Peter Navarro Says Tariffs Will Be a $6 Trillion Tax Increase, but Also a Tax Cut
If true, then these tariffs would be the biggest peacetime tax increase in American history.

In an interview with Fox News on Sunday, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro said the tariffs set to be announced this week would be one of the biggest tax increases in American history—while also promising the exact opposite.
"The message here is that tariffs are tax cuts," Navarro told Fox News' Shannon Bream in response to a question about President Donald Trump's apparent lack of concern over how tariffs could hike the price of cars.
But that's not the message that Navarro had delivered just moments earlier, when he touted the revenue-generating potential of the new tariffs, which Trump has threatened to impose later this week.
"Tariffs are going to raise about $600 billion a year, about $6 trillion over a 10-year period," Navarro said.
If that's true, then these tariffs would be the biggest peacetime tax increase in American history. A $600 billion annual tax increase would equate to about 2.2 percent of gross domestic product. Only the tax increases implemented to pay for World War II would compare.
Navarro's way of squaring that circle is to argue that those tax increases aren't tax increases at all—because the tariff revenue will be used to offset the budgetary cost of extending the 2017 tax cuts.
It is impossible to know whether that math works out because the White House has released few details about the tariffs that Trump has repeatedly promised to impose on April 2. Navarro provided no details in his Sunday interview with Fox News to explain how he arrived at the $6 trillion figure.
(Indeed, the lack of information regarding this week's tariff announcement is becoming its own story. In a separate interview also on Fox News, Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, said he "can't give…any forward-looking guidance on what's going to happen this week.")
Here's one way that Navarro could be arriving at that figure. Last year, the U.S. imported about $3 trillion in goods. A 20 percent tariff on all imports would therefore generate about $600 billion in annual revenue—but that assumes all those imports would still take place even with the new tariffs in place.
It's almost certain that overall imports would decrease if there were a 20 percent universal tariff. Indeed, much of the White House's messaging about tariffs assumes that imports would decrease and that the tariffs would bully businesses into doing more domestic manufacturing.
You can see that effect in analyses of Trump's tariffs on Canada, China, and Mexico. The Yale Budget Lab, for example, estimates that those tariffs will generate $1.5 trillion over 10 years, but that figure drops by about $300 billion when so-called "dynamic effects" are taken into account.
In short, the more efficiently tariffs reduce imports, the less useful they are as a revenue-generating tool. The opposite is also true: Tariffs can only generate a lot of revenue only if they fail at blocking imports. Trump and Navarro seem to be trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Navarro's economic illiteracy about tariffs and his apparent unwillingness to recognize that governmental policies have trade-offs is the sort of thing you might expect from a progressive Democrat or someone else on the far left of the political spectrum. And, indeed, that's basically what Navarro is—he was once called "San Diego's Bernie Sanders," as I detailed in a December 2020 feature for Reason.
Like with many of Sanders' ideas, buying Navarro's pitch on tariffs requires more than a bit of magical thinking.
"It insults the intelligence of the American people when he's saying the government is going to collect $700 billion a year" without any increase in their own costs, is how Sen. Mark Warner (D–Va.) responded to Navarro's comments during his own interview on Fox News. "That money doesn't come falling out of the sky."
Democratic senators opposing tax hikes. Sanders-style progressives setting economic policy in a Republican administration. Tax increases that are also tax cuts. Tariffs that can restrict imports while still raising revenue. The Trump administration's trade policy is getting more confusing by the minute.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nobody in their right mind believes in any ten year projection where the elections cycle is two years.
(Especially when the intent of the tariff (NOT a tax) is to change buying behavior)
But these projects have been perfect always. 0% right is still perfect
Idiot. Tariffs are taxes.
And not just Libertarians but mainstream conservatives used to oppose the government trying to change behavior.
Revenue tariffs must be small and not raise prices because, in order to raise revenue, people are supposed to keep buying the imports.
Protective tariffs must be high and raise prices because, in order to protect domestic industry, people are supposed to stop buying the imports.
Trump's tariffs are magic because they do both at the same time. And if you disagree it's because you're a leftist.
The more charitable interpretation is that Trump's tariffs aren't "magic" but that the administration doesn't yet know which economic effect will dominate - and they're setting themselves up to take credit whichever way it falls. Raise revenue? See, we told you so. Protect industry instead? Yeah, we said that. Only achieved one of the two (mutually incompatible) results? Hey, that's a 50% success rate - damn good for government work, right?
And yes, I see the irony in considering it the "more charitable interpretation" to think that the administration is talking like a con man than is economically illiterate. My expectations for the morals of politicians (of both parties) really is that low.
