The White House Says Trump's Tariffs Have Raised $8 Trillion in Revenue. That's Not Even Close.
The administration attributed the $8 trillion figure both to new investment and to tariff revenue. So which is it? Neither.

The White House celebrated Labor Day by announcing that President Donald Trump's "protectionist trade policies have helped drive more than $8 trillion in new U.S. investment." The accompanying photo refers to "$8 trillion in tariff revenue." There's a difference between $8 trillion in U.S. investment and $8 trillion in tariff revenue, but Trump's trade policies have achieved neither.
The second claim is easier to refute. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) calculates the gross tariff and excise tax revenue generated from January 1 to August 28 to be $158.8 billion, according to the Treasury Department's Daily Treasury Statements. The customs and excise taxes collected from January 20, when Trump took office, to August 28 amount to about $156 billion.
According to the Treasury Department's own data, the president's policies have clearly not raised anywhere near $8 trillion; they've raised 2 percent of this figure. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tariffs Trump has implemented since January will generate an estimated $3.3 trillion over 10 years—significantly less than the $8 trillion that the White House is claiming the tariffs have already raised.
Gross tariff revenue isn't even the most relevant statistic; net tariff revenue is. The BPC explains that the latter "removes 'certain other excise tax revenue' and accounts for refunds of tariffs," i.e., the tariff revenue that stays in federal coffers. Although net tariff revenue is not available in the Daily Treasury Statements, the BPC was able to determine that net tariff revenue was $135.7 billion from January through July 31 using the Treasury's Monthly Treasury Statements, which account for tariff refunds. Net tariff revenue as a percentage of total imports jumped from about 2.4 percent in March to 5.73 percent in April, reflecting the impact of Liberation Day's "reciprocal tariffs," and climbed to 10.31 percent in June.
Still, the net tariff revenue of $135.7 billion amounts to 1.7 percent of the White House's claimed $8 trillion in tariff revenue. (That's neglecting the fact that the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that "$1 of excise tax revenue will lead to a $0.25 decline in income and payroll tax revenue," according to the BPC.)
The first claim is more slippery; it's unclear what the White House means by saying Trump's policies "helped drive" investment. One interpretation is that it is crediting Trump's reciprocal tariffs and hostile negotiations for producing more foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. than would have otherwise existed. Even assuming that all FDI since January is the direct result of Trump's protectionist policies, it is completely inconceivable that $8 trillion has been raised as a result.
The Global Business Alliance, a trade association that "actively promotes and defends an open economy that welcomes international companies to invest in America," reported $52.8 billion in FDI in the first quarter of 2025—a 34 percent decrease from 2024's fourth quarter—citing the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA has not released data for the second or third quarter of 2025, but, even if we generously assume a quarter-to-quarter doubling, meaning $100 billion in the second quarter and $200 billion in the third (of which a month remains), we reach a grand total of a little over $350 billion: 4.4 percent of Trump's touted $8 trillion in "new investment."
The Labor Day post also credited Trump with "creating hundreds of thousands of jobs." Total nonfarm employment increased by 597,000 from January 2025 to July 2025, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' July 2025 report. However, total nonfarm employment increased by 1,073,000 from January 2024 to July 2024. If the White House is crediting Trump's policies with changes in the economy, then it should recognize that they added nearly half as many jobs to the economy as the Biden administration did over the same time period last year.
Later on Sunday, the White House said to "Trust in Trump," sharing a screenshot of Trump's Truth Social post where he refers to "all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in" with tariffs. The data show that you should reject this fictitious figure, as well as his other claims that tariffs are good for the United States.
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
So tariffs are taxing everyone and raising prices, but not that much?
Nicastro is Italian for nanny-nanny boo-boo?
I wonder who's going to break the news to Trump that he just raised the trade deficit by $8 trillion?
So boring.
If the White House is crediting Trump's policies with changes in the economy, then it should recognize that they added nearly half as many jobs to the economy as the Biden administration did over the same time period last year.
What an odd thing for a(n auspicious) libertarian to say.
Also odd that he added them for citizens and not illegals. And did not use government employment as a major driver.
They've been pretty clear the only jobs they support are gov jobs or ones for immigrants, which is basically all that was added under Biden.
I'm still caught up in the unmitigated ego of "Why can't the current President recognize *my* reluctant and strategic choice for President on Labor Day?"
Should they have done more to recognize the Fall of Kabul or, I know, the anniversary of Benghazi that's coming up? People actually died because of decisions that were made there rather than things that happened while dementia-patient-turned-President Otto Pen was in office.
Should he recognize the gas stove ban too? The Ukraine spending? Should Trump recognize Nixon by having the National Guard shoot 4 people dead at Kent State? What exact recognition is owed the previous king, er, office holder?
Why are the soldiers that died at Abbey Gate more important than the soldiers that died at Manbij? And why are the Americans that died at Benghazi more important than Manda Bay??
