As election day nears, the Let's Find Common Ground podcast speaks with two members of Congress, one Republican and one Democrat, who are reaching across rigid partisan divides, recognizing the value of compromise and seeking constructive change.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Just the Facts: Trade Deficits
Feb 04, 2025
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces.
However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
This week's news is dominated by the extensive tariffs imposed by the Trump Administration. This writing presents our readers with just the facts on tariffs.
QUESTION: What are the advantages of a trade deficit for the United States
Interestingly enough, a trade deficit, while often seen in a negative light, can have some advantages for the United States. Here are a few key points to consider:
- Access to a Variety of Goods: The trade deficit allows the U.S. to import various goods worldwide. This means consumers can access products that might not be produced domestically, increasing their choices and potentially lowering prices due to competition.
- Foreign Investment: A trade deficit can attract foreign investment. When other countries hold U.S. dollars from exports, they often reinvest that money into the U.S. economy, including stocks, real estate, and other assets. This can help fuel economic growth and job creation.
- Specialization and Efficiency: By importing goods that can be produced more efficiently abroad, the U.S. can focus on producing goods and services where it has a comparative advantage. This specialization can lead to more efficient use of resources and higher overall productivity.
- Consumer Benefits: The availability of cheaper imported goods can lead to lower prices for consumers, increasing their purchasing power and overall standard of living.
Of course, a trade deficit has its downsides and potential risks, but the aforementioned are some of the benefits that can arise. It's a complex economic topic with many facets to consider.
QUESTION: What are the disadvantages of a trade deficit for the United States
A trade deficit can have several disadvantages for the United States:
- Job Losses: When the U.S. imports more than it exports, domestic industries may struggle to compete with cheaper foreign goods, potentially leading to job losses in certain sectors.
- Increased Borrowing: To finance a trade deficit, the U.S. may need to borrow from foreign lenders, increasing national debt and potentially affecting financial stability.
- Currency Depreciation: Persistent trade deficits can lead to a weaker U.S. dollar, making imports more expensive and potentially causing inflation.
- Economic Dependency: Relying heavily on imports can make the U.S. economy vulnerable to supply chain disruptions and changes in global market conditions.
- Trade Tensions: Large trade deficits can lead to trade tensions and disputes with trading partners, as seen with the U.S.-China trade relationship.
While trade deficits are not inherently bad and can sometimes indicate a strong economy, the disadvantages listed highlight the importance of managing trade imbalances effectively.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
QUESTION: Did the overall United States trade deficit increase or decrease during President Trump's first term in office?
During President Trump's first term in office, the U.S. trade deficit increased. Despite his administration's efforts to reduce the trade deficit through tariffs and other measures, the overall trade deficit grew. In 2016, the year before Trump took office, the trade deficit was around $481 billion. By 2020, it had risen to approximately $679 billion. This is roughly a 41% increase.
The tariffs imposed on imports from countries like China, Canada, and Mexico did reduce the trade deficit with China specifically, but overall, the trade deficit with other countries increased.
It's a complex issue influenced by various economic factors beyond just trade policies.
QUESTION: Has the overall United States trade deficit increased or decreased in the last 4 years?
The U.S. trade deficit has increased over the last four years.
Here's a brief overview:
- 2020: The trade deficit was $-626.39 billion.
- 2021: It increased to $-858.24 billion.
- 2022: The deficit rose further to $-971.12 billion.
- 2023: The trade deficit continued to grow, reaching $-1,030 billion. Up 31%
This is roughly a 64% increase.
The trade deficit has been widening due to a combination of factors, including increased imports and relatively slower export growth.
QUESTION: Does the United States gain or lose jobs because of the trade deficit with China?
The trade deficit with China has generally resulted in job losses in the United States. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute, the growing trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2018 led to the loss of approximately 3.7 million U.S. jobs. The majority of these job losses were in the manufacturing sector, which accounted for about 2.8 million jobs.
The report highlights that imports from China have displaced goods that would have otherwise been produced domestically, leading to job displacement across various states and industries. While there are some jobs created through exports to China, they have not been enough to offset the jobs lost due to imports.
It's a complex issue with significant economic and social implications.
QUESTION: Did the trade deficit with China go up during Trump's first term and down during Biden's term?
During Trump's first term, the trade deficit with China initially increased, peaking at around $419 billion in 2018. However, it did decrease towards the end of his term, reaching approximately $311 billion in 20201.
