The Claim

Sent tariff revenues soaring, collecting $300 billion under expanded enforcement and new policies.

The Claim, Unpacked

What is literally being asserted?

Two things: (1) tariff revenues “soared” — they increased dramatically; and (2) the administration “collected $300 billion” through “expanded enforcement and new policies.” The claim presents this as an achievement under the “Championing American Workers and American Industry” section, framing tariff revenue as a benefit to working Americans.

What is being implied but not asserted?

That $300 billion in tariff revenue is good news for American workers. That the revenue came from foreign countries “paying” tariffs. That “expanded enforcement” suggests the prior system was failing to collect what was owed. That “new policies” — tariffs — generate net revenue for the government. That tariff revenue is free money, with no corresponding cost to the domestic economy.

What is conspicuously absent?

Any definition of the time period or accounting method used to arrive at $300 billion — a figure that does not match any official data source for any standard reporting period. Any acknowledgment that tariffs are paid by American importers (not foreign governments) and approximately 90% of the cost is passed to American consumers and businesses. Any mention that tariff revenue of $300 billion represents approximately $300 billion in additional costs borne by the American economy — every dollar of tariff “revenue” is a dollar extracted from American businesses’ import bills. Any reference to the Tax Foundation’s estimate that tariffs amounted to a $1,000 average tax increase per household in 2025. Any acknowledgment that the majority of 2025 tariff revenue was collected under IEEPA authority that the Supreme Court ruled illegal on February 20, 2026, potentially requiring refunds of approximately $90 billion to importers. Any mention that net tariff revenue — after accounting for reduced income and payroll tax bases — is substantially less than gross collections. Any discussion of consumer price increases, retaliatory tariffs, manufacturing job losses, or the other economic costs documented across Items 105, 109, 110, and 111.

Evidence Assessment

Established Facts

The $300 billion figure does not match any official tariff revenue data for any standard reporting period. The Treasury Combined Statement reports $194.9 billion in customs duties for FY2025 (October 2024-September 2025) — a 153% increase over FY2024’s $77.1 billion but well short of $300 billion. The Tax Foundation calculates $264 billion in calendar year 2025 customs duties, compared to $79 billion in CY2024. CBP reported collecting $216.7 billion in total duties, taxes, and fees in FY2025. CBP separately reported collecting “more than $200 billion” between January 20 and December 15, 2025. None of these figures reach $300 billion. The only way to approach $300 billion is to combine FY2025 collections ($194.9 billion) with the first quarter of FY2026 ($117.7 billion through January 2026 per USAFacts) — but this 16-month cumulative figure includes pre-existing tariff revenue that was collected before any Trump policy changes, and spans an unusual time period that no standard fiscal reporting uses. ¹

Tariff revenues did increase dramatically — this much is true. By any measure, tariff revenue in 2025 surged to levels not seen in over a century relative to the economy. The average effective tariff rate rose from 2.4% in 2024 to 7.7% in 2025 — the highest since 1947. Monthly customs duties rose from $7 billion in January 2025 to $30 billion by September 2025. BEA quarterly data (seasonally adjusted annual rate) shows customs duties jumping from $87.2 billion in Q4 2024 to $364.3 billion by Q4 2025. Customs duties as a share of federal revenue reached 3.7% in FY2025 — the first time above 2% since 1980. The revenue increase is indisputable. ²

Approximately 90% of tariff costs were borne by American firms and consumers, not foreign countries. The New York Federal Reserve found that in the first eight months of 2025, 94% of tariff costs were passed through to U.S. importers, with the rate remaining above 86% through November. A 10% tariff caused only a 0.6% decline in foreign export prices. The tariff revenue the claim celebrates is, by the Federal Reserve’s own measurement, a tax overwhelmingly paid by American businesses and consumers. Every dollar of tariff “revenue” corresponds to approximately 90 cents paid by an American importer. ³

The tariffs imposed an estimated $1,000 per household tax increase in 2025. The Tax Foundation calculated that the combined tariff regime — IEEPA, Section 232, and Section 301 — amounted to an average tax increase of approximately $1,000 per U.S. household in 2025. This cost is regressive: lower-income households, who spend a larger share of income on imported consumer goods, bear a disproportionate burden. These are not costs paid by foreigners — they are costs paid by Americans at the checkout counter and in their supply chains. ⁴

