When finger-pointing doesn't solve the problem: three lessons America should learn from its deficits (and surpluses)

‍

The U.S. trade imbalance stems mainly from structural macroeconomic factors rather than specific trade relationships. With a trade deficit reaching $140.5 billion as of March 2025, key causes include the dollar's status as the world reserve currency, the persistent gap between U.S. savings and investment, the federal fiscal deficit, and U.S. consumption patterns.

‍

Although China accounts for a significant portion of the deficit, sectoral analysis reveals a more complex picture: the U.S. maintains surpluses in digital services, while deficits are concentrated in traditional manufacturing products. Trump's recent tariff policies have triggered global trade tensions, but most economists believe they will not resolve the underlying structural imbalances.

‍

Structural causes of the U.S. trade deficit

The dollar as a reserve currency and high consumption

The U.S. trade deficit is rooted in fundamental economic factors that transcend bilateral relations. The U.S. dollar accounts for 58 percent of global foreign exchange reserves (2024), creating persistent foreign demand that keeps the currency strong and makes U.S. exports more expensive. This"exorbitant privilege" allows the U.S. to easily finance the deficit through capital inflows, but it also creates a structural bias toward trade deficits.

‍

In addition, the U.S. economy is characterized by lower savings rates than its major trading partners. In macroeconomic terms, the trade deficit (NX = X - M) is directly equivalent to the difference between domestic savings and investment (NX = S - I), forcing the U.S. to borrow from abroad to close this gap.

‍

Large and persistent federal budget deficits contribute significantly to the trade deficit through the phenomenon of"twin deficits." The fiscal expansion of recent administrations has increased aggregate demand, boosting imports.

‍

Sectoral differences: the goods-services gap

The contrast between goods and services trade balances is stark. As of March 2025, the U.S. had a goods deficit of $163.5 billion and a services surplus of $23.0 billion. The goods deficit has expanded faster than the services surplus has grown.

‍

Contrary to common opinion, the technology sector presents a mixed picture:

• Advanced Technology Products (ATPs) show variable performance by sub-sector.
• The ICT subsector has substantial deficits
• Aerospace consistently generates the strongest surplus
• Electronics, Flexible Manufacturing, Advanced Materials and Armaments show surplus or balanced trade

The United States maintains a strong comparative advantage in digital services, with exports generating $655.5 billion in 2023, creating a trade surplus of $266.8 billion in this sector. Digital services accounted for 64 percent of all U.S. services exports in 2023, with financial and business services showing the largest surpluses.

‍

European bureaucratic barriers to U.S. trade

European regulatory framework and non-tariff barriers

U.S. companies face a complex set of regulatory hurdles that create significant problems accessing the EU market. An inconsistent regulatory framework among member states creates difficulties for U.S. exporters in several key areas:

• Customs procedures
• Labeling requirements
• Agricultural biotechnology approvals
• Regulations on packaging and waste
• Public Procurement
• Protection and enforcement of intellectual property

The EU imposes a wide range of non-tariff measures (NTMs) that create significant market access barriers, with a higher incidence of technical regulations than in the US, particularly in product standards.

‍

Specific sectors affected by European barriers

Digital services and technology

The digital sector faces some of the most significant regulatory barriers:

• Digital Markets Act (DMA): Imposes special obligations on "gatekeeper" platforms, mainly impacting U.S. tech giants such as Google, Apple, Meta, and Amazon
• Digital Services Act (DSA): Creates expanded content moderation, transparency and accountability requirements for online platforms
• GDPR: Creates significant compliance costs and has resulted in disproportionate fines for U.S. companies (about €1.15 billion per year between 2021-2024)
• Taxes on digital services: Several EU countries have implemented digital taxes that mainly affect American tech companies

Agricultural and food products

U.S. agricultural exporters face substantial barriers in the EU market:

• GMO Restrictions: Strict regulations on genetically modified organisms block many U.S. agricultural products
• Pesticide regulations: EU bans some 72 pesticides approved in U.S.
• Growth hormone ban: Long-standing ban on hormone-treated beef from U.S.
• Ban on "chlorinated chicken": Prohibition of poultry rinsed with antimicrobial treatments common in US processing
• Protected geographical indications: EU protection of food names (such as Parmesan cheese, Champagne) restricts U.S. producers from using common food terms