Under Biden's administration, the trade deficit with China continued to decrease, reaching its lowest level since 2010. By 2023, the deficit had dropped to around $279 billion.
So, yes, the trade deficit with China increased during Trump's first term and then decreased during Biden's term.
QUESTION: Did the trade deficit with Canada increase more under the Trump administration than the Biden Administration?
Yes, the trade deficit with Canada increased more under the Trump administration than under the Biden administration. During Trump's term, the deficit increased by approximately $10 billion, from around $17.6 billion in 2017 to about $27.4 billion in 2020. Under Biden's administration, the deficit increased by about $5 billion, from around $32.8 billion in 2021 to about $38.0 billion in 2024
QUESTION: Did the trade deficit increase with Mexico more under the Trump Administration or the Biden Administration?
The trade deficit with Mexico increased more significantly under the Trump administration than under the Biden administration. During Trump's term, the deficit rose from approximately $63.2 billion in 2017 to about $112.8 billion in 2020. Under Biden's administration, the deficit increased from around $110.0 billion in 2021 to about $118.0 billion in 2024. So, the increase was more pronounced during Trump's term.
And that's just the facts. We look now to subject matter experts to follow up with many opinion writings that use solutions journalism guidelines we ascribe to in exploring:
- What's dividing us on this issue?
- How do we decide which information to trust?
- What is oversimplified about this issue?
- What are the nuances and complexities of this issue?
- Is there any part of the other side's position that makes sense?
- What do you want the other side to understand about you, and what do you want to understand about the other side?
- What's the question nobody's asking?
- Explore the nuances and complexities of the issue.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
WHO Withdrawal is Not Going to Make America Healthy Again
Jan 31, 2025
One of the first executive orders signed by President Trump on the evening of his inauguration was to immediately withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations agency tasked with coordinating a wide range of health activities around the world. This did not come as a surprise. President Trump tried to pull this off in 2020 amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Upset at how WHO handled the pandemic, President Trump accused it of succumbing to the political influence of its member states, more specifically to China. However, the structure of the WHO, which is made up of 197 member states, prevents it from enforcing compliance or taking any decisive action without broad consensus. Despite its flaws, the WHO is the backbone of global health coordination. When President Joe Biden came into office, he reversed the decision and re-engaged the US with the WHO.
WHO’s mission is to promote health, keep the world safe, and serve the most vulnerable. Besides taking the lead in coordinating the world’s response to health emergencies, WHO works with member states and partners to eradicate polio, deliver essential health services, set international guidelines for medicine and vaccines, and promote universal health coverage. Its mandate is broad and ambitious.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Like all large bureaucratic institutions, the WHO could benefit from reform and improved management practices. But to unilaterally pull out of the largest coordinating body on everything global health, is like throwing the baby out with the water. It is a draconian move that undermines everyone’s health in a globalized world where people, goods, and services move around and can become vehicles for diseases.
Stephanie Psaki, a former U.S. coordinator for global health security at the National Security Council, said in a January 28 op-ed on STAT that WHO withdrawal “will sever ties with critical partners, cut our resources to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores, diminish our access to vital early warning data, slash the pipeline of innovative vaccines and treatments that could be used in an emergency, and hamper the ability of federal agencies to act quickly to warn Americans about emerging threats.”
“Unfairly onerous payments from the United States” are cited in President Trump’s executive order to withdraw from WHO. Though the U.S. is the single biggest donor to this UN agency, giving $1.284 billion in the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years, it is critical to understand that mandatory contributions are assessed on a country’s domestic product and population size and only represent 20% of WHO’s total budget.
The rest of WHO’s budget comes from voluntary contributions earmarked for specific health programs. In fact, mandatory contributions from the US to the WHO are not much higher than those from China, which are $218 million versus $115 million. Funds for the WHO represent 4% of America’s budget for global health. For a detailed breakdown of the U.S. global health budget, consult this resource.
Reforming WHO is a process that is already in progress, said Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, President and CEO of the Global Health Council, in an email to the Fulcrum. “In recent years, under the direction of the U.S. and other member states, the WHO has made several changes to improve financial management and operational performance,” she explains. Withdrawing from the WHO also means having less influence in creating a more efficient agency. This resource from the BetterWorld Campaign, shared by Dunn-Georgiou, provides some insight into WHO reforms, which include how member fees are calculated.
