Their evidence focuses on the trade deficit. That measure is inaccurate and gets an F in econ 101.
James McBride and Andrew Chatsky 19, James McBride leads CFR’s coverage of global affairs, economics, energy policy, and European politics. He received a bachelor’s degree from St. Olaf College and a master’s degree from Georgetown. Andrew Chatsky is a Foreign Service Officer at the Department of State, 3/8/2019, "The U.S. Trade Deficit: How Much Does It Matter?," https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-trade-deficit-how-much-does-it-matter
For many economists, however, the trade deficit has been scapegoated, and they argue that the trade deficit is not itself a problem for the U.S. economy. That’s because a larger trade deficit can be the result of a stronger economy, as consumers spend and import more while higher interest rates make foreign investors more eager to place their money in the United States.
CFR Distinguished Fellow Michael Froman, a former U.S. trade representative, pushes back on the Trump administration’s emphasis that “trade deficits mean you lose, and surpluses mean you win.” He says that Trump’s narrow focus on trade in goods, which disregards the services surplus, is particularly unhelpful. “Every legitimate economist states that measuring trade policy by the size of the goods deficit is probably not a passing grade in a basic economics class,” he said at a CFR trade symposium in October 2017.