logo
OECD cuts global 2025 growth forecast to 2.9% over tariffs

OECD cuts global 2025 growth forecast to 2.9% over tariffs

RTÉ News​2 days ago

The OECD has slashed its annual global growth forecast today, warning that US President Donald Trump's tariffs blitz will stifle the world economy - hitting the US especially hard.
After 3.3% growth last year, the world economy is now expected to expand by a "modest" 2.9% in 2025 and 2026, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
In its previous report in March, the OECD had forecast growth of 3.1% for 2025 and 3% for 2026.
Since then, Trump has launched a wave of tariffs that has rattled financial markets.
"The global outlook is becoming increasingly challenging," said the OECD, an economic policy group of 38 mostly wealthy countries.
It said "substantial increases" in trade barriers, tighter financial conditions, weaker business and consumer confidence, and heightened policy uncertainty will all have "marked adverse effects on growth" if they persist.
The OECD holds a ministerial meeting in Paris today and tomorrow, with US and EU trade negotiators expected to hold talks on the sidelines of the gathering after Trump threatened to hit the European Union with 50% tariffs.
The Group of Seven advanced economies is also holding a meeting focused on trade.
"For everyone, including the US, the best option is that countries sit down and get an agreement," OECD chief economist Alvaro Pereira said in an interview with AFP.
"Avoiding further trade fragmentation is absolutely key in the next few months and years," Pereira said.
Trump imposed in April a baseline tariff of 10% on imports from around the world. He unveiled higher tariffs on dozens of countries but has paused them until July to allow time for negotiations.
The US president has also imposed 25% tariffs on cars and now plans to raise those on steel and aluminium to 50% tomorrow.
US slowdown
In the OECD report, Pereira warned that "weakened economic prospects will be felt around the world, with almost no exception".
He added that "lower growth and less trade will hit incomes and slow job growth".
The outlook is particularly gloomy for the US.
The US economy is now expected to grow by just 1.6% this year, down from 2.2% in the previous outlook, and slow further to 1.5% in 2026, the OECD said.
"This reflects the substantial increase in the effective tariff rate on imports and retaliation from some trading partners," the OECD said.
The effective tariff rate on US merchandise imports has gone from 2% in 2024 to 15.4%, the highest since 1938, the OECD said.
The OECD also blamed "high economic policy uncertainty, a significant slowdown in net immigration, and a sizeable reduction in the federal workforce".
While annual inflation is expected to "moderate" among the Group of 20 economies to 3.6% in 2025 and 3.2% in 2026, the United States is "an important exception".
US inflation is expected to accelerate to just under 4% by the end of the year, two-times higher than the Federal Reserve's target for consumer price increases.
The OECD slightly reduced its growth forecast for China - which was hit with triple-digit tariffs that have been temporarily lowered - from 4.8% to 4.7% this year.
Another country with a sizeable downgrade is Japan: the OECD cut the country's growth forecast from 1.1% to 0.7%.
The outlook for the euro zone economy, however, remains intact with 1% growth.
"There is the risk that protectionism and trade policy uncertainty will increase even further and that additional trade barriers might be introduced," Pereira wrote.
"According to our simulations, additional tariffs would further reduce global growth prospects and fuel inflation, dampening global growth even more," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ukrainians in Ireland succeeding in asylum applications at twice rate of other nationalities
Ukrainians in Ireland succeeding in asylum applications at twice rate of other nationalities

Irish Times

timean hour ago

  • Irish Times

Ukrainians in Ireland succeeding in asylum applications at twice rate of other nationalities

