The Dispatch: No, President Trump’s Tariffs Haven’t Generated $8 Trillion in Revenue

President Donald Trump speaks to reporters after signing executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. on September 5, 2025. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

On Labor Day, a post on the White House’s official X account lauded President Donald Trump for having generated $8 trillion in revenue for the federal government and celebrated his “protectionist trade policies” for creating $8 trillion in U.S. investment. The text of the post highlights the trade policies, while an accompanying graphic touts the tariff revenue.

Trump also claimed Tuesday that the U.S. has “taken in almost $17 trillion in investment … most of it has come in because of tariffs.”

None of the claims is accurate.

A Bipartisan Policy Center analysis of the Treasury Department’s daily statements shows that the federal government has taken in $158.4 billion in tariff revenue since January 21, the day after Trump’s inauguration. On August 22, the Congressional Budget Office updated past projections and now estimates that Trump’s tariffs on China, Mexico, and several other countries will reduce deficits by $4 trillion—over the next decade. Each year, the United States on average takes in $3 trillion in imported goods, which makes the claim of $8 trillion in tariff revenue just in 2025 nearly impossible. 

The White House maintains on its website a list of pledges of investment by various companies and countries, most recently updated on September 2. The list includes private sector projects such as a “$600 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and workforce training” by Apple, $500 billion by Nvidia to update its U.S. infrastructure, and $200 billion by Micron to boost its U.S. production of memory chips. And it includes pledges by foreign nations such as the United Arab Emirates ($1.4 trillion), Qatar ($1.2 trillion), and Japan ($1 trillion) to invest in the U.S. 

Add up those amounts, and you get roughly $7.5 trillion. But there are several reasons not to take these pledges at face value. As Dispatch contributor and Cato Institute vice president Scott Lincicome has written, companies like Apple, Amazon, or the chip manufacturer TMSC often seek to gain favor with a new administration by promising multibillion-dollar investments. These often involve either expansions of projects already in the works or vague pledges that lack concrete time frames. 

“Oftentimes companies that are actually pledging new investment will say they’re going to do it based on market conditions,” Lincicome told The Dispatch. “Well, market conditions change, and suddenly what looks like a good investment isn’t a good investment, and it never happens. Or, the timeline is hilariously drawn out, and so it might take 10 years to hit that number.”

Trump’s first term, Lincicome continued, featured a collection of multibillion-dollar pledges from manufacturing giants—ultimately, with mixed successes. “Some of it certainly happened, but a lot of it didn’t, and some of it that did happen actually ended up collapsing. Look at [Magnitude] 7 Metals, this big aluminum company. [Trump trade adviser] Peter Navarro went out there and claimed this was the future of American aluminum, and it’s closed down two years later.”

When asked to clarify, the White House did not offer further explanation for their Labor Day post or for Trump’s remarks. 

“President Trump is right: tariffs are bringing in historic revenue for the federal government, revenue that will amount to trillions of dollars in the coming years,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told The Dispatch in an email. “Tariffs made America rich once before, and tariffs will Make America Wealthy Again.”

Simply bullshit! “The federal government has taken in $158.4 billion in tariff revenue since January 2”, not $8 trillion. Liars!

And they probably haven’t taken into account the changes in spending habits that occur when taxes and prices increase.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/no-president-trump-s-tariffs-haven-t-generated-8-trillion-in-revenue/ar-AA1LZYLT

Fortune: A different shock to the system’: De minimis tariff dodge ending means less purchasing power for Americans

  • The de minimis exemption, which allowed overseas orders under $800 to come into the U.S. duty-free, ended Friday. In effect, American consumers will experience less purchasing power for goods produced or sourced from other countries.

The de minimis exemption—a tariff loophole that for years made millions of direct-to-consumer imports duty free—is gone, and its end marks a structural shift for American shoppers and logistics providers. 

Up until Friday, U.S. consumers could order up to $800 in goods per package from overseas without paying any tariffs or taxes. Now, this landscape is changing, adding to inflationary pressures that will squeeze everyday purchasing power, particularly for low- and middle-income Americans, experts tell Fortune.

“It’s a different shock to the system at a different level than what we’ve seen with the tariffs on large industrial goods,” Rob Haworth, senior investment strategy director at U.S. Bank, told Fortune. “It does start up another near-term challenge for consumers and for businesses and spending overall.”

