Trump Said Tariffs Would Reduce the Trade Deficit. Instead, It Grew.
In 2017, the last full year before Trump's tariffs were imposed, America's overall trade deficit was $517 billion. By 2023, it had grown to $785 billion.

During former President Donald Trump's term in office, he promised that higher tariffs on American imports would reduce the country's large trade deficit.
At the time, many economists disputed that notion. Tariffs might marginally reduce the import side of the trade ledger, but they also reduce economic output (and therefore exports), so the net effect on the trade deficit was likely to be minuscule, they warned.
No matter. In 2017, the White House's official Trade Policy Agenda highlighted how America's manufacturing trade deficit had grown from $317 billion in 2000 to $648 billion in 2016. That was evidence, the document claimed, that greater levels of trade had triggered "a period of slowed GDP growth, weak employment growth, and sharp net loss of manufacturing employment in the United States."
You know what happened next. Tariffs were raised. Then more tariffs were added. President Joe Biden took over and left Trump's higher tariffs in place. American businesses and consumers paid the cost of those higher taxes. The average tariff rate on imports to the United States has climbed from 1.5 percent to over 3 percent, and annual tariff revenue has nearly tripled.
So what happened to the trade deficit? It didn't fall.
In 2017, the last full year before Trump's tariffs were imposed, America's overall trade deficit was $517 billion. By 2023, it had grown to $785 billion, according to new Census Bureau data.
The story is the same when you look at the manufacturing trade deficit, the narrower category that the Trump administration had highlighted in that 2017 report. It climbed to over $1 trillion by 2021, nearly 60 percent higher than the 2016 figure that was cited by the White House as evidence that free trade was a failure.
Rather than reducing the manufacturing trade deficit, the higher tariffs likely led to its sharp increase, writes Ed Gresser, a former assistant U.S. Trade Representative. "Manufacturers import goods so as to turn them into other goods, and are big tariff payers," writes Gresser in a post for the Progressive Policy Institute, where he now works as vice president for trade policy. "So the tariffs raised the costs of industries like automobiles, machinery, and toolmaking; they faced a bit more challenges competing against imports and succeeding as exporters; and the overall goods/services deficit grew more concentrated in manufacturing."
In other words, the exact opposite of what Trump (and his advisors, including tariff-happy Peter Navarro) said would happen. After six full years of higher tariffs, this debate is settled. Trump was wrong and his critics were correct: Hiking tariffs does not reduce a country's trade deficit.
As an economic matter, this isn't a big deal—because trade deficits aren't something to be worried about. All a trade deficit actually measures is the gap between a country's collective savings and investments, and there is no meaningful correlation between the size of a country's trade deficit and the strength of its economy.
As a political matter, however, the fact that Trump's tariffs didn't do what he promised seems more significant. If a policy is enacted to achieve a specific goal, and that goal doesn't materialize, the underlying policy should be repealed or altered, and the logic underpinning the effort ought to be scrutinized.
Instead of doing any of that, Trump is again on the campaign trail making promises that tariffs are unlikely to deliver. His latest argument for more tariffs involves a plan to use that revenue to offset income taxes. But the math simply doesn't add up, as numerous economists have pointed out.
Trump may believe that tariffs are magical devices that can be used to achieve a wide variety of policy ends. When one promised outcome fails to materialize, he simply shifts gears and promises something else. But the facts suggest that he still fails to understand how tariffs work, and voters should stop buying into this scam.
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
I didn’t know Trump was responsible for 2020 to 2023 and Joe hadn’t changed a single economic decision in those years.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN29Y2QM/
Reuters lied to me again.
I'm also positive Joe Biden funding foreign companies with US taxpayer dollars has no effect on the trade deficits.
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107701371/biden-announced-a-600-billion-global-infrastructure-program-to-counter-chinas-cl
How much of that $600 billion has been spent since the article from 12 months ago? Oh, never mind. I see from the article that at most $40 billion of US money ($200 billion over 5 years) has been spent. But knowing how slowly our government works, I'd be shocked and amazed if even $0.01 has actually been spent thus far.
You aren’t making the case you think you are.
Ed's knife doesn't go through all the belt loops, if you get what I mean, and I think you do.
Funny how the only numbers Boehm will quote are those from Biden's regime as some sort of proof about something Trump did years earlier but Biden had influence over.
Boehm isn't really an economist.
Or intelligent, or sentient really. He's just a narrative NPC.
I’ve long considered Boehm a bleating leftist half retard shitweasel.
