(1) To reiterate the point, which the article you post doesn't argue against, the trade deficit is not related to federal debt. This is why I posted the methods used to calculate the current account deficit, which has to do with trade flows, not federal borrowing. I note neither you nor the article you are using can argue against the actual methods used in calculating the current account. Using your reasoning, we could equivalently say that the US is running a capital account surplus, and that this too must be because of federal borrowing. Of course, that doesn't seem to make sense. Are you also able to explain the corollary: how federal borrowing causes a capital account surplus? (note: if you're running a current account deficit, ie. a trade deficit, then by definition you're running a capital account surplus). Are you also able to explain how some other countries (such as Japan) are able to maintain a current account surplus yet have more national debt (at least in terms of % of GDP) than the US? Are you also able to explain periods of time where the US was running a current account surplus yet had to resort of federal borrowing (eg, 1980-1982, 1990-1991?
Of course not. It's a nice theory to think that federal borrowing is somehow related to the current account deficit, but it's just a theory.
(2) So we have a few things and counter examples which the article you post cannot explain (and does not attempt to explain) which should be sufficient to demonstrate that the trade deficit isn't related to the federal debt. But further, to try to establish the argument made in the article we would also require more information. You would have to show that tax revenues would have been higher had production not shifted in the ways mentioned in the article, that those venues would have been sufficiently high enough to fund the federal debt, and that federal debt would not continue to outpace federal spending (I mean, why can't federal spending outpace federal revenues and there also be a current account surplus?). He would also have to account for economic growth, and thus increases in tax revenues, in other sectors (which he doesn't do), net effects in manufacturing, gains in productivity, increases in GDP, etc.. I'm probably leaving out a bunch of analysis that would have to be done for the simple reason that the author of the article seemingly isn't aware of his argument's problems.
Call me skeptical, but I don't think the author of that article can prove it anyway. In short, because the federal debt is unrelated to current account surpluses or deficits, it's very difficult to try to establish that there happens to be a unique case/relationship between the two in the case of the US. The article you post has a paragraph, which doesn't qualify for analysis. It's easy to concoct a story that seems to make sense, but in reality it's harder to prove, especially when the two variables in question have no necessary relationship.