The Trump administration’s hallmark “alternative facts” may infiltrate U.S. economic data.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the White House “is considering changing the way it calculates U.S. trade deficits, a shift that would make the country’s trade gap appear larger than it had in past years.”

People familiar with the matter told the Journal that employees of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office were asked to tweak trade data by excluding re-exports, or goods that are first imported to the U.S. and then exported unchanged to a country such as Canada or Mexico.

The change effectively increases the perceived trade deficit—for example, the $63.1 billion trade deficit with Mexico in 2016 would become a $115.4 billion deficit—which observers warned could be used for political means.

Pointing to President Donald Trump’s repeated promises to bring back jobs and increase domestic manufacturing, MSNBC noted Tuesday: “At least in theory, trade data calculations that make the gap appear bigger could make it easier for the president to push his vision on stricter trade deals. A larger trade deficit could give the administration leverage to renegotiate deals such as NAFTA, which Trump has vowed to rework.”

Similarly, Ben White and Mary Lee wrote at Politico‘s “Morning Money” column on Tuesday that “the idea makes no economic sense and would simply inflate the trade deficit, allowing the administration to scream louder about unfair trade deals.”

“Seems like alternative data to me. That is, data with no meaning.”
—Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics

Mark Zandi with Moody’s Analytics further explained how “as currently measured, products that are imported into the country and then exported without change have no impact on the trade deficit. It’s a wash. As it should be.”

Click Here: Geelong Cats Guernsey

“With the proposed measurement change,” Zandi continued, “these products would be counted in imports, but not exports, increasing the trade deficit, and presumably reducing GDP. But the trade deficit didn’t widen nor did GDP decline. Seems like alternative data to me. That is, data with no meaning.”