A coalition of top economists has filed a legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff strategy will worsen — not reduce — the U.S. trade deficit, directly undermining the emergency justification behind the tariffs.
The brief, filed as part of an ongoing legal battle over Trump’s authority to impose near-universal tariffs, claims that the president’s economic rationale lacks foundation. Trump has said the tariffs are needed to address an ongoing trade deficit crisis, calling it a national emergency. But the economists, including former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and Nobel laureate Roger Myerson, counter that trade deficits are normal and not inherently dangerous.
“Trade deficits do not constitute a national emergency,” the attorneys for the economists wrote. “There is no known tipping point that transforms a persistent trade deficit into a national security catastrophe.”
Trump has stated that the tariffs he imposed — dubbed “reciprocal tariffs” — generated $20 trillion in pledged foreign investment. But the economists argue that such investments will naturally increase imports, thereby raising the trade deficit.
“When the United States receives $1 trillion in foreign investments, it receives $1 trillion in imports,” the brief states. “Increasing net foreign investment in the U.S. means increasing the U.S. trade deficit.”
The economists also targeted the legal foundation for the tariffs, warning that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — the law Trump invoked to declare a trade emergency — does not give the president the authority to restructure the entire U.S. trade system. The 76-word statute doesn’t even mention tariffs, they note.
The brief accuses the administration of violating the “major questions doctrine,” which requires clear congressional approval for sweeping economic changes. The economists argue that Trump’s tariffs have massive national impact — including on tax revenue, prices, and economic structure — and therefore cannot be justified under vague statutory authority.
An August Congressional Budget Office report estimated Trump’s tariffs could generate $4 trillion over the next decade, but also warned of higher consumer prices and decreased purchasing power for American families.
Despite the criticisms, Trump remains firm, warning that trade deficits threaten long-term U.S. economic security. He declared a national emergency in April to justify the tariffs, though many of those rates have since been suspended or modified.
The economists’ brief may shape how the Supreme Court views the case, which could determine the future limits of presidential power over trade policy.
