President Donald Trump can show off a stat today that looks like an unassailable achievement: the U.S. trade deficit shrank by more than 55% in April, falling from $138.3 billion in March to $61.6 billion, according to the Commerce Department. This is the smallest deficit since early 2023 and certainly one of the strongest signs of the impact of its tariff policy. But the magnitude of the adjustment has a flip side that raises a fundamental question: at what cost is the trade imbalance being resolved?

The figure reflects a plunge in imports of 16.3%, a sharp drop caused by the entry into force of the 10% global tariffs that Trump imposed on almost all trading partners, including strategic allies such as the European Union and Japan. According to AFP, specific tariffs were also implemented on sectors such as steel, aluminum and automobiles, with additional increases so far in June.

The immediate result was a retraction in the inflow of consumer goods, with particularly sharp reductions in pharmaceuticals and cellular phones. At the same time, U.S. exports grew by just 3%, sustained by industrial goods, but with declines in sensitive sectors such as automotive.

The logic of shock

The change in the trade balance is not the result of a sustained increase in U.S. competitiveness, but of an abrupt intervention in the flow of goods that reduces foreign supply. As explained by economist Mark Zandi of Moody's Analytics, quoted by The New York Times, "With the tariffs, imports collapsed in April, leading to a much smaller deficit."

Zandi also warned that this statistical improvement can backfire: tariffs have "severely disrupted global trade," which "will soon be reflected in higher prices for many goods Americans buy, affecting their purchasing power and, by extension, the overall economy.

In other words, the deficit goes down, but so does the availability and affordability of commodities. The reduction in the external imbalance has a favorable effect on GDP accounting (as the deficit is subtracted from growth), but this could mask a weakening in real household consumption capacity.

Victory or mirage?

The case of China is particularly revealing. Following an escalation of mutual tariffs that reached triple-digit levels, many imports from the Asian giant came to a standstill in April. The two sides reached a temporary agreement to de-escalate the situation, but, according to AFP, Trump last week accused Beijing of breaching the terms of the agreement, something China denied. Meanwhile, a telephone conversation between Trump and President Xi Jinping is expected that could determine whether the tariff pause in effect until early July is maintained.

In this context, the fall in the trade deficit cannot be read as a sign of structural health, but as a one-off effect of a shock policy. A tactical victory with possible adverse strategic consequences.

The paradox of protectionism

Since his return to the White House in January, Trump has pushed through the largest across-the-board tariff hike in a century. His stated goal is to reduce U.S. dependence on imports, protect domestic industry and rebalance the trade balance. And on paper, it is succeeding: fewer imports, more margin in the external account.

But the underlying question is whether this adjustment is sustainable. Companies have had to anticipate the measures, accelerating imports in March to avoid additional costs. Then came the abrupt brake. Trade contraction may provide a momentary boost to growth, but it can also lead to distortions in supply chains, loss of efficiency and inflationary pressure.

A less open economy

Beyond the figures, what is at stake is a change of model. Trump's trade policy does not seek to adapt to the rules of global trade, but to rewrite them from a unilateral logic. On that path, the United States is becoming a less open and more controlled economy, with consequences that remain to be seen in employment, inflation and competitiveness.

Resolving the deficit may be politically useful. But if the solution involves making life more expensive for consumers, straining relations with allies and isolating the country from key flows of goods and technology, the cost may end up being greater than the imbalance that was intended to be corrected.