Baghdad sues Iraqs autonomous Kurdistan regional government over $110 billion US energy deal
The Iraqi federal government has initiated legal proceedings against the semi-autonomous Kurdistan regional government (KRG) over recent oil and gas agreements signed with US firms, citing constitutional violations.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The lawsuit, filed by Iraq's oil ministry, challenges two contracts the KRG signed with HKN Energy and WesternZagros to develop the Miran and Topkhana-Kurdamir gas fields in Sulaymaniyah province. These deals, announced by KRG Prime Minister Masrour Barzani during his visit to Washington DC, are valued at a combined $110 billion over their lifetimes.
Baghdad asserted that such agreements must receive federal approval, referencing a 2022 ruling by Iraq's federal supreme court which deemed the KRG's independent oil and gas law unconstitutional.
The oil ministry said that direct contracts between the KRG and foreign entities without federal oversight violate Iraq's constitution, and it leaves the deal null and void.
In response, the KRG maintained that the agreements were extensions of previously established contracts and fell within its constitutional rights. The KRG's ministry of natural resources emphasized that these deals were not new and have been recognized as legal and legitimate by Iraqi courts.
This legal dispute further complicates the resumption of oil exports through the Iraq-Turkey pipeline, which has been inactive since March 2023 following an international arbitration ruling against Turkey for unauthorized Kurdish oil exports, despite the pressure from the Trump administration.
A swift restart of oil exports from Iraq's Kurdistan region could help counterbalance any decline in Iranian crude shipments, which the US aims to reduce to zero under US President Trump's 'maximum pressure' campaign against Tehran. Analysts noted that Washington's actions are intended to mitigate the global impact of restricting Iranian oil supplies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
14 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump says China ‘totally violated' trade agreement: ‘So much for being Mr Nice Guy!'
US President Donald Trump on Friday accused China of violating its tariff deal with them, and added that he would no longer be 'nice' on trade matters, reigniting tensions between the countries. In a post on TruthSocial, Trump said, 'Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World. We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, 'civil unrest.' I saw what was happening and didn't like it, for them, not for us.' Also Read: Donald Trump calls Elon Musk 'terrific', announces joint Oval Office presser on 'last day' 'I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn't want to see that happen. Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual. Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!! The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!' Trump added. Trump's accusations come soon after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that trade talks with China were "a bit stalled," in an interview with Fox News. Also Read: Trump administration may add temporary tariffs of up to 15% using existing law: Report US trade representative Jamieson Greer, in a CNBC interview, echoed Trump's allegation, saying that America was concerned with China's purported non-compliance with the tariff deal. "[The US] did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow rolling their compliance, "said Greer, adding that China's actions needed to be discussed and addressed.
Mint
19 minutes ago
- Mint
US consumer spending slows to 0.2% in April while inflation sees moderate jump
US consumer spending increased marginally in April as a rush to beat higher prices from import duties slowed. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity, rose 0.2% last month after an unrevised 0.7% jump in March, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said on Friday. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast consumer spending climbing 0.2%. Pre-emptive buying of goods ahead of President Donald Trump's sweeping import tariffs helped to push spending higher in the prior month. Most of the tariffs have been implemented though higher duties on goods have been delayed until July. Duties on Chinese imports have been slashed to 30% from 145% until mid-August. Economists have argued that Trump's aggressive trade policy will sharply slow economic growth this year and boost inflation, concerns echoed by Federal Reserve officials. Minutes of the U.S. central bank's May 6-7 meeting published on Wednesday noted "participants judged that downside risks to employment and economic activity and upside risks to inflation had risen, primarily reflecting the potential effects of tariff increases." The U.S. central bank has kept its benchmark overnight interest rate in the 4.25%-4.50% range since December. A U.S. trade court on Wednesday blocked most of Trump's tariffs from going into effect in a sweeping ruling that the president overstepped his authority. They were temporarily reinstated by a federal appeals court on Thursday, adding another layer of uncertainty over the economy's outlook. The economy by all measures contracted at a 0.2% annualized rate in the first quarter after growing at a 2.4% pace in the October-December quarter. With the exception of trade data, most official economic reports are yet to show the negative effects of tariffs in a significant way, though sentiment surveys have deteriorated. Economists expect the hit could become evident in June data. Inflation was benign in April, with retailers likely still selling inventory accumulated before the tariffs. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index rose 0.1% last month after being unchanged in March, the BEA said. In the 12 months through April, PCE prices increased 2.1% after advancing 2.3% in March. Stripping out the volatile food and energy components, the PCE price index gained 0.1% last month. That followed a similar rise in the so-called core PCE inflation in March. In the 12 months through April, core inflation rose 2.5% after climbing 2.7% in March. The Fed tracks the PCE price measures for its 2% inflation target. Economists expect inflation to accelerate this year as tariffs raise goods prices. Consumers' one-year inflation expectations have soared. The Fed minutes on Wednesday showed some policymakers assessed that the surge in short-term inflation expectations "could make firms more willing to raise prices." They also saw a risk that longer-term inflation expectations "could drift upward, which could put additional upward pressure on inflation." (Reporting by Lucia Mutikani; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Will you get a refund for Trump tariffs after federal court's ruling? Check details
