Understanding what a trade deficit is and is not should be the starting point.
By Matthew A. McIntosh
Public Historian
Brewminate
Introduction
From the early days of his 2016 campaign through both of his presidential terms, Donald Trump has framed the U.S. trade deficit as a symbol of American weakness and exploitation. “We don’t win anymore,” he often declared, pointing to the growing trade imbalance—especially with China—as evidence that other countries were “ripping us off.” To Trump, a trade deficit was akin to a company hemorrhaging money, proof that America was losing in global commerce and needed to claw back control through tariffs, tough talk, and new deals.
But this narrative reveals a profound misunderstanding of what a trade deficit actually is—and why it isn’t inherently bad. Trump’s conception of international trade relied on a transactional, zero-sum worldview more at home in a real estate negotiation than in the interdependent ecosystem of the 21st-century global economy. His policies, predicated on this flawed understanding, led to protectionist measures that disrupted supply chains, strained diplomatic alliances, and often hurt the very Americans he claimed to defend.
Let’s explore the basics of what a trade deficit is, how Trump misunderstands it, and the consequences of shaping national trade policy around a fundamentally incorrect premise.
What Is a Trade Deficit—Really?
At its simplest, a trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and services than it exports. The difference between what a nation sells abroad and what it buys from abroad is referred to as the balance of trade. If the U.S. imports $3 trillion in goods and exports $2.5 trillion, it has a $500 billion trade deficit.
But this figure alone does not signify economic failure.
Economists understand trade deficits not as debts or losses, but as natural outcomes of investment flows, consumer demand, and a country’s role in the global economy. For the United States—a high-income, capital-attracting nation with a strong dollar—a trade deficit reflects deep structural factors, not necessarily poor negotiation.
In fact, the U.S. must run a trade deficit as long as it is a magnet for foreign investment. If foreign companies and governments want to buy American assets—real estate, stocks, bonds—those capital inflows have to be offset by capital outflows in the form of imports. It’s not a sign of losing. It’s a reflection of economic strength.
Trump’s Zero-Sum Worldview
Trump, however, approaches trade the way a builder might approach a contract dispute: there’s a winner and a loser. He views every dollar spent on imports as a dollar lost and every dollar gained from exports as a dollar won. This simplistic lens led him to equate a trade deficit with national decline and to cast other countries, especially China, as economic predators.
In a 2018 tweet, he wrote:
“When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win.”
Here, Trump conflates the trade deficit with a net loss—as if the U.S. is paying tribute to foreign governments or getting fleeced by cunning negotiators. But in reality, Americans are buying goods they want—often cheaper or unavailable domestically—and other countries are investing in American assets in return.
There is no missing money. A trade deficit is not a bill that needs to be paid later. It is simply an accounting measure of how goods and capital flow.
The Misguided War on the Deficit
Trump’s misunderstanding has led to a full-scale assault on trade balances, especially with China. The administration imposes tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods, aiming to reduce the deficit by making foreign goods more expensive and, in theory, boosting domestic production.
The results are not what Trump promised:
- The trade deficit has increased, reaching a record high of $916 billion in 2020 after first time and heading that way again in his second. Even with tariffs in place, American consumers and businesses still need foreign goods, and the pandemic only deepened supply chain dependencies.
- China has found workarounds, exporting goods through intermediary nations or targeting U.S. agriculture with retaliatory tariffs, which forces American taxpayers to bail out farmers.
- Prices have increased for American businesses reliant on foreign parts, harming competitiveness and in some cases leading to layoffs or offshoring.
Rather than eliminating the deficit, Trump’s policies expos the degree to which U.S. prosperity is intertwined with global trade—and how poorly designed barriers can backfire.
Trade Deficits and Economic Strength
What Trump and his advisers fail to grasp—or refus to acknowledge—is that the U.S. has run trade deficits for decades, even during periods of high economic growth. The Clinton-era tech boom, the Reagan-era manufacturing expansion, and the Obama-era recovery all featured persistent trade deficits.
This is because the U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency and the United States is seen as one of the safest places on earth to invest capital. Foreign investors routinely purchase American real estate, stocks, bonds, and technology companies. These purchases count as capital account surpluses, which are the flip side of trade account deficits. You cannot have one without the other.
In effect, the trade deficit means the rest of the world is funding U.S. consumption and investment. While there are risks to over-reliance on foreign capital, it’s not the economic loss Trump believes it to be.
Protectionism Built on a False Premise
Because Trump sees the deficit as a threat, he treats trade not as cooperation but as combat. His policies have reflected this:
- Tariffs on steel and aluminum, justified on dubious national security grounds, hit allies and increased costs for domestic industries that use those materials.
- Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) removed the U.S. from a strategic trade bloc designed to counterbalance China, ceding influence in the Asia-Pacific.
- NAFTA renegotiation (into the USMCA) made modest changes, but the aggressive tone damaged trust and created uncertainty in cross-border investment.
These actions were often met with retaliation, harming American exporters and straining diplomatic ties. For importers and consumers, the result was higher prices and less access to goods. For farmers and manufacturers, it was unpredictability and lost markets.
The Danger of Populist Economics
Why does this matter? Because trade policy based on false premises leads to real-world consequences. When the public is told that trade deficits are national losses, the political pressure mounts to “fix” them—often through damaging and ineffective tools.
Economists across the political spectrum have warned that such views ignore the complexity of modern trade. Countries don’t “win” or “lose” at trade. They specialize, exchange, and benefit in different ways. Trying to force balanced trade through tariffs is like trying to fix a car engine by hammering it into shape.
Trump’s approach has resonated with many voters because it appears to offer a simple explanation for complex issues—job loss, deindustrialization, wage stagnation. But these issues are rooted in a wide array of factors, including automation, tax policy, and corporate consolidation. The trade deficit was never the villain.
Conclusion: Facts Matter in Policy
Trump’s consistent mischaracterization of the trade deficit has revealed not just a misunderstanding of economics but a broader pattern: governing by gut instinct and rhetorical flourish rather than empirical evidence. For importers, exporters, and consumers alike, this leads to instability, confusion, and unnecessary financial strain.
The United States does face real trade challenges—like unfair subsidies abroad, lax labor standards, or intellectual property theft—but they require thoughtful, strategic responses rooted in reality, not economic myth. Understanding what a trade deficit is—and more importantly, what it is not—should be the starting point for any meaningful conversation on trade policy. Without that understanding, we risk turning trade into theater, and policy into performance.
Originally published by Brewminate, 07.01.2025, under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
About the Author
