I could make analogous observations about attorneys. But I won't because that would be grossly unfair to you.
I mentioned an engineering background to acknowledge that among other things I'm trained to extrapolate and extrapolating, if not done thoughtfully, can be problematic; and to make it clear that commerce is not an area in which I'm an SME. It was a roundabout way of saying "take this with a grain of salt", the opposite of an argument that my "credentials" lend gravitas to my opinions on this topic.
The list is longer with Canada. Agricultural products, manufactured goods, electronics, aren't really free trade despite a "free trade agreement", which simply codified the tariff status quo (an iirc was revised/put in place under Trump's first admin). Agricultural products, dairy especially, is just a stark example that free trade doesn't and hasn't existed even between the US and Canada. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist, but if we're going to talk about free and fair trade, why not actually pursue it to the greatest extent possible? Either we're for it or we're not. And I think it's quite reasonable to concluse that outright protectionism will persist where a bilateral agreement can't be reached. "I want free trade but if you maintain barriers against me I will put them up against you," is not a position that's way out there on the fringe. But it's also correct to say the proof will be in the pudding the first time someone approaches the US with a legitimate offer of barrier free trading. Maybe the administration will renege and prove themselves liars.
For a whole bunch of reasons I would rate the administration's approach to trade as suboptimal, and I don't like the way they conflate unrelated issues with trade (e.g., Canada exploiting proximity to the US to shirk national defense/NATO responsibilities, or Canada's own struggles with cartels/fentanyl that secondarily impact the US in a modest way, being the rationale for tariffs). Further, we had already agreed to a structure of tariffs with Canada and Mexico that the administration disrupted for ancillary reasons. I don't know the structure of trade agreements with the EU and various Asian and other entities, but I am aware that they were not always followed as agreed to by the various partners. So there may be instances where tariff actions are a more direct response existng issues, but I can't name them.
On related things, I don't see the US ever getting to a zero trade balance (unless maybe exports of services are subject to "fair trade" some day), nor do I think it should be an explicit target, at least until the US squanders its wealth to the point we can no longer afford to be gluttons of "stuff". At that point it will swing the other way out of necessity.
The point is that a person can be pro free trade, even approaching true free trade, and not be overly enamored with any particular political figure who happens to state similar objectives. I get the temptation to say things are working great for me, whatever you do, don't tip over the apple cart. I never worked in a field where non-domestic customers or competition existed, and over time I worked my way to the upper portion of the US wealth distribution from a lower middle class background, so it was very easy to say, "gimme my cheap stuff and pump up the stock market. This is awesome!". I retired in my 50s thinking everything was great. In a sense that still holds, but having the opportunity to interact more meaningfully with a wider swath of Americana (economically and geographically), as well as pursue a broader palette of what you might call hobby interests, has caused me to view some things differently.
I dunno why I even give a shit about free trade, The pre-Trump status quo of sorta free trade would keep flinging me further down easy street on auto pilot. And I admit my ideology in that regard is not pure--I do believe very strongly there are some strategic national security considerations that necessarily overrule free trade. So no matter how it's sliced, it'll end in a compromise. I suppose I'd like that to ultimately settle at a point that puts the nation writ large in the most resilient position possible, and I'm not convinced that is synonymous with what Bernie would describe as the rich getting richer (though IMO that's not necessarily a bad thing, it's more a matter of how it happens than it is that it happens). The one thing I will give Trump credit for is initiating a lot of conversations that need to be brought forward. His palette of solutions in many cases seems crude or even potentially incorrect, and the optimal solutions will probably arise from those that come after him, but at least some of the right things are getting talked about. As unpleasant as things are, I shudder to thank of what could have been.
Of course that's largely opinion, and we know the conventional wisdom about opinions.
