly a blanket, whether it will spare consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, and the many other sectors previously exempted under the IEEPA.

Pointing out that the refund process is likely to be vigorously litigated in the months ahead, Sonola said the Supreme Court’s decision gives companies and consumers a clear legal basis to demand their money back.

The ruling also puts trade agreements with tariff rates above 10% at real risk, Sonola mentioned.

Emphasizing that countries negotiating the deals are not the ones paying the bill but rather corporations and consumers are, he stated that if the tariff is deemed illegal, there is no legal justification for continuing to charge rates higher than the 10% allowed under Section 122.

Noting that global markets will probably shrug it off for now, Sonola said that may change as there is greater clarity on how it plays out.

“In fact, the decision could ultimately benefit many Asian and European countries that currently face IEEPA tariff rates in excess of 10%,” he added.

From winemakers to chemical producers, European companies say the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down much of Donald Trump’s tariffs offers limited relief and instead clouds the trade outlook even further.

In a decision that will ripple through the global economy, the top U.S. court struck down Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under a law meant for use in national emergencies, handing a stinging defeat to the Republican president. But while many businesses cheered after ⁠lengthy legal battles against tariffs, European trade groups, companies and analysts worried that the ruling may make trade relations even more messy after hard-struck trade deals last year.

“This ruling… risks creating a boomerang effect, producing further uncertainty and a freeze on orders while operators wait for a clearer regulatory framework,” said Paolo Castelletti, secretary general of Italian wine association UIV.

The U.S. is the top market for Italian wines with some 1.9 billion euros ($2.3 billion) in exports in 2024, making up almost a quarter of Italy’s total wine shipments globally. Many firms cautioned that Trump would likely look to other avenues to impose similar tariffs, dulling the benefit of lower levies, while the move could stoke tensions between the U.S. and major trade partners. Tariff refunds will also be hard to get.

Responding to the ruling, Trump announced new global tariffs of 10% for an ⁠initial ⁠150-day period and acknowledged it was not clear if or when there would be any refunds.

‘A new round of uncertainty’

Steve Ovara, chair of the International Trade Practice Group at law firm King & Spalding, said that companies his firm advises, from large U.S. manufacturers to consumer and technology groups, mostly expected any relief from tariffs to be short-lived.

“The major issue everybody’s going to be dealing with for at least the short term is some additional uncertainty,” he said.

Wolfgang Grosse Entrup, managing director of German chemicals and pharmaceutical lobby VCI, which represents firms like BASF, Bayer and Evonik, agreed.

“For our firms, this isn’t the start of a phase of stability, but a new round of uncertainty. Anyone who believes this ⁠means the tariff conflict is over is mistaken,” he said. “New tariffs based on a different legal basis are possible at any time.”

Peter Sand, chief analyst at freight pricing platform Xeneta, said political risk remained for shippers, with trends to de-risk supply chains an “irreversible trend.”

“The damage to many shippers’ supply chains is largely done and probably won’t be undone,” he said.

No ‘silver bullet’ to get rid of tariffs

French cosmetics association FEBEA, which has firms like L’Oreal as members, said it was “very cautious” on the ruling and would watch how the U.S. government responded, including with potential new tariffs.

“We are all used to the twists and turns ⁠on this subject ‌of customs duties,” ‌said FEBEA secretary general Emmanuel Guichard.

Massimiliano Giansanti, president of Italian farmers’ group Confagricoltura, said ⁠the U.S. ruling “dismantles the entire legal basis” for Trump’s tariffs, but warned ‌it complicated things for exporters just as they were adapting to U.S. tariffs.

“All this generates deep instability at a time when we need certainty and have begun a process together with our ⁠U.S. importers,” he said.

In Ireland, whiskey exporters are waiting to see what happens next before taking ⁠action, said Eoin Ó Catháin, Director of the Irish Whiskey Association, adding political negotiations and de-escalation were more likely to ⁠resolve tariff challenges.