The majority of 2025 tariff revenue was collected under IEEPA authority later ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. All IEEPA tariffs — both the “reciprocal” tariffs (EO 14257) and the “fentanyl” tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico — terminated February 24, 2026. CRFB estimates that approximately $90 billion of the $195 billion collected in FY2025 was attributable to IEEPA tariffs. The government may be required to refund this revenue to importers. The Tax Foundation’s conventional revenue table shows IEEPA tariffs raised $95.8 billion in CY2025 on a conventional basis. Claiming $300 billion in revenue when nearly half was collected under authority subsequently ruled unconstitutional — and potentially subject to refund — fundamentally undermines the claim. ⁵

Net tariff revenue is substantially less than gross customs duties collected. The Tax Foundation explains that tariffs “mechanically reduce the bases of income and payroll taxes” — when businesses pay more for imports, their profits and wages are lower, generating less income and payroll tax revenue. The Tax Foundation estimates the Section 232 tariffs raised $36 billion in net new tax revenue in 2025, despite much higher gross collections, because the income and payroll tax offsets are substantial. On a dynamic basis incorporating the negative economic effects of tariffs, the revenue raised is even lower. The claim cites gross collections while ignoring the revenue lost elsewhere in the tax system. ⁶

Pre-existing tariffs — not “new policies” — account for a significant portion of collections. Before Trump took office in January 2025, the U.S. was already collecting approximately $77-80 billion annually in customs duties from pre-existing tariffs (Section 301 tariffs on China from Trump’s first term, Section 232 steel and aluminum tariffs, and the baseline tariff schedule). The increase attributable to “new policies” is the difference between total collections and this baseline. For FY2025, that increase is approximately $118 billion above FY2024 — significant but less than half the claimed $300 billion. ⁷

Strong Inferences

The $300 billion figure appears to be constructed by combining a non-standard time period with gross (not net) collections including pre-existing tariffs. The most plausible construction: FY2025 customs duties ($194.9 billion) plus Q1 FY2026 collections (approximately $105-118 billion through January 2026, given FY2026’s early months collected at elevated rates including $34.3 billion in October 2025 alone). This yields approximately $300-313 billion over a 16-month window. But this accounting: (a) spans a non-standard period crossing fiscal years, (b) includes approximately $80 billion in pre-existing tariff baseline revenue, (c) counts approximately $90 billion in IEEPA tariff revenue later ruled illegal, and (d) ignores income and payroll tax offsets. The figure is engineered to produce the largest possible number. ⁸

Tariff revenue framed as a “win” for American workers inverts the actual economic relationship. Multiple independent analyses confirm that tariffs function as a consumption tax paid by American consumers and businesses, with regressive distributional effects. The Tax Foundation finds Section 232 tariffs alone reduced after-tax incomes across all income groups. The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady through mid-2025 specifically citing tariff-driven inflation risks. Manufacturing lost approximately 72,000 jobs after Liberation Day tariffs took effect. Celebrating tariff revenue under “Championing American Workers” is like celebrating sales tax revenue under “championing consumers” — the revenue exists because the tax is being collected from the people the section claims to be championing. ⁹

What the Evidence Shows

Tariff revenue in 2025 did increase dramatically. This is not in dispute. Monthly customs duties quadrupled, the effective tariff rate reached levels not seen since 1947, and total customs collections roughly tripled compared to 2024. The administration’s tariff policies generated substantial gross revenue for the federal government. This is the kernel of truth in the claim.

But the claim makes three moves that transform this kernel into a misleading assertion. First, it cites $300 billion — a figure that does not appear in any official government report for any standard reporting period. The Treasury reports $194.9 billion in FY2025 customs duties. The Tax Foundation reports $264 billion for CY2025. CBP reports $216.7 billion in total FY2025 duties, taxes, and fees. The $300 billion appears to be a cumulative figure spanning approximately 16 months, constructed to reach a round number by crossing fiscal year boundaries while including pre-existing tariff revenue that has nothing to do with “new policies.”

