Assessing the $69 B Tariff Revenue Claim (FY 2025 to date)

Executive Summary

• Claim: The U.S. Treasury has collected $69 billion in tariff revenue so far in calendar 2025.
• Official data: Treasury’s Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) shows $43.6 B in net customs‑duty receipts through March 31, 2025. April’s daily statements add roughly $8 B, bringing the running total to about $52 B.
• Reconciling the gap: Media tallies that reach $69 B typically count gross customs‑duty collections (before refunds) and fold in certain excise taxes collected by Customs and Border Protection.
• Scale: Even $69 B is less than 0.3 % of U.S. GDP and about 2 % of federal receipts for the same period.
• Economic impact: Independent modelling (Yale Budget Lab) finds the 2025 tariff package cuts real GDP growth by ≈ 1 percentage point, raises unemployment 0.6 pp, and costs households ≈ $5 k in higher prices during 2025.

1  What Treasury Actually Reports

Bottom line: The $69 B figure is plausible only on a gross‑collections basis. On the apples‑to‑apples net basis Treasury uses in the budget, the figure is nearer $52 B.

2  How Big Is $69 B in Context?

• Total federal receipts FY‑to‑date (through Mar 31) are $2.26 trillion. Customs duties therefore account for ~1.9 %; even at $69 B that share barely reaches 2.4 %.
• U.S. nominal GDP in 2025 Q1 is roughly $28 trillion (annualized). $69 B equals 0.25 % of GDP—a rounding error at the macro level.

3  Projected Economic Effects of the 2025 Tariff Package

The fiscal gain from tariffs is outweighed by lower income‑tax receipts caused by slower growth (−$587 B over 2026‑35).

4  Takeaways

1. Yes, $69 B is real on a gross basis, but the net Treasury number is lower (~$52 B) once refunds are counted.
2. Either way, the revenue stream is small relative to the $4 T‑plus annual federal budget and does not signal economic strength on its own.
3. Macro models show net harm: Higher consumer prices, lower output, and job losses over the next two years more than offset the revenue bump.
4. Spin vs. substance: Presenting the $69 B figure as an “economic victory” ignores the broader, negative cost‑benefit picture.