A reasonable question here is "did companies spend down petty cash to import goods in Q1" (no change to GDP), or "did companies stop investing and producing domestically in order to afford to import more goods in Q1" (reduced GDP).
Whether or not that's true in reality, it is true in the report that caused the headline.
From the article:
> A logistical consideration makes Wednesday’s report difficult to interpret: Imports subtract from the Commerce Department’s calculation of GDP, since they represent spending on foreign-made goods and services.
Because imports are only subtracted from the higher spending on imports in the first place.
Conceptually, imports are not part of GDP. Imports are never subtracted from GDP. But to calculate GDP, part of that is to take total spending (a number larger than GDP) and then subtract spending on imports.
So the 0.3% contraction in GDP has to be a real thing. Unless there's some other deeper technical discrepancy, or some kind of time lag where spending on imports and the import subtraction are being counted in different quarters?
Noah Smith is a galaxy-scale idiot, by the way.