Listen to the article
The Trump administration has been touting significant decreases in the U.S. trade deficit, but economic experts are questioning both the methods of calculation and the conclusions being drawn from recent trade data.
Through President Donald Trump’s first full 10 months back in office, the cumulative U.S. trade deficit in goods and services decreased by 3.9% compared to the same period in 2024. However, this stands in stark contrast to Trump’s repeated claims that his administration has “slashed our trade deficit by 77%.”
Economic analysis reveals that Trump’s calculation appears to compare the monthly trade deficit from January 2025 to that of October – a methodology experts consider fundamentally flawed for measuring international trade trends.
“Looking at changes from one month to another is not a reliable way to assess whether the trade deficit is rising or falling in any meaningful sense,” explains Kyle Handley, economics professor at the University of California, San Diego. “Monthly trade balance figures are extremely volatile and reflect timing of shipments, energy prices, seasonal adjustment noise, and one-off transactions.”
Yet the administration has repeatedly highlighted this dramatic percentage in public statements. At the World Economic Forum in January, Trump specifically referenced “monthly trade deficit” figures, attributing the decrease to his tariff policies while also claiming this was achieved “with no inflation” – though Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows inflation has declined from 3% to 2.7% during his term, not reached zero.
The president has even made the bold prediction that “next year we won’t have a trade deficit,” a claim experts find highly improbable.
In October 2025, the U.S. trade deficit reached approximately $29.2 billion, representing the lowest monthly gap since 2009 according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. This figure was indeed about 77% lower than January’s $128.8 billion deficit.
However, Robert Johnson, international economist and associate economics professor at the University of Notre Dame, points to a crucial context: deficits were “unusually large” in early 2025 as U.S. importers rushed to stockpile goods ahead of Trump’s announced tariffs. “Then, after the tariffs were put in place, imports fell back to normal,” Johnson explained.
“Whether this is a permanent change, or simply reflecting the drawdown in inventories, is too soon to tell,” he added.
The volatility of monthly trade data was further demonstrated when November figures showed the deficit nearly doubling to $56.8 billion, which would reduce the January-to-November drop to 55.9% – making the administration’s 77% figure outdated.
Monica de Bolle, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, emphasized that comparing individual months introduces significant statistical noise. “If you just take the number from a month and you compare it to a number from another month, then you’re just introducing a lot of all of the noise that’s in the monthly data,” she noted.
When examining more reliable metrics – such as cumulative deficits over longer periods – the picture changes dramatically. The total trade deficit from February through November 2025 was $710.7 billion, representing just a 3.9% decline from the same period in 2024. Including January, the eleven-month deficit actually increased by 4.1% year-over-year.
Complete 2025 trade data is scheduled for release on February 19. For context, the largest annual U.S. trade deficit on record was approximately $923.7 billion in 2022 during the Biden administration.
Experts also emphasize that, contrary to Trump’s characterization, trade deficits aren’t inherently negative. “A trade deficit sounds bad, but it is neither good nor bad,” wrote Boston University economics professor Tarek Alexander Hassan last April. “It doesn’t mean the US is losing money. It simply means foreigners are sending the US more goods than the US is sending them.”
The economic consensus suggests Trump’s prediction of eliminating the trade deficit “next year” is highly unrealistic. The U.S. hasn’t recorded an annual trade surplus since 1975, when it posted a $12.4 billion surplus.
“It is still the case that the U.S. is not self-sufficient in everything,” de Bolle explained. “It may be able to export a lot, but it still imports way more than it exports.”
Trade deficits stem from complex macroeconomic factors including savings rates, investment balances, exchange rates, and broader economic conditions – not just tariff policies. In fact, some economists warn that tariffs could potentially increase manufacturing costs and reduce U.S. exports, potentially worsening the deficit.
The future of Trump’s tariff policies also remains uncertain, with the Supreme Court expected to rule this year on their legality, potentially altering their current implementation.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
Interesting analysis. The monthly trade data can be quite volatile, as the expert points out. It’s important to look at longer-term trends rather than cherry-picking specific months to make claims about the trade deficit.
Agreed. Simplistic month-to-month comparisons don’t provide a reliable picture of complex economic dynamics. More nuanced analysis is needed to draw meaningful conclusions.
This highlights the challenge of accurately measuring and interpreting trade data. Oversimplified claims can be misleading, even if they align with a particular political narrative. Responsible reporting requires a deeper dive into the underlying factors and trends.
Well said. Economic metrics are often more complicated than they seem at face value. Policymakers and the public would benefit from a more careful, objective examination of the data.
The article raises valid points about the methodological issues with the administration’s trade deficit calculations. Relying on single-month comparisons is not an appropriate way to assess long-term trends. More comprehensive analysis is needed.
Agreed. Using appropriate statistical methods and accounting for various factors that influence trade flows is crucial for drawing reliable conclusions. Simplistic claims can distort the true picture.
The article highlights the importance of fact-checking and consulting with economic experts when it comes to interpreting trade data. Oversimplified rhetoric may score political points but can distort the reality of complex economic dynamics.
Absolutely. It’s crucial that policymakers and the public have access to reliable, nuanced analysis of economic indicators like the trade deficit. Objective, data-driven reporting is essential for informed decision-making.
This serves as a good reminder that economic data can be complex and nuanced. While the administration may want to tout certain trade figures, experts caution that the full context and underlying trends must be considered. Transparent and rigorous analysis is key.
Well said. Responsible reporting on economic issues requires looking beyond the headline numbers and delving into the details to provide a more accurate and balanced perspective. Simplistic claims can be misleading.
This serves as a good reminder that economic data can be complex and nuanced. While the administration may want to tout certain trade figures, experts caution that the full context and underlying trends must be considered. Transparent and rigorous analysis is key.
Well said. Responsible reporting on economic issues requires looking beyond the headline numbers and delving into the details to provide a more accurate and balanced perspective. Simplistic claims can be misleading.
It’s concerning to see the administration making such bold claims about trade deficits without providing more rigorous supporting evidence. Fact-checking and expert analysis are crucial to keep the public accurately informed on these issues.
Absolutely. Transparent and data-driven reporting is essential, especially on economically and politically charged topics like trade. Oversimplification can lead to misinformation and flawed decision-making.