Why are you now without your original account? How did that die?
All the unemployable thugs are being hired by ICE.
You’re mistaken. ICE isn’t hiring radical democrats.
Just say "Thank you."
You first. You like tax raises?
Consumption taxes are far less odious than income taxes. Do you want more income taxes?
Taxes is taxes. But tariffs are not consumption taxes. Consumption taxes are applied to consumption, get it? Taxing capital inputs is not taxing consumption, and something like 2/3 of US imports are resources and other capital inputs.
It's not just a consumption tax. It taxes some products more than others arbitrarily (from a free market POV). It's like specifically taxing products made by anyone named Doug. The result is market distortion, which hurts even more than if the tax is across the board with a rate set to raise the same amount of revenue because it reduces competition.
Tariffs don't tax arbitrarily - they generally tax the most efficient providers. If the most efficient supplier was domestic then there would be little market for the more expensive foreign imports. Tariffs defend the inefficient domestic suppliers. Tariffs are a variant of the broken window fallacy and everyone in the country is a little poorer because of them, all else being equal.
Tariffs defend the inefficient domestic suppliers.
Because unlike their competitors, they are prohibited by law from using slaves, child labor, and the whip.
I get that, at the end the of day, this is a typical Democrat position of defending slavery and human chattel, but America is NOT ok with that. At least, not right-wing America, which is the one that's in charge right now. If another "efficient" international supplier is OK with that garbage, we're going to level that playing field. And tariffs are the proper means of doing so.
Unless you'd like us to invade, conquer, and liberate the people of those nations. Because I'm OK with that too.
The last manufacturing boom in America was in the 1990s because tariffs along with large trucks gave American auto companies a competitive advantage with SUVs. Only Toyota could compete thanks to the Landcruiser with no other auto companies have a full size truck frame and 8 cylinder to compete. But the other companies did catch up and now you see none of those 90s SUVs on the road because they were so crappy. So tariffs are at best a temporary solution and we gave the Big 3 a head start and they still failed!!
No. Because manufacturers have to choose what to make, and American workers are paid so much because they are so productive, which happens because their factories are so automated and efficient.
If a product can't be made in a capital-intensive factory, there's no point paying for expensive labor to do simple stupid tasks. Leave that to the Chinese. It's got nothing to do with slavery.
You really ought to learn some basic economics.
Thank you for enlightening me on the slavery, child labor, and whips being used by companies in Britain, Germany, Japan, Korea, and most every country on the planet. And that those companies are not burdened by regulations.
This again is a false understanding of reality. Because...
A) different regulatory baseline.
B) cost doesn't determine efficiency due to a and government manipulations such as subsidies.
Can always tell youre working with a neophyte when they confuse efficiency and cost. Ultimately your description of efficiency leads to buying from slave states.
All the countries in the world are being tariffed - are you claiming they all have lighter regulatory baselines than the U.S.? If not, why even mention that as a defense of tariffs? And are you seriously claiming the tariffs are targeting only foreign subsidized products?
LOL, garbage in garbage out
Hey. More intro level thinking pretending to be an expert. Good work shrike. Glad the market was completely ideal last year and regulatory state has zero effect on shit.
Tariffs aren't taxes. Do not persist in this oversimplified lie peddled to simpletons.
Your repeating a lie does not make it true.
Your economic ignorance is even worse than Trump.
Has it occurred to anyone here that NOT ONCE - not one single article, not one single comment - has been able to identify how and why a "tariff is a tax" without ultimately babbling simplistically about consumer prices.
By the same retarded mindset, everything that causes a price increase is therefore a "tax" in your books.
It's stupid, and you're stupid for swallowing that tripe.
What a fucking mess of an article. Constantly switching between tariff revenue and tariff caused investments (including future amounts from company announcements). They are two different sets of numbers, and the comment posted regarding 8T is regarding both sets added together. Is jack retarded?
He also doesn't understand the difference between announced investments and investments already monetized despite each announcement being on the order of years.
Even the tariff announcement was regarding the CBO numbers over 10 which you seem to realize, but then ignore it by stating recieved this year.
Jack, please return whatever degree you think you earned. This is an embarrassing article.
From his bio:
Jack graduated from Dartmouth College in the spring of 2024 with degrees in economics and philosophy.
Bet the economics one was just a minor, not BSc. But also given Dartmouth, if dual it was a B.A.
He also doesn't understand the difference between announced investments and investments already monetized despite each announcement being on the order of years.
What does "raised" mean? Specifically, what is the significance of the "ed" suffix.
Trump tariffs are magic!
Poor sarcbot.
Out of ideas™ .
Poor stupid sarcbot.
To one of your limited intellect, further degraded through your extreme alcohol abuse, many things probably seem like magic to you.