Katelyn Jetelina, an adjunct professor at the Yale School of Public Health and the publisher of Your Local Epidemiologist, a newsletter on Substack, says that self-interest is one reason all Americans should care about the WHO withdrawal executive order. “Infectious diseases don’t respect borders. Covid-19, flu, Ebola—you name it. Even if the U.S. is well-equipped to handle its own health challenges, our safety depends on the rest of the world being equipped, too.”
This executive order comes at a time when the country is facing one of the largest recorded tuberculosis outbreaks in U.S. history in the state of Kansas and an Avian influenza outbreak in poultry and dairy farms that has already caused one human death. To make matters worse, a gagorder was imposed on the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to stop communicating with the WHO immediately. This hinders data exchange on current disease outbreaks to protect all Americans.
Another reason Americans should care about WHO withdrawal, Jetelina says, includes geopolitical implications and the likelihood that others, especially China, will step in to fill the public health leadership vacuum left by the United States.
Technically, countries cannot withdraw from the WHO without giving a year’s official notice. However, a story published in KFF Health News reports that in his order, President Trump cites the termination notice he gave to WHO back in 2020. If Congress or health experts push back, his administration can argue that more than a year has passed. This is a calculated move rooted in Project 2025 priorities.
A week after the WHO executive order, a State Department memo issued a 90-day Stop Work Order on all U.S. foreign assistance—less than 1% of the federal budget. For comparison, defense spending accounted for 13.3% in 2023. Halting these life-saving health programs in the world's poorest nations will have devastating consequences.
Former USAID global health administrator Atul Gawande warned on X that the order disrupts critical programs, including HIV drug distribution for 20 million people, polio eradication, and containment of deadly outbreaks like Marburg in Tanzania and an mpox variant killing children in West Africa. "Make no mistake—these essential, lifesaving activities are being halted right now," he stressed. "Consequences aren’t in some distant future. They are immediate."
Atul Gawande's social media post
Being part of the WHO is a strategic U.S. investment, a “soft diplomacy” tool, health experts say. “The investments the U.S. government makes in global health results in enormous returns, providing both economic and national security rewards as well as improving our standing throughout the world,” said Dunn-Georgiou. “They result in job creation in, among other sectors, biotechnology, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals. It also bolsters local economies through new contracts.”
On Tuesday, January 28, a State Department memo signed by Marco Rubio temporarily lifted the Stop Work Order for select life-saving activities overseas, including core life-saving medicines, medical services, food, and shelter. However, withdrawal from the WHO remains in place and blocks data exchange and disease surveillance with this global institution, potentially resulting in dire consequences for Americans.
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.
Keep ReadingShow less
Independents as peacemakers
Jan 26, 2025
In the years ahead, independents, as candidates and as citizens, should emerge as peacemakers. Even with a new administration in Washington, independents must work on a long-term strategy for themselves and for the country.
The peacemaker model stands in stark contrast to what might be called the marriage counselor model. Independent voters, on the marriage counselor model, could elect independent candidates for office or convince elected politicians to become independents in order to secure the leverage needed to force the parties to compromise with each other. On this model, independents, say six in the Senate, would be like marriage counselors because their chief function would be to put pressure on both parties to make deals, especially when it comes to major policy bills that require 60 votes in the Senate.
This pressure could even apply in the House, where the Republican Freedom Caucus may not support Speaker Johnson and mainstream Republicans on any number of the 13 appropriations bills that constitute the annual budget and where the reconciliation process enables the majority party to pass legislation with a mere majority. Still, the marriage counselor model envisions independents as using their leverage to achieve bipartisanship on Capitol Hill and with the White House.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The peacemaker model is more ambitious. It envisions independents using leverage (via their votes), but it also involves independents inserting their own concepts, values, and feelings into the legislative process. Their goal is to be a third force on Capitol Hill and Washington in general because they would seek to forge not just a compromise between the Democrats and the Republicans -- say on climate change, guns, entitlement reform, immigration or childcare and parental leave -- but a synthesis of three distinct points of view.
The marriage counselor model of independents conceives of the independents like therapists who get the married couple to work out their difficulties with new plans, proposals, and attitudes. It is not the role of the therapist to insert his or her or their values into the therapeutic process. The peacemaker model, however, goes further. It absolutely does seek to insert the concepts, values and feelings of the independents into the legislative process. It is a peacemaker model not just in what scholars in Peace Studies call "negative peace," namely peace in the negative sense of avoiding conflict and even violence between the two major parties.
