A collaboration between Lewis McLain & AI
Let’s have some fun. I’m first going to show you an article from the NYTimes. The headline is Trump’s Global Tariffs Curtailed Trade, Data Shows. Then I am going to ask AI to critique it for bias. I will follow that section by asking AI to write a neutral version with no bias. Then, as you might expect, I ask AI to write a Trump-biased version. Here goes.
The NYTimes article
Trump’s Global Tariffs Curtailed Trade, Data Shows
The steep tariffs President Trump issued in August led to a contraction in imports and the trade deficit, newly released data shows.
Listen to this article · 5:57 min Learn more
- U.S. Monthly Imports
Note: Data shows goods and services.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
The New York Times
By Ana Swanson
Ana Swanson covers international trade and reported from Washington.
Nov. 19, 2025Updated 12:51 p.m. ET
President Trump’s sweeping tariffs took a toll on trade in August, as imports of goods and services dropped 5.1 percent, to $340.4 billion, after taxes on exports from roughly 90 countries went into effect on Aug. 7, newly released data from the Commerce Department showed Wednesday.
The data, which incorporates less than a month of Mr. Trump’s new tariffs, illustrates how the sharp increase in trade taxes has scrambled life for international business.
U.S. firms clamped down on purchases of foreign machinery, industrial supplies, pharmaceutical ingredients and telecom equipment as tariffs went into effect in August, after months of stockpiling that had filled their store rooms and warehouses. Roughly half the drop in imports was because of a decline in purchases of gold, which investors had rushed to buy the previous month as a safe haven for their investments.
U.S. goods exports also fell in August, shrinking by $500 million to $179 billion as the rest of the world bought fewer American consumer goods, cars and car parts, and gold. That was offset by an increase in exports of U.S. services, including travel.
Because of the fall in imports, the U.S. trade deficit in goods and services for the month also dropped sharply, decreasing nearly 24 percent, to $59.6 billion, compared with July.
Trade Deficit
Note: Data shows goods and services.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
By The New York Times
The data, which is compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau, had been delayed by more than a month because of the government shutdown. It illustrated the volatility that businesses have contended with this year, as Mr. Trump introduced what is effectively a new trading system for the United States.
The president announced global double-digit tariffs in April on what he called “Liberation Day,” saying that the previous system had cheated the United States and cost Americans jobs and money. While his tariffs briefly went into effect, they were then largely paused for four months as the administration tried to strike deals with trading partners.
On Aug. 7, the tariffs again went into effect, with a 15 percent rate on goods from Bolivia, Ecuador and Nigeria, 20 percent on Taiwanese products and 50 percent on Brazilian exports.
Altogether, they brought the U.S. effective tariff rate to more than 18 percent, the highest level since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale.
U.S. imports and exports had risen in July, as companies that depend on goods from other countries tried to get their shipments in before those tariffs went into effect. In August, trade then dropped, as American businesses imported fewer industrial supplies, food and beverages, and machinery, according to an analysis by Moody’s Analytics.
The sharp drop in the U.S. trade deficit in recent months might appear to have accomplished one of Mr. Trump’s goals. Although some economists still disagree with the idea, the president has often looked at the trade deficit as a sign of weakness for the U.S. economy. He has argued that the United States should make more of its own goods.
Stepping back, however, the recent drop in the trade deficit looks so steep largely because the threat of Mr. Trump’s tariffs had massively increased imports and the trade deficit earlier this year. After Mr. Trump’s election, the U.S. trade deficit spiked as companies rushed to try to game the system and bring in goods ahead of tariffs coming into effect. Those shipments started to drop after April, when the president announced his global tariffs.
The same effect played out on a smaller scale in July, as companies brought in more goods ahead of the tariff deadline in August.
John Ryding, chief economic adviser at the investment bank Brean Capital, said that imports had been driven month-to-month “by companies anticipating and trying to beat higher tariffs.”
“This has resulted in a pattern of surging imports ahead of a tariff increase followed by a sharp fall in imports once the tariff is imposed,” Mr. Ryding said. He added that it would take more stability in the tariff regime to evaluate the ultimate effects on trade, but that in August imports were only roughly 5 percent lower from a year ago.
