1) Yes, at least in theory, free trade evens out all the markets, so for example brings up wages in the wage havens like China. This is something we would normally view as a good thing. OTOH, it also evens out by lowering US worker wages, and the argument can be made, by a percentage larger than those workers are saving when they buy less expensive foreign made goods. Shouldn’t we care about that first and Chinese wages later, if at all? Not only that, but the increase on the Chinese side may very well accrue to the government-industrial entities rather than to the people, which is not only of no use, it actually poses a threat to the same Americans who saw their jobs go overseas. So they’re paying with lower wages to be made politically and militarily vulnerable. I’ll pass, thanks.
2) Many markets are critical infrastructure for national defense. Even if on purely economic basis free trade looks desirable, if the cost is making your nation vulnerable, you can’t do it.
3) People talk about “free trade” as if that’s what we’ve had until Trump started in on Gyyyna. That’s not really the case. The status quo ante (and in general, not just with China) was more like a one-sided trade war where one side was firing every weapon they had with profligate abandon while the opponent was in a perpetual cease-fire. At some times in some scenarios, true free trade gives a better outcome than protectionism, but protectionism is better than one-sided trade war where one of the sides doesn’t bother to engage.
Your third point is what the article is about. Low tariffs when coupled with a welfare state and an income tax constitute subsidized outsourcing.
Only if all sides do the same thing does it even out.
THEN, once we limit subsidized outsourcing to poor countries we want to support, we can ask the question: do we want to penalize outsourcing in order to ensure national defense, higher wage rates, etc.
The other side is claiming to adhere to an idealized baseline. Their claim is wrong.