Trump’s Tariff Deception: Trade Imbalances Masquerading as Economic Strategy

Written on 6 April 2025.

Trump’s Tariff Deception: Trade Imbalances Masquerading as Economic Strategy

For years, many Americans—especially those concerned with economic sovereignty—defended the Trump administration’s use of tariffs as a tool to level the playing field in international trade. The rationale was simple and seemingly patriotic: foreign nations like China, Taiwan, and EU countries were supposedly charging the United States high tariffs, and Trump was fighting back by imposing reciprocal tariffs to protect American industries.

However, a startling revelation has come to light: the so-called "tariff" numbers frequently touted by Trump and his team were not tariffs in the way they were often presented. Instead, some of the figures used in speeches and talking points were derived from trade imbalances, misleadingly framed as if they represented direct tariffs imposed by other countries.

This deceptive reframing has been called out in strong terms by voices such as Mike Adams, a prominent figure in independent media. Adams, who had been a vocal supporter of Trump’s tariffs for years, recently expressed deep frustration after uncovering the truth:

> "Now I'm getting really angry with the Trump team. They lied to us about tariffs. It turns out that their claimed 'tariff' numbers charged by other countries aren't tariffs at all. They are trade imbalances, not tariffs. Trump's people are just calling them tariffs, which is wildly dishonest and deceptive."

To be clear, countries like China, Taiwan, and the EU did and still do have tariffs on U.S. goods. For example, prior to Trump’s trade war, China maintained an average MFN (Most-Favored-Nation) tariff rate of approximately 9.8%, with higher rates on agricultural goods and strategic industries. The EU, Thailand, and others also had tariffs and regulatory barriers in place. What Trump’s team often did, however, was to present the magnitude of the trade imbalance—such as the U.S. importing $500 billion in goods from China and exporting only $100 billion—as if it were the result of an actual tariff rate imposed by the foreign country.

This is a fundamental distortion of economic reality. A tariff is a government-imposed tax on imported goods. A trade imbalance, on the other hand, is a measurement of net imports versus exports. Conflating the two creates confusion and allows misleading narratives to take root.

Even worse, the tariffs that were imposed under Trump were paid not by China, but by American importers, with those costs often passed down to U.S. consumers. So while the administration claimed victory in forcing China to pay, it was Americans who footed the bill—a classic bait-and-switch dressed in populist rhetoric.

Essentially, Trump was presenting the U.S.-China trade deficit as if it were a direct result of China’s tariffs, when in fact it reflected consumer and business behavior shaped by many complex factors. Trade deficits are not tariffs; they are simply measurements of what consumers choose to buy. It is not China's job to balance trade; it's a result of how both economies function, including industrial output, labor costs, and domestic demand.

In effect, Trump took a statistical imbalance and treated it like a moral offense—and then taxed Americans to make up for it. This mischaracterization turned public misunderstanding into government policy, further centralizing control and justifying intervention.

Tariffs as Hidden Helicopter Money

This tariff policy also shares a striking resemblance with what BlackRock and other globalist institutions have promoted under the name of helicopter money.

In the Trump-era version:

• Tariffs raised money from American companies and consumers.
• The government then redirected that money (and more) to subsidize farmers and industries hurt by retaliation.

It became a form of centralized redistribution. Similarly, BlackRock’s idea of "going direct" involves central banks printing money and sending it directly into the economy—whether to households, corporations, or governments—bypassing the traditional lending system.

Both models:

• Use populist or crisis-based justifications.
• Empower the central government as the economic distributor.
• Move away from free trade and market-driven solutions.
• Create dependency on state action and intervention.

So while Trump spoke the language of economic independence and nationalism, the outcome was a system that was the opposite of free trade—it was controlled trade, driven by political decisions, funded by the American people, and redistributed under centralized authority.

China's Competitive Advantage: Work Ethic Over Tariffs

Another reason China continues to outperform the United States in manufacturing is not solely due to tariffs—but because of the intensity of its labor force. Chinese industries often operate under demanding conditions such as the "996" schedule—9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week. Lower wages, lower cost of living, and tight coordination between government infrastructure and industrial planning allow China to produce goods at a scale and price the U.S. struggles to match.

In this context, tariffs do not solve the underlying issue. Instead of addressing domestic inefficiencies or improving productivity, the U.S. response was to penalize consumers with higher prices. Rather than acknowledge that China simply works harder and longer under a different system, politicians redirected the blame.

In truth, tariffs cannot compensate for structural and cultural differences in labor output. Competing with China requires a sober look at workforce incentives, industrial priorities, and economic education—not reactive taxation and misleading narratives.

Adams drives the point home with biting sarcasm:

> "Next, they’ll probably call deficits 'premiums' or something similarly stupid."

And he’s not wrong to suggest that this manipulation represents a larger problem. It’s not just about tariffs—it’s about language, perception, and control. When administrations redefine economic terms to fit their narrative, it creates a fog of confusion that paves the way for greater centralization of power.

By mischaracterizing trade deficits as foreign-imposed tariffs, the federal government justified increased intervention in the economy. This includes selective subsidies, retaliatory measures, and bureaucratic oversight—all of which expand the reach of the centralized state.

In effect, what was sold as a patriotic defense of American workers has, in some ways, become a mechanism for economic gaslighting and deeper state control. It’s a lesson in the importance of discernment: just because a policy is wrapped in a flag doesn’t mean it’s grounded in truth.