This is a gross oversimplification.

Exports do contribute to U.S. economic growth, but the relationship between exports and imports is more complex than just comparing the value of resources. When a country exports, it earns revenue, creates jobs, and stimulates domestic industries. Imports, on the other hand, provide goods and services that may not be available domestically or are cheaper or better in quality.

The core idea behind international trade is comparative advantage—countries specialize in producing what they’re best at and trade for the rest. If the U.S. exports something it’s more efficient at producing and imports something another country produces more efficiently, both sides benefit, regardless of the relative value of the inputs.

de Rugy’s statement implies that a trade deficit (importing more goods than we export) is necessarily bad, which is not always true. A trade deficit might indicate that a country is consuming more or investing more than it produces, but it could also reflect a strong currency or high consumer demand, which aren’t inherently negative for economic growth. See this Bite-Sized Brief where I explain how Trade Deficits work⁶, because Trump famously doesn’t understand them either.

In short, while it’s true that exports are beneficial when they add more value than the inputs, economic growth from trade is better understood through the lens of overall productivity and comparative advantage, not just the relative value of exports and imports.

Full contextual analysis of Section 4.3: Export-Import Bank here.