Trump's Tariffs Didn't Reduce the Trade Deficit. Why Would They Work Now?
Donald Trump's latest argument for protectionism is undermined by the realities of his own trade policies.

In a letter to The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, former President Donald Trump argues that more tariffs are needed to reduce America's trade deficit, which has grown to a record high under the watch of President Joe Biden.
"Under Joe Biden, our trade deficits, also known as losses, have hit record highs," Trump wrote, in response to the Journal's criticism of his plans for higher tariffs. "Since 2000 the U.S. has racked up $17 trillion in cumulative trade deficits with the world. Only a fool or a fanatic would dismiss these facts as irrelevant."
But only a fool or a fanatic could ignore the fact that we've already witnessed how raising tariffs doesn't reduce the trade deficit, which is the gap between the total value of a country's exports and imports. Trump's latest protectionist proposal is undermined by the reality of Trump's previous trade policies—and the fact that Biden has largely left them untouched since taking office. If America's trade deficits are determined by the policies of the current president—a very iffy claim, but the one Trump is making—then the former president is equally responsible.
The numbers don't lie. America's trade deficit was $49 billion in March 2018, the month Trump announced his trade war and started hiking tariffs. By August 2020, the trade deficit had hit a 14-year high of $67 billion. The deficit has hovered around that same level ever since: It rang in at $65 billion in June, the most recent month for which data are available.
That increase in the trade deficit occurred alongside climbing tariff rates. The average tariff rate on imports was about 1.5 percent when Trump took office. Today, it's over 3 percent. That's due to Trump's tariff increases, and Biden's unwillingness to reverse them.
Those figures ought to raise an obvious question: If tariff rates have increased and the trade deficit has grown, why would yet higher tariffs work to reduce the gap?
Trump's fixation on the trade deficit is not new. He spent much of the 2016 campaign and a significant amount of time during his four years in the White House complaining about the deficit, which he argues is evidence that foreign countries are somehow ripping off American businesses. (That's wrong, but let's not worry about that for now.)
In fact, there's significant evidence that Trump's tariffs actually added to America's trade deficit. That's because one of the consequences of higher tariffs is a reduction in exports, and fewer exports will make a trade deficit grow.
But the main reason why the trade deficit has grown in recent years is that Americans are choosing to buy more stuff from abroad. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Trump's tariff plan amounts to a massive tax increase on Americans whose decisions the former president doesn't like.
The size of the country's trade deficit—like many other economic indicators—is largely beyond the power of a president to control. But if Trump wants to judge the current chief executive by the size of the trade deficit, he should have to answer for the same critique.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"... our trade deficits, also known as losses ..."
I don't understand how a reputedly savvy "businessman" like Donald Trump can fail to know the difference between a trade deficit (virtual) and a business loss (actual) but it makes him even less desirable to be President of the United States again. Failing to learn from his own policy failures further undermines his appearance of competence for the position. Trade deficits are in no way similar to business losses, where an enterprise takes in profits less than expenses, leading to bankruptcy eventually.
Trade deficits actually benefit a nation and its residents by letting them enjoy goods and services in exchange for worthless paper. The only consequence of ongoing trade deficits is reevaluation of the exchange rate for the currency relative to the currencies of other countries. That means that at some point the benefit to consumers might come to an end, but does not lead to bankruptcy for the nation.
Yeah, letting China run roughshod on us has really paid dividends………..
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
Biden agrees that it has, for him.
Yeah, selling stuff Americans want at a price they like is certainly classifiable as "abuse" - no doubt about it! Also Americans pricing their own products too high in order to "maintain organized crime's" - oops! I meant "organized labor's" - high standard of living means that the Chinese can't afford to buy it will certainly be corrected by punitive tariffs. Good job, guys!
You're on the money. In 2013 the Steelworkers Unions were begging Obama for tariffs on imported steel. Obama turned them down. In 2019 Trump gave them the tariffs they wanted and said that this would buy them time to increase manufacturing capability in the US. In 2020 the Unions complained about Trump giving them the tariffs, because they knew that he was only going to keep them in place for a certain amount of time. When Biden took office he INCREASED the tariffs as payback to the Unions for getting him elected.
I suggest that Boehm either sticks to what he knows or he learns what he's actually talking about instead of quoting Leftist rags. He really needs to get that TDS taken care of.
Three decades earlier the steel industry begged Reagan for "protection".
Yeahz like the President is a Mafia Don.
Well Reagan didn't give them tariffs but he gave them other tax breaks. The idea was this would help them to modernize their plants to get them to the level of the rest of the world. Lower production costs,
less labor, better safety. US Steel bought an oil company instead.
I am not creative enough to make this up. Some industries deserve to die and Donald Trump is a lot like a Mafia Don.
nice
What China does to us and the rest of the world is certainly abusive. Are you really this obtuse?
>>I don’t understand how
maybe think from a different angle.
I understand how. Trump is massively ignorant about macroeconomics and is utterly uninterested in remedying that ignorance. Nor would he ever have needed to know or understand while he was merely a crooked property developer.
