This is a complex subject. The president of the United States, and other architects of foreign policy, have to look beyond crude economic materialism when defining policy. There are bigger issues involved than having the cheapest crap possible at Walmart and providing Yawon Bwook with cheap yard service.
A case in point is Red China. The ChiComs are responsible for the deaths of tens-of-thousands of American soldiers in Korea and Vietnam. The ChiComs helped torture American POWs to death in the Hanoi Hilton. Red China is still a Communist one-party state that is hostile to American interests. For example, Red China's ongoing cyber war against the United States. All of these facts are conveniently forgotten by the "free trade" zealots.
In the last thirty years, American trade policy has pumped $trillions into this hostile foreign power. The fruits can be seen with the ChiComs' saber rattling in the South China Sea and elsewhere. It made some sense to play the ChiComs off against the Soviets during the Cold War. But, most of the "free trade" expansion of Red China's economy has occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Is such a policy really in the long-term interests of the United States? These are questions that the "free traders" don't ask. I'm sure for good reason.
*I place "free trade" within sneer quotes in this context, since deals between governments meant to benefit the People's Liberation Army and Bush/Clinton cronies are not free trade.