It is a peacemaker model in the positive sense of forging bills that will create new laws that will be satisfactory to all three sides and that represent a unique synthesis of three points of view. A positive peace and not merely a negative peace is, therefore, the goal of a new model in Washington that aims to substitute the goal of tripartisanship for the goal of bipartisanship. Tripartisan deliberations and decisions in Washington and not bipartisan deliberations and decisions represent the ten-year goal for the nation's capital and the country itself.
This process of societal transformation will be the final step of a 250-to-260-year process of closing the gap between the United States and the rest of the free world, where almost every democratic country has three or more political parties that have significant power -- notably in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and Israel. Australia, in particular, has witnessed the rise of the "Teal Independents" in recent years, providing the United States with a model to generate the rise of the "American Independents."
How precisely independents are to organize and reconcile differences amongst themselves and elect independents is an open question. I favor a view that focuses on a decentralized rather than a centralized approach. Independents need to be elected one at a time in a small number of national races -- or converted in Washington -- to create a critical mass with sufficient leverage.
The Dartmouth economist Charles Wheelan was right in "The Centrist Manifesto" that we needed a "Fulcrum Strategy" to overcome the dysfunction in Washington. But he was too ambitious to propose that a Centrist Third Party could supply the leverage. Power and ultimately positive peace will come if Americans use some of the political and military ingenuity the American Revolutionaries used to take power away from the British Crown.
In our case, the independents do not have to defeat all or even the majority or even huge numbers of Democrats and Republicans. They only need to defeat enough of them in order to have the leverage to create positive peace in Washington and the country overall.
Dave Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.
Keep ReadingShow less
Trump takes first steps to enact his sweeping agenda
Jan 21, 2025
On his first day in office as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump began to implement his agenda for reshaping the nation's institutions.
He signed a flurry of executive orders, memorandums, and proclamations.
Here are five notable Trump’s Day 1 actions:
Evening Shot of Border Wall Between El Paso Texas USA and Juárez Chihuahua Texas at Puerto Anapra with US Border Patrol Vehicle in the DistanceGetty Images//Stock Photo
1. Immigration
President Trump issued an executive order regarding birthright citizenship, which restricts federal agencies from issuing certain documents typically available to U.S. citizens.
This order affects children born after the measure takes effect, particularly in cases where the parents are unlawfully present in the U.S., or the mother is temporarily in the U.S. on a visa, and the father is a noncitizen.
Logo of the World Health Organization WHO with the WHO headquarters in the background in Geneva, Switzerland. (Photo by Lian Yi/Xinhua via Getty Images)
2. Withdrawal from WHO
Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO), marking a substantial decision to sever ties with the U.N. public health agency. He has previously criticized the WHO, and the formal withdrawal process had begun during his administration amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Jan. 6 investigation goes primetime Brent Stirton/Getty Images
3. Pardons related to January 6
In a significant move, President Trump pardoned nearly all individuals convicted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack, which includes about 1,270 people.
He also directed the Justice Department to dismiss approximately 300 pending cases and ordered the release of a smaller group of 14 defendants involved in the most serious sedition cases.
This action was more extensive than many expected, including some of Trump’s own advisors and GOP allies.
Sun, Global warming, Global boiling from the climate crisis and the catastrophic heatwave, Climate change, the sun and burning Heatwave hot sunGetty Images/Stock Photo
4. Paris Agreement Exit
President Donald Trump signed an executive action to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, mirroring his decision during his first term. The Paris Agreement is an international accord to address climate change, with nearly 200 countries committed to limiting global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius and ideally below 1.5 degrees.
Each participating country is responsible for creating its own plan to meet these climate goals.
The speech Joe Biden won’t give Anadolu/Getty Images
5. Biden-era executive orders revoked
Trump revoked several executive actions from the Biden administration, including the decision to remove Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism, sanctions on Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and measures aimed at mitigating risks associated with artificial intelligence.
These reversals were part of a larger effort to overturn Biden-era policies and were signed at Capitol One Arena shortly after Trump's inauguration.
Trump reportedly intended to sign as many as 200 executive orders on the first day of his second term. By comparison, he signed one order on Inauguration Day 2017.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum, and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More