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.
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?
As shown below the trade deficits with Canada increased significantly under the Biden Administration and went down under the Trump Administration: (shown in billions)
- 2017-17.5 2018- 19.8 2019- 27.4 2020: $15.2 billion 2021: $50.2 2023: $78.19 2024: $63.3 billion
The significant increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada from 2020 to 2021 was primarily driven by a surge in imports of energy-related products, particularly crude oil. In 2021, U.S. imports from Canada in this category rose by 74.8%, reflecting higher global energy prices and increased demand as economies recovered from the pandemic. This contributed to a increase in the trade deficit between the two countries of over 200%
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.




















image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.