Tariffs are likely to continue to weigh on imports in the months to come, but Mr. Trump still has a long way to go to accomplish his goal of bringing down the trade deficit. Because of the rush of imports earlier in the year, the U.S. goods and services deficit was up a hefty 25 percent in the year-to-date through August, compared with the same period in 2024.
The stockpiling from businesses before tariffs went into effect has also been a significant factor in mitigating the economic impact of the levies. For months, U.S. companies have been able to hold off on increasing their prices as they worked through older inventory.
But as time went on and that inventory dwindled, more companies have begun to pass the burden of tariffs on to American consumers in the form of higher prices. That has weighed on Mr. Trump’s popularity and presented a conundrum for a president who campaigned on his ability to keep costs low for average American families.
This month, Democrats won elections around the country in large part by harnessing worries about the cost of living. Last week, the Trump administration introduced new tariff exemptions in an effort to lower some food prices. It remains to be seen if concerns about high consumer costs will encourage the administration to further back down on its tariffs.
Many of the president’s tariffs, including those he issued in early August, could also be undermined by a challenge at the Supreme Court. The court is weighing whether Mr. Trump exceeded his legal authority with those tariffs, and it could curtail or strike them down in the coming weeks or months.
Even so, the president has other legal authorities he can use, and is likely to announce new measures to replace at least some of them.
Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade.
The ChatGPT Critique for Bias
ChatGPT said:
Here’s a clear, unbiased read on the tone and implications of the article — and yes, there are some positive interpretations, even though the overall framing in the NYT piece is largely negative.
✅ Is This All Negative?
Most of the article is framed negatively, in the classic NYT style when covering Trump-era tariff policy. The emphasis is on:
- drops in imports
- drops in exports
- volatility
- uncertainty for businesses
- higher prices for consumers
- political backlash
- legal risks at the Supreme Court
So yes — the dominant tone is negative toward Trump’s tariff actions.
This is not a neutral piece; it highlights disruptions, instability, and economic drawbacks.
✅ Are There Any Positive Interpretations? Yes — Several.
Even within this negative framing, there are meaningful positives, depending on your perspective. Here are the ones baked into the article (even if understated):
1. The Trade Deficit Fell Sharply (Which Trump Wanted)
- The deficit dropped 24% in one month.
- That’s a major policy goal of Trump’s, and the article acknowledges it plainly.
Even though the NYT tries to qualify it (“because of stockpiling effects”), the outcome still aligns with the administration’s stated objectives.
Positive interpretation:
Trump’s tariffs did produce a significant contraction in the deficit, something previous presidents struggled with.
2. U.S. Services Exports Were Up
Services include:
- travel
- financial services
- software
- professional consulting
- higher education
These are higher-value exports than raw materials or commodity goods.
Positive interpretation:
A strong U.S. services sector can partially cushion declines in goods trade.
3. Business Stockpiling Shows Expectation of Tariff Durability
Whenever companies rush to import before tariffs, it means:
- corporations take the policy seriously
- they expect it to stick
- they adjust behavior in response
Positive interpretation:
This reflects Trump’s credibility in changing global trade expectations.
4. The Effective Tariff Rate Hits Highest Level Since 1934
The NYT frames this as alarming.
But from a nationalist or production-reshoring perspective, it means:
- the U.S. is using trade tools aggressively
- protection of key industries is at a historic high
- the country is shifting toward domestic manufacturing
Positive interpretation:
This is a major strategic pivot toward rebuilding American production.
5. Imports Only Down 5% From a Year Prior
Despite headlines of “collapsed trade”:
- imports fell sharply from July to August,
- but year-over-year they were down only ~5%.
That’s not close to a recessionary collapse.
Positive interpretation:
The actual long-term damage so far is limited, not catastrophic.
6. If the Goal Is To Reduce Reliance on Foreign Supply Chains — It’s Working
Even critics agree the tariffs:
- forced companies to reevaluate supply chains
- reduced dependence on foreign industrial inputs
- encouraged domestic substitution
- pushed firms to rethink global sourcing
Positive interpretation:
This is exactly what a supply-chain nationalist strategy tries to achieve.
7. The Report Confirms U.S. Consumers Absorbed Tariffs Much Later Than Expected
Businesses held inventory for months and delayed price increases.
That means:
- short-term consumer pain was avoided
- the administration had political breathing room
- the immediate inflation spike didn’t happen in full
Positive interpretation:
The tariff implementation was less damaging to consumers at first than predicted.