He is obviously wrong on a number of points here, which is inconvenient for Trump followers with any pretence to economic knowledge. The rest of you don't care, because when Trump says it, it must be true.
The letter displays abject and indefensible ignorance of the mechanics of international trade. But I guess his followers like hearing him slagging off our trading partners and are uninterested in reality.
you definitely need a different angle.
Really? What do you suggest I do? Forget my knowledge of macroeconomics? Conceive of a parallel universe where Trump is right on the meaning of a trade deficit?
Why don't you explain why Trump is right, despite being wrong?
Trump is basically wrong on everything. That doesn't mean Biden is right on everything, but being right on just a few things puts him light years ahead of Trump.
Charlie agrees with you. So that ought to be your first clue. Unless you’re matching socks samefagging each other.
You nailed it.
The only consequence of ongoing trade deficits is reevaluation of the exchange rate for the currency relative to the currencies of other countries. That means that at some point the benefit to consumers might come to an end, but does not lead to bankruptcy for the nation.
Unbelievable nonsense.
1: The trade deficit has always been funded through national debt and quantitative easing, both of which are famously capable of bankrupting nations. (See: Weimar Germany; Venezuela)
2: The federal government uses debt and QE to fund a three-trillion-per-year spoils system that talented people rarely want to work under. (See: Venezuela; post-WWII Britain)
3: When the economy stops requiring skill, you get stuck working for people like Tony Blinken.
(#3 alone should end this debate.)
What China gets in return for the cheap plastic crap they sell us is:
(1) T-bills: these need to be paid back at an increasingly high interest rates.
(2) Bonds: ditto
(3) Shares and acquisitions: these give China massive control over US industry and jobs, plus massive lobbying power.
(4) Land: ditto
(5) Politicians
None of those are “worthless”. Do you think the Chinese are fools? Do you think they would accept “worthless” pieces of paper in return for their industrial output? The only fool in this discussion is you; or perhaps you’re just a left wing propagandist.
Yes, I think the Chinese are fools
They're collectivists, aren't they?
So yes, they re fools.
As well as Trump and his followers.
I listed 5 assets that the CCP is accumulating as a result of the trade deficit. The fact that you don’t understand how dangerous that is only shows that you are a fool. Even the average Trump supporter is smarter than you.
Tariffs will also worsen inflation as they limit supply.
Inflation refers to an increase (“inflation”) of the money supply.
Sometimes people also erroneously use “inflation” to refer to an increase in prices; that doesn’t really make sense, but taxes don’t increase prices; if anything, they reduce demand and hence decrease prices.
You really keep proving that you are a complete nincompoop, Paloma.
A tariff can be a great political tool,but didn't The Don cancel most of them as soon as that became apparent?
Bring on the deficit. Spending less to get more is a good thing.
We seem to be forced into a choice between "Orange Man Bad" and "Make America Fail Even More - Again" narratives. Maybe I'll finally give and sit this one out?
As I have said before the American people deserve a choice Nov 2024 between a intubator-dependent gasping Joe and a Donnie in his prison stripes.
I prefer a choice that allows for executing pedophiles, like you.
America isn't failing. Our biggest problem is nine million job openings and six million people looking for jobs. That creates inflation no matter what the President does because he can't waive immigration quotas.
If we cut back the social welfare state and applied strict eligibility criteria for welfare, disability, single motherhood, etc., if we also reduced the government-imposed overhead costs, those nine million jobs would quickly be filled.
Immigration is not the answer.
Illegals definitely aren’t.
Orange man good,don't be a dodo-voto.
Fatass Donnie loves deficits!
And he proved it.
(actually he is the self-proclaimed King of Debt but we all know deficits become debt)
Instead of wasting our time here you could be off committing suicide. Now get to it your goddamned child rapist.
You must have been looking for the 'those who like to suck Trump's tiny rancid cock' forum.
No, you’re a pedophile. Just admit it, apologize, and commit suicide.
Want to talk about trade deficits? Try those evil grocery stores. We give them all kinds of money and they never buy anything from us. It's so unfair. There is one way to fix it: sales taxes. Make stuff more expensive. That'll teach 'em.
Hey pussy. When are you going to step up?
Trump's Tariffs Didn't Reduce the Trade Deficit. Why Would They Work Now?
Fuck you asshole. We don't call them "Trump's Tariffs" any more, they're called "Bidenomics" and they work spectacularly. Inflation is lower than it's ever been, nearly 18 trillion billion jobs have been created, the debt has been cut by one trillion eight point eight one trillion point eight one point 8 trillion dollars and my wife, Jill, Doctor Jill, is giving free blowjobs to homeless crackheads. Or at least that's what Hunter told me and he's the smartest homeless crackhead I know.
FYI You’re transitioning seamlessly from overt critcism to sarcasm in the same paragraph; it’s confusing.
It's kind of his specialty.
You made sense of that diatrib ? You should have your head examined.
Donald Trump is not the smart. Granted he knows how to manipulate people, but not much more. You only needed to go back to his remark as President than "trade wars were easy to win". Well, they are not. Tariffs have limited value and need to be used sparingly. That President Biden continues to use them far too much tells all. The far left and far right favor restricting foreign trade, we need some voice from the middle showing that trade helps everyone.