Pharmaceutical and medical devices sector

• Medical Device Regulation (MDR): Created significant compliance costs, with about 15,000 medical devices withdrawn from the EU market
• Bottlenecks in certification: Limited capacity of Notified Bodies has created delays and increased costs (certification fees averaging $100,000 compared to FDA's $6,493)
• Clinical data requirements: Different standards for clinical evidence between US and EU

US trade relations with key partners

European Union

The U.S.-EU trade relationship remains the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world, despite recent tensions:

• Total bilateral trade volume: About $975.9 billion in goods trade in 2024
• U.S. trade deficit in goods: $235.6 billion in 2024, a 12.9 percent increase from 2023
• Services trade: The U.S. maintained a services trade surplus with the EU of about $100 billion in 2024, partially offsetting the deficit in goods

US-EU trade relations are currently characterized by significant tensions:

• Tariffs April 2025: On April 2, 2025 ("Liberation Day"), the U.S. imposed a 10 percent tariff on virtually all imports, with additional tariffs of 25 percent on steel, aluminum, and automobiles
• EU response: European Commission initiated WTO dispute over U.S. tariffs and published potential countermeasures on $107.4 billion in U.S. imports
• Status of negotiations: Currently in a negotiation period, with the U.S. suspending implementation of additional "reciprocal tariffs" for 90 days (until early July 2025)

United Kingdom and recent trade agreement

On May 8, 2025, the United States and the United Kingdom announced a new trade agreement, formally titled theEconomic Prosperity Deal. This represents the first bilateral trade agreement under the current U.S. administration. Key provisions include:

• Maintaining the basic tariff: The U.S. will maintain the basic 10% tariff on most British imports
• Relief for auto industry: U.S. tariffs on U.K. cars reduced from 27.5 percent to 10 percent, with a quota of 100,000 vehicles per year
• Steel and aluminum: Elimination of 25 percent tariffs on British steel and aluminum exports to the U.S.
• Agricultural Access: Expanded market access for U.S. agricultural products, especially beef and ethanol

US-UK trade is significant:

• Total trade volume: About $148 billion in goods trade in 2024
• Investment relationship: The UK-US investment relationship is one of the largest in the world, with US foreign direct investment in the UK at $851.4 billion in 2023

Canada

The U.S.-Canada relationship represents one of the largest bilateral trade partnerships in the world:

• Total bilateral trade: About $784 billion in 2024, with daily cross-border trade valued at $3.6 billion
• US trade deficit in goods: $11.3 billion as of January 2025, although this deficit varies significantly by month
• Dominant energy trade: Energy trade between the U.S. and Canada totaled $198.2 billion in 2023
• Canada supplies 60 percent of U.S. crude oil imports, delivering more than 4 million barrels per day in 2023

Despite USMCA provisions, President Trump implemented 25 percent tariffs on most Canadian imports (10 percent on energy) in March 2025, with an exemption for USMCA-compliant goods granted until April 2, 2025.

‍

Latin America

Mexico

Mexico has become the largest overall trading partner of the United States in recent years:

• Total US trade in goods: Estimated at $839.9 billion in 2024
• U.S. trade deficit in goods: $171.8 billion in 2024, a 12.7 percent increase from 2023
• Main U.S. exports: Electrical machinery, machinery, energy products, vehicles and plastics
• Main U.S. imports: Vehicles, machinery, electrical machinery and medical devices

Brazil

• The U.S. has had a trade surplus with Brazil since 2008, reaching $253 million in 2024 out of more than $80 billion in bilateral trade
• U.S. maintained services trade surplus with Brazil of US$18.35 billion in 2023

Colombia

• U.S. trade surplus of goods with Colombia was $1.3 billion in 2024
• U.S. agricultural exports have grown more than 235 percent to a record $3.7 billion in 2023 since the implementation of the CTPA agreement in 2012

Singapore and Hong Kong

The U.S. maintains robust trade relations with both Asian financial centers, characterized by trade surpluses.