And for sure blocking domestic mineral and energy extraction would never have an effect.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/biden-oil-mining-alaska-restrictions-00153219
How much effect has something Biden proposed 2 months ago had thus far?
You think that’s the first one?
Ed is retarded so yes.
Most importantly regulatory costs have no effect on trade from the domestic side.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-regulations-cost-americans-10000-per-household-study
Cool beans, Mr. Banana! You're now 1 for 4 on things that have actually occurred and had an effect!
Don't you wish YOU were!
It’s funny how you say stupid things with no basis in fact as if they were true.
Orange man bad. That's all they can say.
Waiting for Boehm and Reason to start saying they are going to be thrown into camps when Trump is elected
And he’s going to cancel The View!
No, no need for camps.
Choice is deportation or landfills.
Orange man is seditionist and convicted criminal and serial adulterer and defamer. Yes, all those things are bad.
EdG
Is.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
Hi, little boy. If you want to play on the Reason comments, you will have to do better than that.
ps. That "little boy" reference might get you a private message from ButtPlug. Have fun with that.
you don't appear to understand what sedition is.
Is that it? Get your faggotry ass out of here and slither back to WaPo, HuffPost, or wherever the fuck you came from.
Did you have a point there, Mr. Banana? If so, what was it supposed to be? Biden wasn't president in 2020.
Yes.
FOAD, slimy pile of TDS-addled lefty shit.
I didn’t know Trump was responsible for 2020 to 2023 and Joe hadn’t changed a single economic decision in those years.
If you're only interested in who is to blame for something, and you don't care about whether a policy works, then you have a point.
Boehm said,
Tariffs were raised. Then more tariffs were added. President Joe Biden took over and left Trump's higher tariffs in place.
The tariffs that Trump put in place, and that Biden left in place, were in effect throughout the period between 2017 and 2023 that Boehm was examining. Trump had said that he implemented the tariffs because a trade deficit was bad, and the trade deficit grew while tariffs were higher. Thus, the policy didn't have the intended effect, regardless of how much of the policy you attribute to Trump or Biden.
All of that is consistent with the headline and Boehm's thesis.
It's pretty bad when all you have to do is read the title to know who wrote the article. The Steel Mill in our town was begging Obama to put tariffs on certain types of steel. Obama refused. Trump said that he would give them the tariffs for five years, to give them a chance to revise things so that they could compete globally. The Union mocked and ridiculed Trump. Now they are back begging Biden to give them the same tariffs.
There is no downside to using cheap foreign minerals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/14/us/politics/boeing-airbus-titanium-faa.html
Tariffs are how politicians try to negate law of economics, like comparative advantage, with taxes. It’s like trying to solve obesity by using legislation to change the law of gravity.
Comparative advantages exist with or without tariffs dumbass. Regulstory frameworks have a much higher causation to industrial advantages. Oddly you never mention the regulatory framework imposed on domestic industry here because then you might accidentally criticize a Democrat.
Not surprisingly your entire argument is against me as a person. Economics? Well shit that’s leftist talk if it goes against Trump. So is math.
Trying to figure out who is more retarded here. You or Ed.
It’s hard to tell which one is the more pathetic retard.
So your response to Jesse’s point is to make it all about Jesse. Can you appreciate the irony?
Nah, you’re too fucking drunk and stupid for that.
In 2017, the last full year before Trump's tariffs were imposed, America's overall trade deficit was $517 billion. By 2023, it had grown to $785 billion.
Wait until Trump's third term in 2024.
What about Fauci's role in trade deficits with laboratories in China?
What're you some kind of conspiracy theorist?
Boehm, your Savior Biden who you voted for, hated the tariffs so much he didn't just leave them, he increased them! Nice work.
You misspelled “Pump”.
Trade deficits mean we get stuff, as in wealth, while they get currency. Seems like a good deal to me.
You seem like a smart fella. How do corporations book supply chain risk in accounting sheets?
If you disagree, why don’t you explain what was wrong with what I said? Not what is wrong with me, but with what I said.
Do you possess the intellect and integrity to respond to ideas instead of arguing against the person?
I highly doubt it. So please, surprise me and everyone else.
What happened to the mute function on this site? Did it break?
Sarc never muted anybody.
Sarc’s mute button might not be broke, but Sarc is.
Pour Sarc.
I’m trying to see how much you understand. Do you even know that corporations book supply chain risk or how they do it?
Hint. You can see risk realization just a few years ago buddy.
Ironically my response was directly related to yours. But you seem too stupid to understand how lol.
