A better measure of success for Mr. Trump’s America-first policy, economists say, would be putting more Americans to work, and rising growth and productivity gains over all.

In an emailed response, Wilbur Ross, the secretary of commerce, said such macroeconomic factors did not explain the huge increase in the trade deficits the United States has seen with other countries in the past: China immediately after its admission to the World Trade Organization, Mexico after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed or South Korea after the United States signed a trade deal with that country.

“China’s trade surplus is what has fueled their economic growth for many years,” he wrote. “If a trade surplus is good for China how can a trade deficit be anything but bad for us?”

Many economists do not see the trade gap as a negative. Bryan Riley, an economist at the Heritage Foundation who supports free trade, said the trade deficit was not necessarily a sign of trouble but can be good or bad, depending on the circumstances. Mr. Riley pointed out that in recent years, the economy has grown faster when the trade deficit was getting bigger, and slower when it was getting smaller.

Mr. Riley said the administration’s tax policies might have a greater impact than trade policy on the trade deficit if changes to the tax code end up making the United States economy more competitive and attract more investment.

While the Trump administration would consider such tax changes to be a success, Mr. Riley said they could make the trade deficit even bigger — if, for example, lower taxes expand economic growth, giving Americans more money to buy goods from abroad, or encourage foreigners to invest more in the United States.

Not every economist thinks that a trade deficit is harmless. Some, especially those on the left, see persistent imbalances as a potentially troubling sign that the United States has lost manufacturing jobs to other countries.