Singapore

• Total bilateral trade volume: About $89.2 billion in 2024
• US trade surplus in goods: $2.8 billion with Singapore in 2024, an 84.8% increase over 2023
• Key Sectors: Advanced electronics, semiconductors, aerospace components, pharmaceuticals
• Singapore serves as gateway to Southeast Asia, crucial entry point to ASEAN market of more than 670 million consumers

Hong Kong

• Bilateral trade volume: About $60.3 billion in 2023
• US trade surplus in goods: $21.9 billion with Hong Kong in 2024
• Key Sectors: Semiconductors, aviation equipment, agricultural products, luxury goods
• Hong Kong continues to serve as a significant entrepôt for U.S.-China trade, despite recent geopolitical tensions

Future prospects and consequences of tariff policies

Trump 2025 tariffs and initial impacts

The Trump administration implemented a multi-level tariff structure in 2025:

• Universal tariff of 10 percent on all imports, effective April 5, 2025
• Country-based "reciprocal" tariffs from 11% to 50% on specific countries with trade deficits with the U.S.
• China-specific rates totaling 145% (base rate 20% plus additional rate 125%)
• European Union facing a 20 percent tariff
• Tariffs of 25 percent on all imports from Mexico and Canada that do not comply with the USMCA
• Sectoral rates: 25% on automobiles and auto parts; 25% on steel and aluminum

Initial economic impacts show:

• Revenue generation: Initial estimates suggest that tariffs will raise $200-300 per U.S. household annually
• Market volatility: Significant market declines after major tariff announcements
• Supply chain disruption: Companies reporting order cancellations and paused shipments
• Price increases: First signs of price increases in affected sectors, especially automobiles

Alternative strategies for addressing trade imbalances

Economic experts identify several alternative approaches to addressing trade imbalances that go beyond tariffs:

Addressing the savings-investment gap

• Reducing the federal budget deficit: Fiscal consolidation would naturally increase domestic savings
• Encourage private savings: Policies that incentivize more family and business savings could help close the gap

Export promotion and competitiveness

• Export facilitation: Expand export financing and reduce regulatory barriers
• Infrastructure investment: Modernizing ports, transportation networks and digital infrastructure

Currency and capital flow management

• Exchange rate coordination: Working with trading partners to address currency misalignments
• Managing international capital flows: Policies that address speculative capital flows

Sectoral impacts of current tariff policies

The impacts of Trump's tariff policies vary significantly among economic sectors:

Automotive industry

• Production stoppage: Companies such as Stellantis and Nissan have paused production at plants in Canada and Mexico
• Price increases: Cox Automotive estimates price increases of $2,000-4,000 per vehicle
• Sales projections: Forecasts suggest a reduction of 1-2 million annual vehicle sales in the U.S.

Manufacture

• Mixed impacts: Some domestic producers may benefit from tariff protection, while those dependent on imported inputs face higher costs
• Reshoring challenges: A CNBC supply chain survey found that cost remains the biggest obstacle to reshoring

Agriculture

• Export challenges: Retaliatory tariffs from trading partners specifically target U.S. agricultural exports
• Price pressures: The agricultural sector faces both higher input costs for equipment and materials and potential loss of export markets

FAQ: Advice for Americans (and others) on the trade deficit

‍

1. Why should we stop blaming China for our trade deficit?

The U.S. trade deficit stems mainly from structural macroeconomic factors: the dollar's status as the world reserve currency, the low domestic savings rate, and the persistent federal fiscal deficit. China accounts for only a portion of the total deficit. In addition, America maintains trade surpluses with many countries, including Hong Kong and Singapore. Addressing these structural imbalances would be far more effective than pointing the finger at a single country, or all of them.

‍

2. How can we make better use of our business strengths?

The United States excels in digital services, aerospace, and other advanced technology sectors, generating significant trade surpluses in these areas. Instead of trying to bring back traditional manufacturing industries where we have lost competitive advantage, we should invest in education, infrastructure, and research that strengthen these areas of excellence. Innovation, not protection, has historically been the greatest strength of the United States.

‍

3. Do tariffs really help reduce the trade deficit?

History and economic evidence suggest not. Tariffs may temporarily reduce some imports, but they generally cause retaliation that hurts our exports. They also do not address the fundamental causes of the deficit such as the savings-investment gap. The 2025 tariffs have already led to significant global retaliation, harming many U.S. export-oriented industries, particularly agriculture and digital services.

‍

4. What is a smarter approach to European trade barriers?

Instead of responding with tariffs to European bureaucratic barriers (such as GDPR, the Digital Markets Act, or agricultural restrictions), it is more cost-effective to pursue targeted negotiations to create mutually recognized "regulatory equivalence." This approach has worked well in areas such as financial services and could be extended to other areas. In addition, common international standards can be developed in emerging sectors such as AI, where global rules are still in the making.

‍

5. How can we better balance the dollar advantage with our trade policy?

The dollar as the world reserve currency offers enormous benefits: lower interest rates, liquid financial markets, and geopolitical influence. These benefits partially offset the costs of the trade deficit. Policies can be adopted that maintain the advantages of the dollar while minimizing the negative side effects, such as more extensive currency swap agreements with trading partners or coordinated currency stabilization mechanisms with other major economies.

‍

6. What domestic fiscal policies could help reduce the trade deficit?

Reducing the federal budget deficit would naturally increase domestic savings, reducing the need for foreign capital and thus the trade deficit. Policies that incentivize private savings, such as tax reforms that reward long-term investment instead of immediate consumption, would have a similar effect. The adoption of the Value Added Tax (VAT) instead of the Sales Tax, such as that adopted by many trading partners could help level the playing field.

‍

7. How can we develop more productive trade relations with our neighbors?

Canada and Mexico are among our most important trading partners. Instead of imposing tariffs that destabilize integrated supply chains, we should deepen North American economic integration to create a more globally competitive bloc. This could include common standards for emerging sectors, improved cross-border infrastructure, and joint research and development initiatives in strategic sectors such as semiconductors and clean energy.

‍

8. What lessons can we learn from the trade agreement with the UK?

The U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal demonstrates that meaningful trade concessions can be achieved through targeted negotiations rather than generalized tariff threats. This model of sector-specific agreements, rather than hard-to-negotiate comprehensive trade agreements, could be replicated with other partners. In addition, the retention of the basic 10% tariff in the UK deal demonstrates that tariff leverage can be useful when used strategically.

‍

9. How should we rethink our global supply chains?

Resilience is as important as efficiency. Instead of an "all or nothing" approach of reshoring, we should pursue "friendshoring" by diversifying supply chains among trusted allies. This approach reduces vulnerabilities without completely sacrificing comparative advantages. Targeted policies such as the CHIPS Act for semiconductors have shown that incentives can be more effective than tariffs in realigning supply chains for strategic sectors.

‍

10. What is the best strategy to deal with global non-tariff barriers?

Non-tariff barriers, such as technical regulations and compliance requirements, often hinder U.S. exports more than traditional tariffs. We should strengthen our engagement in international organizations that set global standards, ensuring that our perspectives are represented. In parallel, we should expand support for small and medium-sized businesses to navigate complex foreign regulations, possibly through enhanced export advisory services and digital solutions.

‍

11. How can we improve the competitiveness of our exports?

In addition to better trade policies, we need substantial domestic investment to improve productivity. This includes modernizing physical infrastructure (ports, airports, railways), developing digital infrastructure (broadband, 5G), investing in STEM education and vocational training, and promoting innovation through public funding for basic research. A skilled workforce and modern infrastructure are critical for export competitiveness in an increasingly technological global economy.

‍

12. What is the future of the global economy post-tariffs 2025?

A more regionalized trading system is likely to emerge, with geopolitically aligned trading blocs. The U.S. has an opportunity to lead a bloc of market-oriented economies based on shared principles. To do this effectively, we should balance national economic interests with constructive global leadership, avoiding both extreme protectionism and indiscriminate globalism. Trade should be seen as an instrument of shared prosperity, not a zero-sum game.

‍

Conclusion

The U.S. trade imbalance stems from multiple interconnected structural factors rather than simply bilateral trade relations or specific policies. The dollar's reserve currency status, persistent savings-investment gap, fiscal deficits, and consumption patterns create a macroeconomic environment conducive to trade deficits.

‍

While the U.S. shows strength in services exports, particularly in digital services, these surpluses are not sufficient to offset persistent goods deficits. Recent tariff policies may reshape some aspects of US trade and potentially boost specific domestic industries, but their ability to significantly reduce the overall trade deficit remains questionable based on historical experience and economic fundamentals.

‍

Addressing the trade deficit would require fundamental changes in several structural economic factors, including fiscal policy, savings rates, exchange rate mechanisms and comparative advantage models. Short-term policy measures focused solely on bilateral trade relations are unlikely to address the underlying structural causes of the persistent U.S. trade deficit.