The Supreme Court may have ruled 6-3 against President Trump’s use of an international emergency law to impose tariffs. But Mr. Trump seems intent on continuing the experiment he has run with the U.S. economy over the past year, in which he has raised tariffs to levels not seen since the 1930s.
In a news conference at the White House on Friday, Mr. Trump made a series of false claims about the economic impact of tariffs and he promised to replace, or even increase, them using laws other than the one the court rejected.
“It’s ridiculous but it’s OK. Because we have other ways, numerous other ways,” the president said. “The numbers can be far greater than the hundreds of billions we’ve already taken in.”
“We broke every record in the book, and we are continuing to do so,” the president said about his tariffs.
By the end of Friday, he said he would impose a new set of levies, including a 10 percent across-the-board tariff. Then on Saturday, Mr. Trump suddenly raised the tariffs to 15 percent, the limit allowed by the new legal provision he was using. “During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs,” he said in a post on Truth Social.
To the president, tariffs are the antidote to globalization, a way to force more manufacturing back to the United States, reduce America’s reliance on foreign products and lower the trade deficit. But the economic evidence so far has not been in his favor. Instead of shifting manufacturing back into the United States, Mr. Trump’s tariffs mostly appear to have reshuffled trade, at great cost to U.S. companies.
Just the day before the Supreme Court issued its ruling, the government reported annual trade data for last year, including several metrics that controverted Mr. Trump’s claims. The data showed that the trade deficit — the gap between what America imports from other countries and what it exports — continued to widen in December, and that the annual trade deficit in goods last year hit a record high. Exports of U.S. services, a strength of the American economy, helped reduce the overall trade deficit. But Mr. Trump has spent little time focusing on that.
One source of Mr. Trump’s anger — the trade deficit with China — did narrow. Chinese imports fell nearly 30 percent in 2025. But U.S. exports to China also fell, including soybeans. And while American businesses and consumers may have bought fewer goods from China, imports from other countries like Vietnam and Taiwan surged. Trade deficits with Vietnam, Mexico, India and other countries were the largest on record.
The U.S. economy is generally strong, and some sectors of manufacturing have been doing well. But the gains have been led by industries like electronics and aerospace that are less exposed to tariffs. Other sectors that face hefty tariffs, like auto manufacturers, have been struggling.
Growth in manufacturing output also hasn’t yet translated into more jobs. American manufacturers cut more than 80,000 jobs in the past year.
The president has ignored any data that does not fit his message. This past week, Mr. Trump had claimed on Truth Social that the trade deficit had “BEEN REDUCED BY 78% BECAUSE OF THE TARIFFS BEING CHARGED TO OTHER COMPANIES AND COUNTRIES. IT WILL GO INTO POSITIVE TERRITORY DURING THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MANY DECADES.”
It’s not clear what metrics the president was referring to, and the White House did not clarify.
It’s not particularly unusual that the U.S. trade deficit in goods would rise from the previous year — the U.S. economy continued to grow on an annual basis, meaning Americans grew richer and bought more foreign goods. But the trend has contrasted with Mr. Trump’s stated goals, as well as his claims about the effects his tariffs are having.
For Mr. Trump, the trade deficit has long been a sign of economic weakness.
In April, he used the law just reviewed by the Supreme Court to declare that U.S. trade deficits were an international economic emergency and to impose sweeping tariffs to try to reduce them. Though some economists worry about big trade deficits, many at the time said that trade deficits were neither unusual nor an emergency, since the United States had run them for decades.
Economists also had varying takes about whether tariffs would actually reduce the trade deficit, which is driven by a variety of forces, including government spending and the value of the dollar. Some economists said that tariffs might reduce the trade deficit. But that was because the levies would slow the U.S. economy, which would make Americans poorer and less able to buy foreign goods.
By late last year, the monthly trade deficit was going in Mr. Trump’s favored direction. In October, it hit its lowest monthly level since 2009, and the Trump administration loudly proclaimed the success of its policy.
But a closer examination showed that the drop was driven by odd fluctuations caused by volatile policies. That included huge swings in trade of gold, which investors had used as a hedge against tariffs, as well as pharmaceuticals, which had been affected by the threat of tariffs.
There was also the question of how long the trend would last. Businesses had stockpiled large amounts of goods ahead of tariffs going into effect, so they didn’t need to import as much later. But those stockpiles wouldn’t last forever.
In November and December, U.S. imports and the trade deficit rebounded significantly. The increase was driven in part by imports of expensive semiconductors, used by data centers to produce artificial intelligence, which the president has exempted from tariffs. With A.I. powering U.S. economic growth and the stock market, the president has been hesitant to clamp down on imports of these chips.
Brad W. Setser, an economist at the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believed that the trade deficit could fall if the greater revenue generated by the tariffs helped to shrink the government deficit and the government didn’t spend that money elsewhere. But imports and the trade deficit had remained high because Mr. Trump had exempted major categories of goods from tariffs, like electronics and pharmaceuticals.
“If you tax the imported component of consumption heavily enough, in my view it will bring the trade deficit down,” he said. “It does so at a cost, though, that this administration wasn’t willing to pay.”
It’s difficult to say where trends in trade are headed in the next year. It will likely be a year of uncertainty: Mr. Trump said Friday that he would use a provision of a 1974 trade law known as Section 122 to impose a new 10 percent tariff that only lasts for 150 days. After that, the tariffs would need to be approved by Congress or replaced by different authorities.
That statute is linked not to trade deficits but to “balance of payments deficit” — when a country’s payments to other countries exceed its receipts from them. The trade deficit is related to the balance of payments, but it’s not exactly the same, and some critics of Mr. Trump argued that the new rationale for tariffs was also specious.
Despite all the uncertainty, one thing is clear: Mr. Trump’s tariffs have so far not done much to solve the emergency he said they were directed at in the first place.
“The tariffs did not succeed in revitalizing U.S. manufacturing,” Mr. Setser said. “And the tariffs did not succeed in meaningfully changing the overall trade deficit.”
Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.
The post Trump’s Trade Gamble Will Continue, Despite Supreme Court Rebuke appeared first on New York Times.