Almost 1,000 Ukrainians have applied for asylum in Ireland, with more than 80 per cent succeeding in their application – twice the rate of other nationalities –, data from the Department of Justice shows. The figures, provided to The Irish Times, show since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 until May 26th this year, a total of 969 Ukrainian nationals have applied for international protection. Some 77 applications from Ukrainians have been made this year. 'Since 2022, 367 decisions regarding international protection applications from Ukrainian nationals have been made,' a department spokesman said. He said 83 per cent of these 'resulted in the applicant being given a permission to remain in the State – generally refugee status'. READ MORE 'In 2022-2024, 217 decisions regarding Ukrainian applications for international protection were made. 'In 2025 to May 28th, a further 149 decisions have been made.' While the more than 100,000 Ukrainian nationals here have temporary refugee status, providing them with the right to work and to study, school places and childcare, as well as heavily State-subsidised accommodation, their status is not guaranteed into the future. In contrast, international protection guarantees the right to live and work here permanently, as well as to bring immediate family to live here. The EU Temporary Protection Directive, introduced in March 2022, has been renewed annually. It remains unclear whether it will be further extended in March 2026. Brian Killoran, co-ordinator of Ukraine Civil Society Forum, says increasing numbers of Ukrainians are asking about applying for international protection as they look to solidify their legal position in the country. 'Last year, a survey showed 53 per cent of people from Ukraine living here since 2022 wanted to stay,' he said. This represented an increase on the 41 per cent who expressed a wish to stay permanently the previous year. 'The longer they are here, they put down roots, children are in school, the more likely they are to want to remain here. They are increasingly asking about their options and one of those is international protection,' said Mr Killoran. If a significant proportion were to apply in the coming year, 'that could put unbearable pressure on the international protection system', he warned. 'We need to know what will happen post-March 2026. Member states need to say what are the long-term plans.' When people asked about applying for asylum, he said they were advised 'it is far from guaranteed'. He also said there was a potential 'loss of rights' if the applicant was transferred out of the temporary protection system into the asylum application system. These could include losing the right to work, to study and to live in their current accommodation, said Mr Killoran. 'They may find making an application for international protection disruptive to their life. We can't say to people, 'Don't do it' but we do advise people to get advice. An asylum application is not an easy route. [ A Ukrainian in Dublin: 'People are less direct in Ireland. There are 50 shades of great' Opens in new window ] 'Ultimately, the State needs to define post-temporary protection options. The priority is that they do that. 'Temporary protection was never meant to be a long-term measure, so bringing that to an end has to be done in a co-ordinated way,' said Mr Killoran.

Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines
Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines

RTÉ News​

timean hour ago

  • RTÉ News​

Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines

The EU's sweeping new rules on the regulation of medicines has been one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in recent times, with fierce lobbying by the pharma sector - particularly in Ireland - and member states divided on which to prioritise: cheaper medicines for patients, or a regulatory environment that supports indigenous European manufacturers in the face of US dominance. After two years of deadlock, 26 member states have agreed on a compromise proposal, with only Malta - which has its own small-market medicines challenge - abstaining. Ironically, it was the Trump administration's hostility to science and medicine regulators that convinced EU member states that the moment to finally agree on a new set of rules was at hand. "In the US you have a chaotic situation," says one source familiar with negotiations, "between [Health Secretary] Robert Kennedy Jr, who doesn't believe in science or vaccines, and the Trump administration, which has sacked three and a half thousand people from the Food and Drugs Administration. "There was a sense in Europe that we should try to get this proposal settled so that we have a stable system in Europe when there's instability elsewhere." The legislation will now go to the European Parliament, where negotiations between MEPs, the member states and the European Commission, begin on 17 June. There are hopes that the entire package could be adopted by the end of the year. The European Commission first proposed overhauling the EU's medicines regime in April 2023, as Europe was emerging from the Covid pandemic. The EU was reeling from the strain the emergency put on health systems and on the availability of certain kinds of medicines, with a deepening awareness that Europe was overly dependent on China and India for drugs such as antibiotics. At the same time, digitalisation and the availability of clinical data were opening up new possibilities in how medicines are developed and used. Despite that, innovative therapies were not reaching patients across Europe at the same speed while in some member states patients did not have access to medicines they needed due to shortages. The instinct to reduce health spending further has been given fresh impetus by the expected surge in EU defence expenditure following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Overall, the pharma package sought to boost the competitiveness of the sector, reduce the administrative burden - and the over-reliance on India and China - and to tackle the environmental impact of drug manufacture and use. The central, most divisive issue was around the protection that big European pharma countries would have in holding on to clinical data before generic manufacturers - who could produce cheaper drugs - could access it. It became a straightforward contest between the competing interests of big pharma, which argued that companies needed the protection in order to invest more in life-saving domestic European research and innovation, and those countries which were more interested in lowering the cost of medicines and making those medicines more accessible to patients. The legislation was always going to face a stormy passage. "The difficulty was that the countries that didn't have pharmaceutical industries were very much opposing the regulatory data protection (RDP) element because all they were interested in was making medicines available to citizens," says Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, a substitute member of the European Parliament health committee. "Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and others would have been very, very reluctant to support the strong protection of regulatory data, while it was the old West, countries like Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands that have big manufacturing and pharma centres, a lot of research and development, who were pushing for it." The new rules would attempt to reconcile the issue of regulatory data protection, which theoretically encourages pharmaceutical companies to invest more in life-saving medicines, with the need to make drugs more affordable. Under existing EU rules, pharma companies were entitled to keep clinical data for eight years - the so-called regulatory data protection (RDP) before they were obliged to make it accessible. After the eight years was up, generic producers could file an application to use the data, at which point the patent holder enjoyed a further two - and sometimes three - extra years of protection. Under the commission's 2023 proposal, there would be a two-year reduction in the baseline RDP to six years, with an extra two years of protection. However, pharma companies could claw back a further two years of protection - extending RDP to ten years. The ten-year protection period would be available if the patent holder won approval for significant new innovations (one extra year of protection), if the product addressed an "unmet medical need", ie, where there was product authorised in the EU for a particular disease, or where the disease was associated with a high death-rate (such a situation would merit an extra six months of market protection), or if the manufacturer conducted clinical trials or extended access to all member states (another six months). Essentially, the commission was attempting to balance the need to reward medicines that meet the greatest clinical need, while speeding up access to generic producers who will make drugs that are cheaper. However, the new rules were facing hostility from traditional pharma manufacturing countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, who argued that a shorter clinical data protection period would stymie research. The Irish Times reported on a full scale lobbying effort by industry, including a claim in a letter to Tánaiste Simon Harris by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA) that the proposal could lead to a 22% drop in new medicines being developed over the coming decade. It is understood there were tensions between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, who shared the concerns of industry, and the Department of Health, which was more concerned with lowering the cost of medicines and making them more accessible. A number of sources have said that while member states with important pharma sectors went public two years ago, when the commission first proposed reducing clinical data protection from eight years to six, in demanding the status quo of eight years, Ireland remained on the fence, and did so right up until a key meeting of EU ambassadors on 21 May. On that date, Ireland joined a blocking majority of ten countries - including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany - to oppose the latest Polish proposal that would have essentially increased the RDP by one year to seven, but short of eight. As a result of that blocking minority, the Poles came back with another compromise text, which is - to all intents and purposes - a return to eight years, with various caveats and conditions designed to make medicines cheaper and more accessible (one part of the text aims to ensure that medicinal products are available in all member states and provides for regulatory action if the marketing authorisation holder does not comply). Officials say the text provides more reassurance for generic producers, and will cut timelines for authorised medicines to get to market. There are other measures, including making it easier to have multi-country and multilingual medicine packs, which should reduce production costs and make it easier to move medicines around Europe. At yesterday morning's meeting of EU ambassadors, the new text received overwhelming support. The IPHA are understood to be broadly satisfied with the compromise. In a statement, the organisation said it "believes the [member states] position represents a more balanced approach than had originally been proposed by the Commission. "As the legislative process enters the final phase, EU decision makers must continue to find solutions that will keep Europe competitive through a predictable and globally competitive environment for research, development and manufacturing, while ensuring fairer access to innovative medicines for patients across the EU." Support is not uniform. The chief executive of the Confederation of Danish Industry Lars Sandahl Sørensen accused member states of triggering a potential flight of European industry to Trump's America. "We are de facto making the EU's pharmaceutical industry less competitive and thus European society vulnerable," he said. The European pharma lobby group EFPIA described yesterday's position by member states as "a missed opportunity to position Europe's life sciences sector at the forefront of global competition". In a statement, EFPIA said: "The choice to reduce intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies makes Europe less attractive, discouraging investment and jeopardising the development of innovative treatments in Europe without addressing the underlying barriers and delays to patient access." There is some scepticism over the industry's seeming exploitation of Donald Trump's persistence in threatening tariffs on European pharmaceutical exports and reshoring manufacturing to the US. In April the industry wrote to commission president Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that €50.6 billion in capital investment and €52.6bn in research and development expenditure were at risk if the EU continued to over-regulate the pharma sector. "Unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US," EFPIA warned. Officials suggest the upcoming Critical Medicines Act (CMA) will further boost access to cheaper medicines. Drugs such as those for diabetes or HRT have been susceptible to disruption and shortages in recent years because they are often generic and produced outside the EU. The CMA will aim to encourage more manufacturing of such drugs in Europe. The action now moves to the European Parliament, where so-called trilogues - three way negotiations between member states, the Commission and MEPs - will further shape the legislation. Last year the parliament adopted its own position, calling for an RDP of seven and a half years with the possibility of some extensions. The parliament has since moved to the right, following last year's elections, so it remains to be seen if further battles are expected.

