Devastating new numbers could doom Trump at the Supreme Court: analysis

A new set of numbers on U.S. trade could be yet another blow to President Donald Trump's odds of getting a good ruling from the Supreme Court on his tariff regime, The Washington Post editorial board wrote on Thursday.

The fundamental problem, wrote the board, is that Trump has partly sold his aggressive "reciprocal tariffs" as a means to balance the U.S. trade deficit, but it isn't doing that.

"In fact, the gap between the value of goods the U.S. imports and goods it exports increased by 5.7 percent in 2025, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday," the editors noted.

That change is bang in line with the trend underway before Trump even took office, wrote the board — and there's a reason for that.

"The trade deficit is driven by patterns of saving and spending," they wrote. "Americans have high levels of consumption and a low savings rate relative to other countries. Hence, a trade deficit. Trade policies have little effect."

"While tariffs didn’t affect the trade deficit, they did harm the U.S. economy," wrote the board. "They have changed the composition of trade to make it less efficient, and Americans have been hit by over $200 billion in higher taxes. Instead of finding the best suppliers to serve their customers, companies are finding the best lobbyists to gain favor with the government."

The Supreme Court is expected any day to rule on whether it is legal for Trump to declare tariffs unilaterally without an act of Congress. Legal observers broadly think they are set to rule against him — and, argued the board, "The facts about the trade deficit are legally relevant," because Trump is using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), under the assumption that trade deficits are an emergency.

"If the IEEPA tariffs aren’t dealing with Trump’s declared emergency, then they are just an enormous tax hike," the board concluded. "It’s actually the biggest revenue grab as a percent of GDP in over 30 years. And it was imposed without congressional approval."