No surprises. Your entire point is against me, not what I said.
Lol. Proving my point. Thank you.
"You seem like a smart fella."
Uh oh, looks like Jesse has a head injury.
Hey it got him to respond.
Was trying to set him up for when he called me a liar.
So you openly bragged about operating in bad faith.
Rare accidental slip into honesty.
You must be so ashamed for telling the truth.
Psst. Multiple clauses in my response dumdum.
But glad we've proven your economic ignorance this afternoon.
Biden (The president for the last four years) increased Trump’s 25% tariff to 100%, but weirdly enough Boehm somehow forgot to mention that.
Just a “President Joe Biden took over and left Trump’s higher tariffs in place”.
Weird, huh?
If someone was less charitable they might suspect Mr. Strategically & Reluctantly’s motives for writing this article.
What is also really weird is that the people who defended Trump’s tariffs with accusations of mental illness are unable to credit Biden for continuing and expanding upon what they defended. It’s almost as if they are deranged or otherwise mentally ill.
What’s even weirder is that nobody here “defended Trump’s tariffs” but that doesn’t seem to stop you from lying about it.
LMAO you and your crew vehemently defended his tariffs with vicious personal attacks. Too funny. Then again nobody has ever accused you of being honest.
Nobody did, you lying fuck.
The tariff articles from that time are easy to find, if fact I've found them for you: https://reason.com/category/economics/tariffs/
It should be easy as pie to scroll down to the 2017 articles and Ctrl+f for me or Jesse and show where we are "defending Trump’s tariffs”.
Do it right now you lying fuck. Prove your allegation.
Considering the fact that you still think I run socks after you found the smoking gun proving I didn’t, and deny it to this day, I fail to see any incentive to waste my time proving anything to you.
Fact is that you now, like you did then, defend Trump with attacks against critics. You don’t defend policy. You defend a man. You don’t argue against ideas, you argue against people.
Historically that never ends well. But you don’t care.
You won’t prove it because you know you can’t prove it, because you’re a liar.
A dirty, little, drunken liar who knows he’s a liar, and that’s why you won’t even try to back up your dirty little lie.
Blah blah blah whatever makes you feel good about yourself.
Slapping you around is occasionally cathartic. Would love to do it in person, but you punked out after drunkenly threatening me with physical violence. Now you hide from me.
If I collected bookmarks like the guy you swing with in Arizona I could prove you wrong.
But I have a life outside this comments section I can’t wait to be banned from for failure to identify.
You don't have to "collect bookmarks".
You literally only have to go down to the 2017 articles on Trump tarriffs I already linked to for you and start using Ctrl+f.
That's it. Easy as pie.
But you refuse to because you know you were lying, like the dishonest bitch you are.
"the president for the last 4 years"? Bwaa-haaa-haaa!!!! Nice but false attempt to shift part of Trump's 2020 disaster onto Biden!!!! I suppose most of the little MAGAs here won't even notice what you did there, Mother.
And EdG can't count, either!
Nice but false attempt to shift part of Trump’s 2020 disaster onto Biden!!!!
What the fuck are you on about, retard?
The subject was Trump's 2017 tariffs.
Are you trying to switch it to Covid?
... Are you actually blaming Trump for Covid?
See, stupid shit like this is why Open Society fired you.
I’m guessing sucking cock for cash at his local transit authority men’s room is a more lucrative pastime than getting paid for his ‘witty’ comments.
Biden (The president for the last four years) increased Trump’s 25% tariff to 100%, but weirdly enough Boehm somehow forgot to mention that.
The article you linked is paywalled, so I could only read the first couple of paragraphs. But it was clear from that much that it was just China that was effected, and not all goods from China, but some very specific goods. Mostly tech products like semiconductors, lithium batteries, solar cells, and EVs. All of which China is actively dumping on world markets to hurt the ability of western companies to compete in those industries.
Raising tariffs in response to unfair trade practices by a competing nation happens regularly, and it is a mostly separate issue from whether tariffs on all goods from all countries is beneficial or a net negative to our economy.
But if you want to question Boehm's motives, you do you.
785-517=268
If we pretend inflation was only 3% average per year, at least $100b of the $268b is JUST inflation.
Though I suspect if you compare prices in 2017 for the same goods now, you'll find a much greater than 20% increase.
None of which is due to tariffs.
Please show your math. The reason I ask is because it is WRONG. TIA!!
You got him this time! The actual figure is 28%
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2017?amount=1
Shrike's socks are somehow dumber than he is.