“This isn’t a silver bullet to get rid of tariffs,” he said. “This is just another complication; it’s another twist in the story.”

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

President Donald Trump on Friday announced a new 10% tariff on all imports into the United States after the Supreme Court struck down many of his broad and often arbitrary trade levies, delivering a major blow to his signature economic agenda.

Trump signed the tariff order in the Oval Office, saying on social media it was “effective almost immediately”, after spending the past year imposing various rates to cajole and punish countries, both friend and foe.

The new duty is slated to take effect Feb. 24 for 150 days, with exemptions remaining for sectors that are under separate probes, including pharma, and goods entering the U.S. under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement, according to a White House factsheet.

U.S. trading partners that reached tariff deals with Trump’s administration will now also face a 10% duty, despite higher levels they may have agreed on previously, the White House said.

But a White House official told AFP that the Trump administration would seek ways to “implement more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates” down the line.

Earlier Friday, the conservative-majority high court ruled six to three that a 1977 law Trump has relied on to slap sudden rates on individual countries, upending global trade, “does not authorize the President to impose tariffs.”

Trump, who had nominated two of the justices who repudiated him, responded furiously, alleging without evidence that the court was influenced by foreign interests.

“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump told reporters.

“In order to protect our country, a president can actually charge more tariffs than I was charging in the past,” Trump said, insisting that the ruling left him “more powerful.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, addressing the Economic Club of Dallas, said the alternative method “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”

Major setback

The ruling did not impact sector-specific duties Trump separately imposed on steel, aluminum and various other goods. Government probes still underway could lead to additional sectoral tariffs.

Still, it marked Trump’s biggest defeat at the Supreme Court since returning to the White House 13 months ago. The court has generally expanded his power.

The justices ruled Friday that “had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” through the 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, “it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

“IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion.

Wall Street saw share prices rise modestly after the decision, which had been expected.

Business groups largely cheered the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying this “provides much-needed certainty” for companies.

Doubts on refunds

The Trump administration in court arguments said companies would receive refunds if the tariffs were deemed unlawful. But the ruling did not address the issue.

Trump said he expected years of litigation on whether to provide refunds. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the one Trump nominee to side with him, noted the refund process could be a “mess.”

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that the court decision on tariffs would generate up to $175 billion in refunds.

California Governor Gavin Newsom, who is widely expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, said Americans deserved refunds from the “illegal cash grab.”

“Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately – with interest. Cough up!”

But Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, cautioned that there remained “no legal mechanism for consumers and many small businesses to recoup the money they have already paid.”

The Budget Lab at Yale University estimates consumers face an average effective tariff rate of 9.1% with Friday’s decision, down from 16.9%.

The rate “remains the highest since 1946,” excluding 2025, it said.

Close U.S. trading partners including the European Union and Britain said they were studying the decision.

Canada, which has faced repeated tariff threats as Trump questioned the sovereignty of the northern neighbor, said the Supreme Court showed the levies were “unjustified,” but the country braced for more turbulence.

“Canada should prepare for new, blunter mechanisms to be used to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects,” said Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The Supreme Court on Friday tossed Donald Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, but left unresolved a $133 billion question: what will happen to the import taxes the government has already collected under levies now deemed unlawful?

Companies have been lining up for refunds. But the way forward could prove chaotic.

When the smoke clears, trade lawyers say, importers are likely to get money back – eventually. “It’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile,” said trade lawyer Joyce Adetutu, a partner at the Vinson & Elkins law firm.

The refund process is likely to be hashed out by a mix of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York and other lower courts, according to a note to clients by lawyers at the legal firm Clark Hill.

“The amount of money is substantial,” Adetutu said. “The courts are going to have a hard time. Importers are going to have a hard time.”

Still, she added, “it’s going to be really difficult not to have some sort of refund option” given how decisively the Supreme Court repudiated Trump’s tariffs.