Second, the claim frames tariff revenue as something the government “collected” from outside the American economy — the rhetorical function of “expanded enforcement and new policies” suggests revenue that was owed but previously uncollected, or revenue extracted from foreign trade partners. The evidence is unambiguous: approximately 90% of tariff costs were borne by American importers, passed through to American consumers as higher prices. Tariff revenue is not revenue collected from foreigners. It is revenue collected from Americans. The $264 billion in CY2025 customs duties represents $264 billion extracted from American businesses’ import bills, approximately $1,000 per household.

Third, and most consequentially, the majority of the revenue was collected under legal authority the Supreme Court subsequently ruled unconstitutional. Approximately $90 billion of FY2025 collections came from IEEPA tariffs. That revenue may need to be refunded. And even the revenue that was legally collected through Section 232 raised only $36 billion in net new federal revenue in 2025 after accounting for income and payroll tax offsets, because tariffs that reduce business profits and consumer spending also reduce other tax bases. The gross collection number is not the net fiscal benefit.

The denominator problem is stark: for every dollar of tariff “revenue,” American consumers and businesses paid roughly 90 cents, lost approximately $1,000 per household in purchasing power, saw manufacturing shed 72,000 jobs, experienced the highest tariff rate since 1947, and bore the costs of retaliatory tariffs on $223 billion of U.S. exports. Citing the numerator (revenue) without the denominator (cost) is not an accounting of results — it is advertising.

The Bottom Line

Tariff revenue did soar in 2025 — from approximately $80 billion to $195-264 billion depending on the reporting period. This is a real and historically significant increase. Credit where due: the administration’s tariff policies generated substantial gross customs revenue, tripling collections from the prior year.

But the $300 billion figure is inflated — it appears to combine a non-standard 16-month window, pre-existing tariff revenue, and collections under IEEPA authority the Supreme Court later ruled illegal. The most defensible FY2025 figure is $194.9 billion (Treasury) or $264 billion (CY2025, Tax Foundation). Neither reaches $300 billion.

More fundamentally, framing tariff revenue as a win for American workers requires ignoring who actually pays. The Federal Reserve’s own research shows 90% of tariff costs fell on American firms and consumers. The Tax Foundation estimates a $1,000 per household tax increase. The net new federal revenue from Section 232 tariffs — after accounting for reduced income and payroll tax bases — was only $36 billion in 2025, a fraction of gross collections. And approximately $90 billion of FY2025 collections may need to be refunded following the Supreme Court’s ruling that IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional. Tariff revenue is not free money discovered in foreign treasuries. It is a tax on American imports — and therefore a tax on American consumers, manufacturers, and workers. Celebrating it as “championing American workers” is the stated-versus-revealed-preferences problem in its most transparent form.

Sources

Footnotes

1. Treasury Combined Statement FY2025, Receipts by Source: customs duties $194.9 billion. Tax Foundation, “Tariff Tracker,” March 13, 2026: CY2025 customs duties $264 billion vs $79 billion in CY2024. CBP Trade Statistics: $216.7 billion total duties/taxes/fees FY2025 vs $88.07 billion FY2024. CBP press release December 16, 2025: “more than $200 billion” collected Jan 20-Dec 15, 2025. USAFacts: $117.7 billion collected through January 2026 (FY2026 Q1, 318% increase YoY). https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/combined-statement/cs2025/receipt.pdf; https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/; https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/trade; https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/thanks-president-trump-cbp-announces-record-breaking-200-billion; https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-revenue-does-the-federal-government-collect-from-tariffs/country/united-states/ ↩

2. FRED Series B235RC1Q027SBEA (BEA NIPA customs duties, SAAR): Q4 2024 $87.2B, Q1 2025 $97.0B, Q2 2025 $267.7B, Q3 2025 $331.4B, Q4 2025 $364.3B. Tax Foundation: average effective tariff rate 2.4% (2024) to 7.7% (2025), highest since 1947. CRFB: monthly customs duties rose from $7B (January 2025) to $30B (September 2025). USAFacts: customs duties reached 3.7% of federal revenue in FY2025, first time above 2% since 1980. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/B235RC1Q027SBEA; https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/; https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-revenue-soars-fy-2025-amid-legal-uncertainty; https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-revenue-does-the-federal-government-collect-from-tariffs/country/united-states/ ↩