You’re confused. YOU are not smart. All of this has been explained to you many times.
You’re just too stupid to understand.
Oh gosh, now my feelings are hurt. How will I go on?
Best that you don’t. Like most democrats, you should commit suicide instead of ruining the world.
Biden's major failure has been to continue Trump's stupid trade policies. He should have made all tariffs on everything one percent as of 1/21/2021.
Biden’s major failure is not to get tough on China. Given that he has been paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, however, that is hardly surprising.
Complains about Tariffs with China. Compares to All Imports. These are not the same.
Imports from China at 20 year low . Exports are about the same.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-u-s-and-china-are-breaking-up-in-charts-282bd878?st=fvjxxafc1inviqk
Then there's the partial quote. Easy way to spot a lie.
This ^
The amount of motivated reasoning and propaganda contained in Reason articles is just astounding.
Reason has become less of a libertarian magazine and more of a source of the latest regime talking points, with talking points hand-selected to target gullible free market advocates.
Wrecking China’s economy should be a key part of American foreign policy.
Wrecking America's economy has been a key part of China's foreign policy for decades. Reciprocity.
Tarrifs aren't necessarily about trade deficits, but Eric pretends otherwise. Tarrifs are just one tool in the box.
Trump’s tariffs were intended to shift critical supply chains away from China. That’s what you need to measure them by. And given how small they were, they were little more than a token, a toe in the water, and nobody expected them to work short term anyway.
In general tariffs serve multiple functions: raising revenues, leveling the regulatory playing field, and keeping totalitarian enemies of the US engaging in economic warfare against the US and redirecting supply chains away from them.
Universal 10% tariffs, as Trump is proposing now, would be away of raising revenue and move move more manufacturing from enemies of the US back to the US.
Given financial and economic realities, “Trump’s tariffs didn’t reduce the trade deficit, why would they work now” is just an idiotic headline for a libertarian magazine. Only a “fool or fanatic” would use those kinds of illogical, irrational arguments against tariffs.
In reality, the US federal government has no choice but to raise taxes substantially to pay for the debt and current spending. This is either going to be income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, or tariffs. Among those choices, tariffs are by far the best way of raising revenue.
No, no…… we must be dependent on our enemies for critical items. That’s the libertarian way.
OK, but only if they repeal income tax first.
Americans are overspending $1.4 trillion per year. Taxes will be raised: either income taxes, or corporate taxes, or capital gains taxes, or tariffs. Take your pick.
Tariffs are by far the least damaging source of additional revenue.
No they weren't. They were designed as virtue signaling to weaponize anger against the Evil Chinese while deflecting from Trump's kowtowing to almost every other anti-American dictator. Supply chain mods would have been highly targeted. The actual tariffs increased the cost of doing business in the United States and contribute to inflation.
Americans love buying American until they see the higher prices.
"Evil Chinese"
You say that like the Chinese government is not currently in the middle of an actual genocide.
I’m sure Charlie worships them.
The Chinese government is evil, and trading with China means trading with the Chinese government.
I don't recall Trump ever mentioning supply chain issues. Nor the fact that good trade policy prevent war. Trump's own econpmic advisor, Gary Cohn, quit because he couldn't get it through Trump's thick skull that tariffs hurt Americans.
Trump’s tariffs specifically targeted China. He justified them with (1) unfair Chinese trade practices, (2) Chinese intellectual property theft, and (3) the need to redirect supply chains away from China. I’m sorry, if you don’t remember that you really weren’t/aren’t paying attention to politics.
And, no, his tariffs didn’t “hurt” Americans; they merely amounted to an additional tax on Americans. Given a $1 trillion deficit, additional taxes on Americans don’t “hurt” Americans, they are a necessity. What hurts Americans is massive budget deficits; massive budget deficits are far worse than higher taxes. It’s unfortunately that we can’t get this through the thick skulls of Washington neo-“liberal”elites and their gullible followers.
i see tariffs as serving a different purpose. if another country is reaming us with tariffs then we should do the same to them. tariffs can be used as leverage to reduce the other country's tariffs or get other things from the other country.
Strangely, the trade deficit has nothing to do with tariffs. Rather, it is the government budget deficit plus the difference between Investment and Savings
If you put on a tariff, you reduce imports. Foreigners have fewer dollars to buy our exports, so exports go down equally. No change in the trade deficit.
Your definition of trade deficit is incorrect. Has nothing to do with the government’s budget. Just sounds that was because of the word deficit.
It is actually the difference in the value of goods and services imported vs exported from a given country. That’s it.
Econophobia. 🙂
Nope, sorry, that is obviously false.
The current use of tariffs were suppose to keep critical industries going at home, stop industrial espionage and stealing military secrets. It was not meant to reduce the trade deficit.
Reason learned nothing during the covid lock-downs.
UR right and UR wrong.
Democrats killed trade by subsidizing laziness.
Trade deficits are also goods surplus.
Money out, goods in.