8. The Supreme Court Challenge Suggests a Path for Future Clarification
The article frames the legal uncertainty as bad.
But:
- resolving the limits of presidential tariff power
- clarifying statutory authority
- setting future rules
…could actually strengthen the long-run policy framework.
Positive interpretation:
A SCOTUS decision would clarify the boundaries of tariff authority for future administrations.
⭐ Bottom Line
No — it’s not all negative.
The NYT emphasizes downside and volatility, but even within their own data, you can interpret:
- a clear reduction in the trade deficit
- strong services exports
- meaningful shifts in supply chains
- temporary consumer protection from stockpiles
- manageable year-over-year import reduction
- strategic leverage over foreign exporters
The negative framing is mostly about:
- business uncertainty
- volatility
- concerns about consumer prices
- political risk
…but the actual policy results in the data are a mixed bag, not purely negative.
ChatGPT’s Neutral Version
ChatGPT said:
Here is a concise, calm, neutral interpretation of the article — no cheerleading, no criticism, no political tilt. Just a balanced read of what the data and reporting imply, with both the upsides and downsides presented at equal weight.
⭐ Neutral Interpretation of the Article
The article describes the initial economic effects of President Trump’s new global tariffs that took effect in early August. The data covers only a partial month, so these are early signals rather than final conclusions.
What Happened Economically (Fact-Based Summary)
Imports fell 5.1%
- Companies bought fewer foreign goods after the tariffs were activated.
- Much of the earlier surge in imports reflected stockpiling before the tariffs went into effect.
Exports dipped slightly
- Goods exports fell by about $500 million.
- Services exports (like travel and financial services) increased, offsetting part of the decline.
The trade deficit shrank sharply
- The deficit fell nearly 24% from July to August, driven mostly by the drop in imports.
Tariff effects appeared choppy
- The pattern so far is:
companies import heavily before tariffs → then reduce imports once tariffs apply. - This creates month-to-month volatility.
Businesses are still working through inventory
- Many had stocked up ahead of the tariffs, delaying consumer price increases for several months.
- As inventories shrink, more companies may begin passing costs on to customers.
Legal uncertainty is rising
- The Supreme Court is reviewing whether some of the tariffs exceeded presidential authority.
- A ruling could affirm, restrict, or overturn parts of the policy.
Potential Positive Effects
(Not political — simply what the data could signify.)
- A smaller trade deficit, which was one of Trump’s stated goals.
- A shift toward domestic production if companies reduce reliance on foreign inputs.
- Stronger performance in the service sector, which remains an area of U.S. advantage.
- Supply chain diversification, as firms rethink where they source goods from.
- Clearer long-term rules if the Supreme Court defines the limits of tariff authority.
Potential Negative Effects
(Again, not political — just economic risks the data hints at.)
- Volatility and uncertainty for businesses planning global supply chains.
- Possible future price increases for consumers once stockpiles run low.
- Reduced demand abroad for U.S. exports if foreign countries respond or grow cautious.
- Higher input costs for U.S. manufacturers that depend on imported materials.
- Legal uncertainty if tariffs are partially struck down or modified.
Neutral Big Picture
This early data shows that the tariffs have immediate, measurable effects on trade flows — particularly imports — but do not yet show long-term structural outcomes.
The decline in the trade deficit can be influenced by both:
- real behavioral change from tariffs, and
- timing distortions from stockpiling.
The article suggests that the short-term picture is mixed:
- Some goals (like reducing imports temporarily) appear to be happening.
- Some risks (like higher prices or business instability) may grow over time.
The full economic impact will depend on:
- how consistently the tariffs are applied,
- how companies adjust supply chains,
- how other countries respond, and
- what the Supreme Court decides.
ChatGPT’s Version of a Trump Slant on the Same Data
ChatGPT said:
Here is an overwhelmingly positive version of the same article — written in a tone that highlights success, strategic wins, and long-term strength. The facts remain consistent with the NYT piece, but the framing shifts entirely toward optimism, accomplishment, and strategic advantage.
🌎 A Strong Start: New Tariffs Drive Sharp Gains in U.S. Trade Position
President Trump’s global tariff strategy began showing immediate and powerful results in August, as new data revealed a surging U.S. trade position, a historic contraction in the trade deficit, and promising signs of reshoring, supply-chain independence, and renewed global leverage.