3. Amiti, Flanagan, Heise, Weinstein, “Who Is Paying for the 2025 U.S. Tariffs?”, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Liberty Street Economics, February 12, 2026. Pass-through rates: 94% (Jan-Aug), 92% (Sep-Oct), 86% (Nov). A 10% tariff caused only a 0.6% decline in foreign export prices (rising to 1.4% by November). Import prices for tariffed goods rose approximately 11% relative to non-tariffed goods. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/ ↩

4. Tax Foundation, “Tariff Tracker,” March 13, 2026. Average tariff tax increase: $1,000 per US household in 2025 (would have been $1,300 in 2026 if IEEPA tariffs continued). Section 232 tariffs alone: $400 per household in 2026. Distributional analysis shows regressive impact: bottom 20% lost 0.3% of after-tax income. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ ↩

5. Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided February 20, 2026. 6-3 ruling that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs. Roberts: “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties.” All IEEPA tariffs terminated February 24, 2026. CRFB: approximately $90 billion of $195 billion FY2025 collections attributable to IEEPA tariffs, potentially requiring refund. Tax Foundation Table 2: IEEPA tariffs raised $95.8 billion conventional in CY2025. Kavanaugh warned of potential refund obligations of “billions of dollars.” https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-revenue-soars-fy-2025-amid-legal-uncertainty; https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/; https://www.whitecase.com/insight-alert/united-states-terminates-ieepa-based-tariffs-following-supreme-court-decision ↩

6. Tax Foundation, “Tariff Tracker,” March 13, 2026. “The total revenue raised by tariffs will be less than the direct collections, because tariffs mechanically reduce the bases of income and payroll taxes.” Section 232 tariffs: $36 billion conventional, $23.2 billion dynamic in CY2025. Total conventional revenue all tariffs CY2025: $131.8 billion. Dynamic revenue after negative economic effects is substantially lower. 10-year dynamic revenue (Section 232 + Section 122): $517 billion vs $662 billion conventional. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ ↩

7. CBP Trade Statistics: FY2024 total duties/taxes/fees $88.07 billion; FY2023 $92.3 billion; FY2022 $111.8 billion. USAFacts: from 1980 to 2017, inflation-adjusted tariff revenue ranged $28-53 billion. Treasury MTS: FY2024 customs duties approximately $77 billion. The FY2025 increase of $118 billion above FY2024 represents the net effect of new policies. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/trade; https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-revenue-does-the-federal-government-collect-from-tariffs/country/united-states/ ↩

8. Analysis combining multiple data sources. FY2025 customs duties ($194.9B) plus early FY2026 collections at elevated rates ($34.3B in October 2025 alone per AAF; $117.7B through January 2026 per USAFacts) yields approximately $300-313B over 16 months. Pre-existing baseline: ~$80B annually. IEEPA portion: ~$90B of FY2025 per CRFB. Net new revenue (Section 232 only): $36B per Tax Foundation. https://www.americanactionforum.org/shipment/2025-wrapped-the-year-in-trade/; https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-revenue-does-the-federal-government-collect-from-tariffs/country/united-states/; https://www.crfb.org/blogs/tariff-revenue-soars-fy-2025-amid-legal-uncertainty; https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/ ↩

9. Tax Foundation distributional analysis: Section 232 tariffs reduced after-tax incomes for all groups. Bottom 20%: -0.3%. Federal Reserve FOMC Statement, May 7, 2025: “risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation have risen.” CFR: manufacturing lost ~72,000 jobs post-April 2025. Tax Foundation: retaliatory tariffs affected $223 billion of U.S. exports. Tax Foundation Table 1: Section 232 tariffs reduced full-time equivalent jobs by 154,000; IEEPA tariffs would have reduced by additional 282,000. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-trade-war/; https://www.factcheck.org/2026/01/trumps-tariffs-dont-come-close-to-funding-everything-hes-proposed/ ↩