Assuming domestic production would increase to satisfy customers avoiding tariffed goods, is it assumed those domestic producers would not be contributing to an increase in tax revenue?
Quite the opposite. Domestic production producers will get subsidies to make up for their losses resulting from retaliatory tariffs. An example of this would be Trump subsidizing soybean farmers during his first term after they took a hit from China's retaliatory tariffs. And no, the revenue from the tariffs isn't enough to cover the subsidies. So it's a net loss for consumers and taxpayers, while politically connected businesses make out like bandits.
There is that large trade deficit where the US ships significantly more goods to China and China supplies so little in comparison back to the US. The US using unfair trade practices to flood Chinese markets and dampen domestic production in China. China responding to the US a form of economic NAP.
Anyhow, you are saying that an increase in domestic production for the domestic market would not lead to an increase in corporate and payroll taxes?
There is that large trade deficit where the US ships significantly more goods to China
The concept of trade deficits is nonsense. Any time more than two parties trade, it will be uneven. Has the grocery store ever bought anything from you? No? Well you've got a massive trade deficit with Hannaford. Are you worse off for it? Doubt it.
and China supplies so little in comparison back to the US.
Trade deficit means we have stuff and they have dollars. What happens to those dollars? They come back in the form of foreign investment. If it was the other way around, and there was a trade surplus, they'd have stuff and we'd be sitting on a pile of foreign currency. Then we'd be the ones providing foreign investment.
Anyhow, you are saying that an increase in domestic production for the domestic market would not lead to an increase in corporate and payroll taxes?
In some industries, sure. But other industries that rely on exports will take a huge hit from retaliatory tariffs, and then get subsidies to make up for it. In the end it might be a wash but I doubt it. I'm sure the subsidies will be much more than the increased revenue.
Yes, Hannaford pays me indirectly for goods or services I provide to them. It is about break even.
The trade deficit highlights who has more to lose. That would be China. It doesn’t mean nobody in the US would be harmed by retaliatory Chinese tariffs used to protect (alleged) unfair trade practices. US soybean exporters having perhaps the most to lose on a macro level. China would look to Brazil as they have been for some time for more soybeans but likely would still import US soybeans albeit at a higher price due to their own tariffs.
China has been decreasing its investment in the US to where even Qatar has surpassed it. It isn’t zero but it has fallen significantly ($46B in 2016 to $5B in 2022).
China doesn’t need to impose “retaliatory” tariffs on the US; they did in 2016 with low-hanging fruit soybeans and we will see what they do this time. They could negotiate to address the issues and have the US tariffs on their goods lifted.
“I’m sure the subsidies will be much more than the increased revenue.” China can negotiate out of it or the US can eschew subsidizing any sectors harmed by it. Or “other.” China has more to lose and Americans can buy crap from TEMU made in Korea, the Philippines, Vietnam, or Indonesia as opposed to Hecho en China.
I acknowledge that tariffs can be good politics. That doesn’t negate the fact that they’re shitty economics.
Reuters, which are not Trump partisans, had an article a few days ago detailing how the prospect of tariffs has said it will cut current tariffs on US goods in multiple sectors. Vietnam is taking additional actions to have a more good-faith trade relation with the US including targeting its Chinese steel imports some of which are ostensibly then dumped onto the US market as Vietnamese instead of Chinese. Sounds like shitty economics for the Vietnamese that had been profiteering at the expense of the US.
And you accuse me of drinking. Let’s continue this another day.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/what-vietnam-is-considering-avoid-us-tariffs-2025-02-25/
"Hannaford pays me indirectly for goods or services I provide to them"
Nonsense.
I don’t think I could better describe your posts. Well done.
He means that the work he does generates value which eventually equals out.
Unfortunately he can’t or won’t apply that same principle to global trade.
Completely wrong again.
Reason had a short bio of Navarro and it is one of the most hilarious piece of political character writing I have read in a long time.
Navarro is a blithering idiot and not just about economics. He also promoted the bogus research on hydroxychloroquine.
"Tariffs are going to raise about $600 billion a year, about $6 trillion over a 10-year period," Navarro said.
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Taxes create Wealth
He’s not saying they create wealth. He’s saying they will increase .gov revenue. (At least the part you quoted)
If that's true, then these tariffs would be the biggest peacetime tax increase in American history.
Just when I thought Boehm couldn't get dumber, they write this. What war time taxes are they referring to? They refuse to say.
Keep reading you lying moron.
Only the tax increases implemented to pay for World War II would compare.
It that's true, then the tariffs could still be defensible. Our deficits and debt are an existential threat at least on a level with the Third Reich and imperial Japan.
"The message here is that tariffs are tax cuts,"
"War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength"