Fact check: How does the Trump administration's trade record compare to that of the Biden administration in 2024?

1. Trade Tactics Changed, Not the Use of Tariffs — A Tale of Two Strategies

The most consistent factual claim across sources is that both administrations used tariffs, but with distinct strategic aims and scopes. The Trump administration executed broad, high-profile tariffs intended to punish perceived unfair practices and to pressure firms to bring production back to the U.S., creating a protectionist posture that influenced global trade norms ^[3]. The Biden administration retained and expanded some tariffs but framed them as targeted industrial policy aimed at shielding nascent strategic industries—electric vehicles, semiconductors, solar—while coordinating more with allies to reduce leakage and build supply chains outside China ^{[1] [2]}. Both approaches continued tariff reliance, but the Biden approach ties tariffs to industrial policy.

2. Measurable Shifts in Trade Balances: Numbers Tell a Mixed Story

Quantitative comparisons show disparate outcomes depending on partner and product category. Under Trump, the U.S. goods trade deficit rose by roughly 41% from $481 billion in 2016 to $679 billion in 2020, signaling that tariffs did not translate into a broad goods-surplus outcome domestically ^[4]. Under Biden, the deficit with China narrowed in certain years while deficits with countries like Canada increased, illustrating that tariff targeting and supply-chain shifts can re-route trade flows rather than uniformly reduce deficits ^{[4] [5]}. These numbers underscore that headline tariff actions produce complex bilateral and sectoral trade effects.

3. Economic Costs and Macroeconomic Forecasts: Short-Run Pain, Long-Run Uncertainty

Analyses projecting tariff impacts highlight real consumer and macroeconomic costs associated with elevated tariff regimes. Estimates for the Trump-era reinstated tariffs indicate short-run consumer price increases and average household income losses—projected at about $1,800 in 2025 in one contemporary reconstruction—and longer-run reductions in real GDP and higher unemployment, reflecting standard economic pass-through of tariffs ^[6]. The IMF and WTO flagged that while immediate global impacts were muted, delayed and cumulative effects could slow global goods trade, with forecasts pointing to weaker trade growth as tariff measures persist ^{[7] [8]}.

4. Targeting High-Tech: Biden’s Industrial-Policy Framing vs. Trump’s Protectionism

A key substantive difference is rhetorical and operational: Biden frames trade as a tool of industrial competitiveness and public investment, aiming to secure domestic clean-tech and semiconductor capacity through focused trade measures and coordination with allies ^{[1] [2]}. Trump’s rhetoric was oriented around protectionism and bilateral leverage to restore manufacturing jobs, often using sweeping tariffs and a transactional posture that drew criticism for serving corporate interests and geopolitical blunt force ^[3]. This distinction matters for long-term supply-chain design and where investment flows are incentivized.

5. Global Trade Effects: Immediate Modest Impact, Longer-Term Risks

Contemporary multilateral bodies found immediate global fallout less severe than feared, partly because exemptions and trade deals mitigated average tariff incidence for many countries ^[7]. However, both the IMF and WTO cautioned that delayed impacts accumulate, projecting a sharp slowdown in goods trade growth in 2026 if high tariffs persist, indicating that the policy mix could produce significant international headwinds beyond initial estimates ^{[7] [8]}. The contrast shows that short-run resilience can mask longer-run structural shifts in global trade patterns.

6. Anecdotes and Small-Sector Shifts Highlight Complexity, Not Simple Wins

Smaller, attention-grabbing trade shifts—such as the U.S. ice cream balance moving from a long-term surplus to a deficit—demonstrate how sectoral dynamics can deviate from macro narratives and how changes in imports, not exports, often drive those shifts ^[5]. These anecdotes underline that claims of wholesale success or failure oversimplify: tariffs and industrial policy produce winners and losers across sectors, and granular effects can be politically salient even when macro trends are mixed.

7. Competing Narratives and Possible Agendas to Watch

Sources present differing emphases that suggest agendas: critiques of Trump-style tariffs frame them as protectionist and elite-serving, while Biden’s defenders portray targeted tariffs as strategic industrial policy ^{[3] [1]}. Conversely, economic forecasts highlighting consumer costs and GDP risks can be used to argue against prolonged tariff use regardless of administration ^{[6] [8]}. Readers should note that policy framing matters—whether the goal is reshoring, geopolitical decoupling, or industrial support—because stated objectives influence which metrics (jobs, deficits, industry capacity) are treated as the measure of success.