What did the US court of International trade say? Live Events What happens now? Tariff refunds and Trump team's response (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel US President Donald Trump on Thursday received temporary approval to continue collecting tariffs under emergency powers, just a day after a separate court ruled that he had exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping levies on foreign imports. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit allowed the April 2 tariffs to remain in place while the White House appeals the trade court's decision. The New York-based court said the US Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate commerce with other nations, and that this was not superseded by the president's remit to safeguard the businesses and a group of states had challenged the tariffs that have shaken up the world economic order. Now that two federal courts have ruled that President Trump had overstepped his authority in ordering the tariffs, many have been asking one question: Will they get that money back?On Wednesday, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president authority to impose his sweeping tariffs or bypass Congress' typical control over economic policy and commerce. The 1977 law was cited by Trump as justification for the majority of his tariffs, most notably those unveiled on "Liberation Day" in early April."The court does not read IEEPA to confer such unbounded authority and sets aside the challenged tariffs imposed thereunder," the ruling read. The decision, made after multiple lawsuits accusing the president of overstepping authority on trade matters, addresses the paused 'reciprocal' tariffs as well as the 10 percent baseline tariff applied worldwide. Additionally, the ruling stops the 'trafficking' tariffs that were imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico in response to the public health crisis linked to fentanyl and other illegal drugs entering the the ruling does not concern the tariffs on autos, auto parts, steel or aluminum, which were brought under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. It allows the president to limit imports of specific goods if these are considered a threat to national security."This will do tremendous damage to Trump's agenda. His whole second term seemed to be DOGE, deport, and (trade) deals," Todd Tucker, trade expert with the New York-based Roosevelt Institute think tank, posted to BlueSky on Thursday. "On trade, in particular, why would any country waste time negotiating to lower his tariffs if he can't impose them in the first place?"The administration has already appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, describing the CIT's ruling as a 'judicial coup.' Meanwhile, economists have highlighted alternative options for the president to pursue his trade agenda despite the court's the ruling is upheld, the administration may be required to refund billions of dollars in import duties that have already been collected. According to the Kobeissi Letter, approximately $10 billion in tariff revenue has been gathered since April 2, though an analysis by Newsweek using official Treasury Department data suggests the amount could be significantly Reinsch, former under secretary of commerce for export administration under the Clinton administration and president of the National Foreign Trade Council from 2001 to 2016, told Newsweek, 'I believe the court's order should prompt CBP to suspend the liquidation of entries moving forward. This would mean that if the ruling is ultimately upheld, importers could reclaim their payments.'Reinsch told Newsweek that, for goods already processed by customs authorities, importers may also be able to sue the administration."The CIT decision ruling the tariffs illegal and vacating them gives importers good grounds to do that," he said, "but the administration will probably resist."The Trump administration has acknowledged its responsibility to issue refunds for certain tariff charges if those duties are later reduced or rescinded. In late April, following a decision that some tariffs should not be cumulative or 'stacked,' Trump signed an executive order stating that the change would apply retroactively to specific tariffs. Refunds for those who had paid increased import taxes would be issued in accordance with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) procedures and applicable stance was also reflected in the administration's announcements regarding exemptions to the reciprocal tariffs. The CBP has since issued guidance outlining how importers can request refunds for duties paid on products that later became exempt or subject to lower tariffs. While importers—usually U.S. companies, though sometimes foreign exporters contractually responsible for duties—may qualify for refunds, William Reinsch told Newsweek that consumers are unlikely to benefit from the Court of International Trade's (CIT) ruling, even if they paid higher prices on imported goods in recent months.'The importers who paid the tariffs might be reimbursed, but they're not required to pass those savings on to consumers—although some might do so voluntarily,' Reinsch said. He added that he was skeptical any consumer-led lawsuits for damages would be successful.