The US dollar is the reserve currency. Tariffs have nothing to do a trade surplus or deficit for the US because trade in goods or services that might be subject to tariff distortion has NOTHING to do with our trade or current account surplus or deficit.
For the reserve currency country, the primary driver of an overall surplus/deficit is -- how much currency is being demanded by foreign central banks (mostly) to serve as a reserve for their own trade. If global trade is expanding, then more currency is demanded as a reserve and our current accounts will be in deficit (and growing). If global trade is shrinking (ie a global recession), then reserve currency is not in demand so it will flow back to the US and our current account deficit will shrink (maybe to zero).
For the reserve currency country, tariffs are little more than grit in the cogs of commerce. It's possible that tariffs might get so high that countries choose a different reserve currency - but there are other factors that are far more significant to that decision.
This isn't rocket science or even serious economics. It's the result of really simple math and accounting (double-entry bookkeeping). But apparently - 'free trade' advocates are really yapping about religion not economics.
Jfree didn't hear about Saudi Arabia going off the petrol dollar. Maybe he missed it going for his 100th booster shot.
Saudi Arabia isn’t going off the dollar. They are simply asserting that they will sell oil in additional currencies. Only ONE of which other than the dollar has any characteristics of a ‘reserve currency’. That’s the pound. They run a structural deficit – and long ago made the difficult decision that a reserve currency has to make – but the UK does not even supply the amount of reserve currency that Saudi Arabia alone requires for its oil surplus.
The pound is not going to displace the dollar. NO ONE ELSE is ever going to make the ‘reserve currency decision’. That decision requires sacrificing their manufacturing sector to their financial sector. It also seems to require paying for – and doing the work of – securing and defending global trade. Germany/China/Japan/Russia/SaudiArabia etc will NEVER sacrifice their goods sector to their financial sector. They are surplus countries who view exports of stuff as important. No one except the US (and maybe UK) will do the heavy lifting of global ‘security’ – or would be trusted by anyone to do anything re that.
At most, Saudi Arabia will sell oil in different currencies on a PURELY bilateral basis. ie – only in such amounts as those other countries export stuff to Saudi. More likely, this is just Saudi putting pressure on the US to sign a formal defense agreement without the horseshit of having to make some agreement that includes Israel ‘normalization’. The riyal is still being pegged to the dollar and that will continue.
Anyone who doesn’t understand what is actually happening here is just a pimp trying to sell bitcoin or gold (which will never be a reserve currency) by fearmongering nonsense to the stupid. That means you.
So like covid, you don't understand the issue. Delinking a commitment to a single currency. Lol.
J Fucked is not quite as smart as trueman.
Ouch.
There was never a 'commitment to a single currency'. Nothing 'expired' on June 9. You only need google the web on that day.
The ACTUAL news was about a Saudi-US defense treaty being 'negotiated' - Sources - wsj and reuters and every other reputable source that actually can cite any named Saudi.
The news about the 'petrodollar agreement expiring' is from sources named - Economic Ninja, blogs hawking bitcoin/gold, a videogame designer named Alex Macris, and the usual breathless conspiracy nutjobs that you attach yourself to. All of which cite and link to each other to get ranked for the Google SEO to become viral. None of which is true either.
But hey. You keep on pretending that you have a clue. Like all conspiracy theorists, you only serve as a useful idiot to divert attention from ACTUAL news stories that might be worthy of public discussion.
So you’re a few weeks out from a “no large scale going off the dollar” pivot.
No small scale 'going off the dollar'. The Saudi riyal - the specific currency that is supposedly de-dollarizing - is still pegged to the dollar. That means ALL currency fluctuations that result from trade (because of basic accounting/bookkeeping) are resolved by the Saudis reserving dollars.
Whatever you people are babbling about is know-nothing nonsense.
"...You keep on pretending that you have a clue..."
You don't even bother any longer.
Cute trick throwing Biden's crappy economy on that figure.
2022 $-971.12B -3.82%
2021 $-858.24B -3.68%
--------------------------------------------------- Pretty obvious where the sh*t hit the fan.
2020 $-626.39B -2.97%
2019 $-578.50B -2.71%
2018 $-593.08B -2.89%
2017 $-543.33B -2.79%
lets ignore that many american companies were shut during covid and everything was purchased from overseas. is that an excuse no but it had a lasting affect long after shut downs were lifted. its never just tarrifs alone
Abolish the income tax, and go back to using tariffs as the federal government's primary source of revenue.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8PrRW6uG1B/