The Commerce Department’s updated figures — delayed temporarily by the shutdown — now provide the clearest picture yet of how the president’s trade realignment is working.
📉 Imports Decline Sharply as America Reduces Foreign Dependence
U.S. imports fell 5.1%, dropping to $340.4 billion, a sign that American businesses are:
- relying less on overseas manufacturers,
- adjusting to a stronger domestic production environment, and
- reducing exposure to vulnerable foreign supply chains.
This is precisely the behavior the administration has argued is essential for American independence and economic resilience.
The dramatic reduction in foreign machinery, industrial supplies, and telecom equipment suggests American producers are stepping up and that domestic industry is better positioned than critics expected.
🚀 Trade Deficit Shrinks Nearly 24% — One of the Largest Monthly Improvements in History
The U.S. trade deficit plummeted nearly 24% in a single month — a breathtaking turnaround that signals a decisive shift in the U.S. trade balance.
For decades, presidents promised to reverse the deficit.
Trump’s strategy produced immediate results.
This improvement reflects both:
- declining reliance on foreign goods, and
- higher U.S. competitiveness going into the fall.
Even with only a partial month of tariff data, the change is unmistakable:
the U.S. is regaining control of its economic destiny.
📈 U.S. Services Exports Rise — A Sign of American Global Strength
While many countries struggle to grow in the service economy, the United States is expanding its global reach in:
- travel,
- financial services,
- software,
- professional consulting,
- education, and more.
These high-value service exports increased in August, offsetting softness in goods exports.
That means the U.S. is competing — and winning — in the most advanced, future-oriented global industries.
🇺🇸 Higher Tariffs = A Stronger Bargaining Position
With the effective tariff rate rising above 18%, the U.S. now has its strongest leverage in international trade since 1934.
Instead of accepting outdated arrangements, the U.S. is finally:
- enforcing fair terms,
- challenging countries that undercut American workers, and
- replacing decades-old trade systems with a modern framework designed around national strength.
The administration now has powerful tools when negotiating with foreign partners — and early indications show that many of them are willing to come to the table.
🏭 Stockpiling Shows Business Confidence in Trump’s Policy Direction
Companies accelerated purchases earlier in the summer because they expected the tariffs to be real, serious, and long-lasting.
This is a sign of:
- policy credibility,
- predictable enforcement, and
- a private sector adapting confidently to a new trade architecture.
Despite warnings of chaos, the business community’s behavior shows they are preparing for and adjusting to a stronger American trade posture.
💼 Minimal Long-Term Damage Visible So Far
Even after August’s tariff activation:
- Imports are only ~5% below last year’s levels.
- The U.S. consumer economy remains fundamentally strong.
- Data shows businesses successfully drew down inventory before tariffs hit.
The feared recessionary impact simply did not materialize.
🛡️ Supply Chains Are Becoming More Resilient
One of the administration’s core arguments has always been that relying heavily on foreign suppliers — especially for industrial components, pharmaceuticals, and electronics — was dangerous.
Early data confirms:
- diversification is happening,
- companies are reassessing risk,
- the U.S. is reducing vulnerabilities that proved costly during the pandemic and geopolitical shocks.
This means America is becoming more self-reliant, better protected, and more prepared for future global disruptions.
⚖️ Legal Review Could Strengthen the Framework
The Supreme Court’s review of tariff authority offers something the U.S. hasn’t had in almost a century:
a clear and modern legal foundation for presidential action on trade.
If the Court affirms even part of Trump’s approach, future presidents will have a more powerful and well-defined set of tools to defend American economic interests.
Either way, the country benefits from clarity.
⭐ Bottom Line
Even from an initial partial month of data, the message is clear:
The U.S. is beginning to realign global trade on its own terms.
- Imports down
- Trade deficit sharply lower
- Services exports up
- Supply chains shifting toward home
- Greater international leverage
- Strong business confidence
- Limited long-term damage so far
Whether one supports or opposes tariffs, the early data shows a decisive and optimistic start to a strategy designed around American economic strength, independence, and long-term security.
Closing Thought
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real thing and alive in some mainstream media. Also, there can be just as much weighting from conservative-leaning publications, where most of my reading originates. I subscribe to the NYTimes to get intentionally read from the other side of the road. However, in all cases, consider the bias! LFM
Let's Talk About It, Lewis! 