We have won the battle for production! Returns now completed of the output of all classes of consumption goods show that the standard of living has risen by no less than 20 per cent over the past year.
There used to be a time where blatant lying from the White House was considered unacceptable.
Joe is as sharp as ever!
Shrinkflation is the real problem!
When?
There used to be a time when 30% of our country didn't worship a dumb grifter.
Not certain Biden ever polled that high.
Shrike sock slipped again.
No there wasn’t. Come off it doc.
But then a democrat got elected president.
Oh my God. This is like a decathlon of retarded.
All politicians lie, and Trump lies more than most. Tariffs are fucking stupid with a capital DERRRP, but they do raise massive tax revenue. Too bad the entire media wanted to ignore that piece of the puzzle because it's not their party doing it. So Trump is massively overstating the tax revenue, forcing the media to finally say, "No, he's only generating like a trillion at most." And he's the idiot here?
I'm moving to Mars, mother fuckers.
LOL, you're playing his statement as strategic? The truth is he doesn't have a clue about anything, and spouts all sorts of random garbage with no basis in reality. He's like a walking random number generator. But I suppose it's really 5D chess.
Yes, I’ve seen those tall buildings with “fumanchu” on top of them.
I wasn't born with $billions.
Neither was he.
Loser attitude.
Big ego, low self esteem. Keep bullshitting yourself. Tony claimed he was wiser than Elon Musk.
Yes, I’ve seen those tall buildings with “fumanchu” on top of them.
A businessman, successful or not, that wants to run the country like a business looks an awful lot like fascism.
Looks can be deceiving
We just has four years of increasing fascism. This isn’t that.
It’s probably best you kill yourself.
Actually the revenue raised is cancelled out by the Fed rate not being cut because of interest payments on the debt. Maybe had Trump delayed tariffs until after the Fed had cut rates to 2% but as of today the tariffs aren’t raising revenue because it’s cancelled out by increased interest payments.
The answer is to cut the debt.
Which woukd require some combination of massive tax increases and massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Not necessarily
Really just requires cutting spending (SS and Medicare being two of the biggest culprits).
Fuck off slaver. Eliminate all social spending and close all foreign military bases.
That 'social spending' needs to include Soc Sec and Medicare to make a dent. Try getting that past the voters. Maybe could cut some of the waste in the Pentagon while you are at it but that just looks bad to MAGA.
It takes someone just a bit smarter than you
It must be hard for the 'LOVE-GOV' crowd to imagine a world in which people (not government) invests $8T in new US businesses huh?
So far I see some criticisms of the author's character and some on the arguments made. But do any of the critics care to defend the three White House claims in the cited X post? With citing of sources for any numbers used? (Colloquially "Show your work.) The claims are:
(1)"President Trump’s protectionist trade policies have helped drive more than $8 trillion in new U.S. investment, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs."
(2)"$8 Trillion in revenue"
(3)"Hundreds of thousands of jobs"
Of course not. When MAGA knows that the Trump Administration had been caught in a huge lie they just attack the messenger. They can't defend the lie.
Trump supporters are in a cult. They believe whatever he says and everyone else is lying. Or that he's saying it for some strategic purpose. Or some rationalization to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Do you even hear yourself regurgitating the daily talking points word for word or are you in denial of this subliminal gaslighting as well as the normal up front gaslighting you agree with?
1) Probable. Certainly not debunked by Jack-off.
2) Obviously not possible (dumb graphic that misstated things, kinda like the headline of most REEson articles)
3) True.
Any other stupid questions? You have the support of 2 of the absolute biggest morons on the planet, so maybe you should rethink your life.
D-
The fact that the left, and herein I include the pretenders to libertarianism at Reason, rail endlessly about the tariffs the US seeks to impose without a word about the tariffs that all the rest of the world imposes upon the US should be enough to let anyone know that tariffs will work to the benefit of the US.
Globalists gonna globe?
I trust Trump doesn't drink, but with such fuzzy math it's easy to imagine he lives on a perpetual White Christmas with white stuff falling from the sky and into his nose all day.
Sorry for the author, but don't spend so much of your time "splanning"... the GDP is around 30 Billion, 2/3 of this is consumer sales. If everything was "tarrifed", six month of total consumer sales would be around 10 billions (but only imports are "tariffed"), but if everything was "tariffed" at an average weighted tariff of around 20%, you would still only get 2 trillions in revenue, and this would be good for the elites as it would cover about half of budgeted (without the implicit deficit of the federal expenses. But only imported goods are being "tariffed", which are about 7% of consumer goods....
That's it folks... the moral is: Orange Juice Concerto should drink a bit less white snow...
As Elvis sung: A bit less Cocaine and a bit more real math would serve us better.
How do you so called Libertarians and other non-Liberals justify supporting the very unserious buffoon in office? Hard to take anyone else seriously that supports this level of ridiculousness, day after day after day...