In its 6-3 opinion on Friday, the court ruled Trump’s attempt to use an emergency powers law to enact the levies was not valid. Two of the three justices appointed by Trump joined the majority in striking down the first major piece of his second-term agenda to come before them.

At issue are double-digit tariffs Trump imposed on almost every country in the world last year by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court ruled that the law did not give the president authority to tax imports, a power that belongs to Congress.

The U.S. customs agency has already collected $133 billion in IEEPA tariffs as of mid-December. But consumers hoping for a refund are unlikely to be compensated for the higher prices they paid when companies passed along the cost of the tariffs; that’s more likely to go to the companies themselves.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh dinged his colleagues for dodging the refund issue: “The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”

Borrowing a word that Justice Amy Coney Barrett – who sided with the majority – used during the court’s November hearing on the case, Kavanaugh warned that “the refund process is likely to be a ‘mess.'”

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump told reporters at a press conference Friday, in which he decried the court’s decision and said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some justices who ruled against his tariffs. “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

The end of the IEEPA tariffs could help the economy by easing inflationary pressures. The tariff refunds – like other tax refunds – could stimulate spending and growth. But the impacts are likely to be modest.

Most countries still face steep tariffs from the U.S. on specific sectors, and Trump intends to replace the IEEPA levies using other options. The refunds that do get issued will take time to roll out – 12 to 18 months, estimates TD Securities.

The U.S. customs agency does have a process for refunding duties when importers can show there’s been some kind of error. The agency might try to build on the existing system to refund Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, said trade lawyer Dave Townsend, a partner with the law firm Dorsey & Whitney.

And there has been a precedent for courts making arrangements to give companies their money back in trade cases. In the 1990s, the courts struck down as unconstitutional a harbor maintenance fee on exports and set up a system for exporters to apply for refunds.

But the courts and U.S. customs have never had to deal with anything like this – thousands of importers and tens of billions of dollars at once.

“Just because the process is difficult to administer doesn’t mean the government has the right to hold on to fees that were collected unlawfully,″ said trade lawyer Alexis Early, partner at the law firm Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner.

Ryan Majerus, a partner at King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official, said it’s hard to know how the government will deal with the massive demand for refunds. It might try to streamline the process, perhaps setting up a special website where importers can claim their refunds.

But Adetutu warns that “the government is well-positioned to make this as difficult as possible for importers. I can see a world where they push as much responsibility as possible onto the importer” – maybe forcing them to go to court to seek the refunds.

Many companies, including Costco, Revlon and canned seafood and chicken producer Bumble Bee Foods, filed lawsuits claiming refunds even before the Supreme Court ruled, essentially seeking to be at the head of line if the tariffs were struck down.

There are likely to be more legal battles ahead. Manufacturers might, for example, sue for a share of any refunds given to suppliers that jacked up the price of raw materials to cover the tariffs.

“We may see years of ongoing litigation in multiple jurisdictions,” Early said.

Consumers, though, are unlikely to enjoy a refund windfall. The higher prices they’ve had to pay would likely be hard to attribute to a specific tariff. Should they pursue refunds anyway? Early wouldn’t advise wasting money on legal fees, but said: “In America, we have the ability to file a lawsuit for anything we want.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat and Trump antagonist, is demanding a refund on behalf of his state’s 5.11 million households. In a letter addressed to Trump and released by Pritzker’s gubernatorial campaign, the governor said the tariffs had cost each Illinois household $1,700 – or $8.7 billion. Pritzker said failure to pay will elicit “further action.”

Nevada Treasurer Zach Conine submitted a payment request to the federal government for $2.1 billion to recoup the costs of the tariffs, his office announced Friday.

“As Nevada’s chief investment officer, I have a responsibility to try to recoup every single dollar that the Trump Administration takes from Nevada families,” Conine said in a statement.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

There is no deterioration in Türkiye’s disinflation path but rather a slowdown mainly due to food prices and seasonal effects, Treasury and Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek said Friday.

The downward trend continued in January as annual inflation eased to 30.7%, but a monthly spike of nearly 5% in consumer prices triggered market doubts about whether the course seen throughout 2025 is on track.

“Türkiye can speak of a slowdown in disinflation due to transitory effects, but not of any deterioration,” Şimşek told an interview with private broadcaster NTV.

The higher-than-expected monthly increase in January was driven by new-year adjustments and food and drink prices.

“It would be a very wrong assessment to say the disinflation program is stalled just by looking at the first few months,” Şimşek said.

Price increases are expected to remain lofty near 3% this month, and policymakers said a limited annual increase in headline inflation may be seen, with food prices again weighing.

But they expect the main trend to approach the lower November-December levels from March onward.

Most pressing challenge

According to Şimşek, the cost of living remains Türkiye’s most pressing macroeconomic challenge, reiterating the government’s commitment to implementing its economic program.

“Currently, the most important imbalance is inflation; we continue to implement the program with great determination,” he noted.

“We have two main priorities: structural transformation and the fight against inflation.”

As annual inflation slowed from levels above 40% at the beginning of last year, the Central Bank of the Republic of Türkiye (CBRT) slashed its key rate by 900 basis points in five steps since last summer.

But its last move – a smaller-than-expected 100-basis point cut to 37% in January – and the monthly spike in consumer prices raised some expectations the bank could slow its more than year-long easing cycle.

CBRT Governor Fatih Karahan struck a confident tone, however, saying last week that while the policy stance needed to remain tight, the inflation outlook is “not that negative,” which analysts took as a signal that there were more rate cuts ahead.

But Karahan said the threshold to increase the size of rate cuts from 100 basis points is “a bit high” and cautioned that more easing was not a given.

The CBRT nudged up its year-end inflation forecast range to 15%-21% and maintained its interim 16% target. The increase from the earlier 13%-19% range accounted for a change in data calculations and energy and food prices, Karahan said.

The bank also left its end-2027 interim inflation target at 9%, in a forecast range of 6%-12%, and it targets 8% by end-2028.

Officials, including Şimşek, have repeatedly said they would want to see inflation dip below 20s by the end of this year. Market participants surveyed by the central bank last month forecast it at 23.23%.

On Friday, Şimşek addressed concerns about price rigidity in the services sector, saying that the issue is not structural inflexibility but rather a process that takes time to adjust.

Current account gap under control

He said, among others, there has been no change in supportive fiscal, monetary and income policies, adding that public debt management has improved and the structure of borrowing is being strengthened.

Şimşek said Türkiye has largely brought its current account deficit under control and placed it on a sustainable trajectory. However, he cautioned, achieving a sustained current account surplus will take more time.

He added that once uncertainty related to Iran eases, energy prices are likely to resume a downward trend, which would positively affect Türkiye’s current account balance, disinflation process and growth outlook.

Oil prices traded near six-month highs on Friday, poised for their first weekly gain in three weeks on growing concern over potential conflict after U.S. President Donald Trump said “really bad things” would happen if Iran does not agree to a nuclear deal in a matter of days.

The major oil producer lies opposite the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula across the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of global oil supply passes. Conflict in the area could limit oil entering the global market and push up prices.

Strong investor interest

Şimşek said international investor interest in Türkiye remains strong, highlighting increased policy consistency and predictability.

He added that he plans to visit Japan in March to meet real‑sector business groups to discuss possible direct investment in Türkiye.

According to Şimşek, the private sector will be able to access more and cheaper financing after 2026.

He also stated that there is no new tax agenda this year regarding corporate tax, income tax, or value-added tax.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

From a 13-month contract at the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 1995 to leading the institution that world leaders now consult for guidance, Fatih Birol plays a dominant role in shaping global energy politics amid rising insecurity, geopolitical fragmentation and the push toward a clean transition.

After working for 20 years in different positions at the IEA, the Turkish energy economist has been heading the institution since 2015 as the executive director. The Paris-based organization’s forecasts and scenarios influence investment decisions worth billions, and its warnings can unsettle governments.

Born in Ankara in 1958 to a military doctor and a housewife, Birol describes a childhood marked less by ambition than by family cohesion.

His father, who came from humble beginnings, worked multiple jobs to support the household. “We were known as the happy family,” Birol told Anadolu Agency (AA). “Having your parents beside you gives a child confidence.” He spent his childhood between family, school and playing football in the streets.

Birol was, by his own account, an average student. At the Istanbul Technical University, where he studied electrical engineering despite his father’s wish that he become a doctor, he says he was “almost average.” The lesson he draws today is simple: academic brilliance is not destiny. “If you love your work, you can succeed.”

For a time, his ambitions lay far from energy economics. He flirted seriously with cinema, making short films and working as an assistant director before moving to Vienna to attend the Film Academy. But then reality intervened. To make ends meet, he shoveled snow and took manual jobs. “I realized that life was not as easy as it seemed – especially financially,” he said.

A scholarship from the Austrian government redirected him toward energy economics. Birol received an MSc and a Ph.D. in energy economics from the Technical University of Vienna.

31 years at IEA

An oil analyst position at OPEC followed. The pay was good and the contract was permanent. Yet something felt narrow. “I wanted to work on global issues, especially those affecting developing countries,” he said. So, he made a decision that still defines his narrative: left a lifetime contract for a 13-month position at the IEA.

“I chose the 13-month contract,” he said. “And this year marks my 31st at the IEA.”

He joined the IEA at an entry-level position in 1995. That same year, an election for executive director of the institution was underway. Birol recalled what he thought back at the time: why not me as the head of the IEA, one day?

Over the years, he rose to chief economist and in 2015, became the agency’s first internal candidate to be elected executive director by unanimous vote. He was reelected for a third term in 2022.

On the day he was elected in 2015, he asked for a moment to call home. Birol wanted to call his father, but could not as he was ill. He spoke instead to his mother, who recently turned 90 and whom he still calls every morning, no matter where he is.

Despite international honors – including France’s the Legion of Honour, the country’s highest distinction and the Japanese Emperor’s Order of the Rising Sun – he said the greatest happiness lies in telling his mother about them. “Making her happy is what matters the most.”

Energy, geopolitics

Birol’s tenure as the head of the IEA has coincided with a decade in which energy security, climate policy and great-power rivalry have converged. He meets world leaders regularly and shares the IEA’s forecasts with them.

He speaks often about data. The IEA’s authority, he noted, rests on numbers rather than ideology. “We always, always look at the data,” he said. “Not emotions. Not politics, not ideology but data.”

Beyond energy, Birol’s long-standing passion remains for Galatasaray, a football club in Istanbul. He tries to schedule around match fixtures and even watches games at 3 a.m. if necessary, especially when he travels. “If I don’t watch, I can’t sleep,” he admitted.

His mornings begin early as he rarely sleeps late and always with Turkish tea. “I cannot live without Rize tea,” he said, referring to the black tea produced in a province in the Black Sea region of Türkiye.

A routine day of his mostly continues with back-to-back meetings.

“I have been in this sector for very long years but have not seen a period when energy and geopolitics were so deeply intertwined. Geopolitics casts a dark shadow over energy,” he said.

It is his philosophy of hard work that has carried him from snow-covered streets in Vienna to the inner circle of global energy diplomacy – proof that a 13-month contract can sometimes reshape an institution, and perhaps a global industry.

At 67, with more than four decades in the field, Birol also offered younger professionals a measured credo: align passion with economic stability. Passion alone can be precarious; money alone can be empty. The two together, he believes, sustain a career.

The Daily Sabah Newsletter

Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.

SIGN ME UP

You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.