The White House says manufacturing is reshoring as Trump attacks the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling

The Council of Economic Advisers published an evaluation of President Trump’s effect on manufacturing covering his second term to date, and said the data demonstrate that the sector is seeing robust growth under the administration’s pro-growth policies¹. The council also said manufacturing jobs are reshoring in America after the Biden administration shipped them abroad, in a sentence the published summary cuts off¹. This is the president’s own council assessing the president’s own record, and it is evidence of what the administration claims rather than of what the sector did.

Coverage of the release reported the White House claiming 72,000 new US manufacturing jobs in 2026². The same account referred to survey readings above 50 indicating expanding manufacturing activity, without naming the index in the part of the text available². A separate report described a blue-collar jobs boom in a key American industry as the re-shoring policies pay off and credited Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, in a passage the excerpt leaves unfinished³.

Why it matters to investors

The tariff machinery the claim rests on has lost in court. Trump attacked the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling and did not specify the amount of tariff revenue affected by it, nor provide an accounting of its impact on the federal deficit⁵. He separately blamed the ruling for the loss of hundreds of billions in revenue and said it had hit the US economy⁶. He defended the tariff policies at a Republican campaign rally in Clarksville, Tennessee, where he portrayed import duties as a benefit in a sentence the excerpt does not finish⁷.

The costs of that policy are not evenly spread. An Iowa opinion column argued that putting a 50% tariff on most imported steel raises the cost of steel and complicates matters for the US farmers and manufacturers who use it⁴. That is the same cost base the council credits with the jobs gain^1,3.

What to watch

Whether independent data confirm the council’s reading. The release is an in-house evaluation¹, and the jobs figure reaching the public is the one the White House chose to publish².

The revenue hole is the second thing to size. Trump has given no figure for the tariff revenue the ruling affects⁵ while claiming hundreds of billions⁶; the distance between those two statements is a rough measure of how much of the programme survives. Third is the input-cost trade: factory employment set against the farmers and manufacturers paying more for steel⁴, with the administration tying the jobs to its tax law rather than to the tariffs alone³.