Friedrich Merz gets ready for Trump's Oval Office endurance test
Friedrich Merz gets ready for Trump's Oval Office endurance test

Irish Times

time2 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Friedrich Merz gets ready for Trump's Oval Office endurance test

During the first Donald Trump presidency, the easiest way to annoy Angela Merkel 's inner circle was to ask them about a state visit for the German-American president to his ancestral homeland. Trump's grandfather left the wine-growing town of Kallstadt, near Frankfurt, for good in 1905, but repeated Merkel invitations for Trump to return fell on deaf ears. On Thursday, when Germany 's new chancellor Friedrich Merz meets the US president for the first time they will have plenty to discuss, from Ukraine to tariffs . To build rapport, however, Merz is likely to offer Trump a round of golf in Germany to sweeten a public invitation to visit his ancestral homeland. READ MORE The two men don't just share a love of golf: Germany's 69-year-old conservative-liberal leader is closer in age and political outlook than his younger, centrist predecessors as chancellor. As opposition leader and in office, Merz has taken a pragmatic approach to Trump – even if his lifelong Atlanticist convictions have taken a beating of late. Ahead of the visit, Merz sought advice from recent survivors of Trump's new reality television format: the Oval Office endurance test. 'It's always important that you don't talk too long, instead talk briefly and let him talk,' said Merz on public television, revealing the two had swapped mobile numbers after a recent telephone conversation and occasionally texted. 'You have to prepare for him and get involved with him,' added Merz, 'and at the same time not make yourself smaller than we are. We are not supplicants. The most important thing is that we can talk to him reasonably.' Merz and his advisers have been war-gaming the meeting for weeks, including how to approach Trump on the actual war in Ukraine. [ Germany's Merz vows long-range weapons for Ukraine following talks with Zelenskiy Opens in new window ] On this front, Merz will flag how Germany is second only to the US in military and humanitarian support, and has just signed bilateral deals with Kyiv to build long-range weapons. Gingerly, he will press Trump to back further sanctions on Russia and keep the US fully committed to finding peace through talks and security guarantees. Ahead of the June Nato summit in The Hague, Merz will be anxious to address the Nato elephant in the room: how much longer the US will maintain its current military strength this side of the Atlantic. To stretch any withdrawal timeline, and avoid presidential swipes about freeloading Europeans, Merz will acknowledge Europe's previous underspend as a strategic error. Then he will flash his government's effective blank cheque for military investment that will help push German security spending to 5 per cent of annual economic output, including 1.5 per cent on defence-related infrastructure. Merz meets Trump a day after a doubling of US tariffs to 50 per cent on imported steel and aluminium, likely to have a devastating effect on Germany's already ailing metal manufacturers and car companies. The wider trade picture is no better: the US is Germany's most important customer, buying €161.4 billion in goods last year, but the EU's responsibility for trade talks means all Merz can do is appeal to joint interests. On Gaza , both leaders have shifted recently, with Trump appearing to avoid Israeli president Binyamin Netanyahu during his recent Middle East tour. Meanwhile Merz has hit out at the Israeli government in an unprecedented shift, saying last week: 'Allowing the civilian population to suffer in such a way can no longer be explained as a fight against Hamas terrorism.' Given some recent visitors didn't even get a warm meal, the Merz team are delighted their visit includes talks, lunch, a joint press conference and even a bed for the night in Blair House, the 119-room official White House guest digs. German international relations analyst Carlo Masala suggests Merz should 'constantly give Trump the feeling that he is a great statesman who has a right vision'. Republican senator Lindsey Graham struck an upbeat note in Berlin this week, predicting a 'new, more open and fairer' US- EU trade deal within a month. In an interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine daily he said he was 'very impressed' by the harder Merz line on defence and migration. And what of Team Trump's commentaries on German politics: endorsement of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and describing efforts to ban the party as 'tyranny in disguise'? A jovial Graham called the Russia-friendly AfD an expression of voter insecurity over growing criminality linked to 'irrational immigration and wokeism'. 'The people have had enough of it so they are saying, 'go f*** yourselves',' he added. 'The antidote is certainly not friendship with Putin but instead a society with a rational immigration policy of mutual benefit.' And what if Trump accepts the invitation to Kallstadt, famous not just for the future president but also the Heinz ketchup family? Despite previous Trump disinterest, mayor Thomas Jaworek said his town is ready to play its part to improve bilateral relations – so long as the president's armoured car can make it down the narrow streets. 'I believe that Friedrich Merz's initiatives are important for Germany and Europe to put relations with the US on a solid footing,' said Jaworek to the Wirtschafts Woche magazine. 'If we can contribute, then we will do it.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store