The de minimis exemption ended in May for imports from China, where an estimated three-quarters of goods under the $800 threshold came from, with a large share coming from e-commerce companies Shein and Temu. The de minimis suspension for parcels from all other countries implemented Friday now means the American dollar won’t buy as much as it used to, when it comes to shoppers purchasing goods made overseas.

“Categories like footwear and apparel will see some of the highest impacts, estimated at 15%-25% increased end consumer pricing, given the manufacturing origin often being China,” Sean Henry, CEO of Stord, an e-commerce and fulfillment company, told Fortune.

A senior Trump administration official said that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency has collected more than $492 million in additional duties on packages shipped from China and Hong Kong since ending the exemption.

And tariffs on goods that previously fell under de minimis could raise as much as $10 billion a year, U.S. trade advisor Peter Navarro told reporters Thursday. Putting that into perspective, the 2024 trade deficit in goods was $1.2 trillion.

“The net number (of tariff revenue without de minimis) is not all that meaningful in terms of how big the deficit is,” Baird Investment Strategist Ross Mayfield told Fortune. “The bigger difference is going to be the extent to which the government is levying these bigger, kind of broader swaths of tariffs.”

Over the past decade, the number of shipments entering the U.S. de minimis surged by more than 600%, from approximately 139 million in 2015 to almost 1.4 billion, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. However, the amount of revenue generated by these new tariffs depends on whether consumers are willing to continue to purchase cheap products from abroad.

“Nearly 40% of online shoppers abandon their carts when faced with these extra tariff and duty surcharges at checkout,” Stord CEO Henry said.

Lee Klaskow, a senior analyst of transportation and logistics at Bloomberg Intelligence, told Fortune he expects spending on these largely “discretionary” purchases to decrease.

“That Shein shirt that you really want that’s $5—maybe you’ll think twice about getting it because it’s going to be more expensive,” Klaskow said.

Prior to the pandemic, consumers had a “huge appetite for cheap things,” but Klaskow expects consumer behavior to flip in response to the change. 

U.S. Bank’s Haworth said he’s more focused on how the government will implement the change, as it will require new systems, investment, and infrastructure to collect on small purchases. 

He added the whole purpose of de minimis was to streamline the process of bringing small imports into the country, since they are more complex to track. The government has previously said this allowed illicit substances like fentanyl to cross into the U.S. more easily. Still, the system will need to recalibrate to adhere to the new rules.

“Originally why you had a de minimis exemption is so that you weren’t spending a lot of time on small transactions that didn’t net anything,” Haworth said. “So that’s kind of an interesting or challenging cost that is going to come into the business system.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/a-different-shock-to-the-system-de-minimis-tariff-dodge-ending-means-less-purchasing-power-for-americans/ar-AA1LxCkK

Market Watch: Trump closes the ‘de minimis’ shipping loophole. Etsy and eBay shares have tumbled.

‘De minimis’ exemption for shipments worth $800 or less now has ended

Shares of Etsy Inc. and eBay Inc. have been down sharply over the past week, with analysts pinning the moves on the Trump administration’s closure of a trade loophole on Friday.

The “de minimis” exemption has made it possible for shipments worth $800 or less to avoid tariffs and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol scrutiny. It was ended in May for shipments from China, hurting e-commerce companies Shein and PDD Holdings Inc.’s (-1.34%) Temu, and the loophole now has gone away for all other countries, as well.

President Donald Trump rolled out an executive order targeting de minimis treatment on July 30, specifying that the exemption would end at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time Friday.

Trump’s order is “removing a key channel for low-value cross-border shipments,” Cantor analysts said in a report, and Etsy  (-1.43%), eBay (-1.70%) and Shopify (SHOP -0.06%) “likely have notable direct exposure.” They noted that Etsy and eBay have underperformed the Nasdaq Composite Index (-1.15%)  over the past week. As of Thursday’s close, Etsy shares are down 14% over the past five trading sessions, while eBay has dropped 6% and Shopify is down 1%. The Nasdaq is up 1% over the same period.

“Over the medium term, supply diversification from domestic sellers should mitigate the impact on demand,” the Cantor analysts wrote.

Etsy has offered a guide to its sellers as the de minimis exemption comes to an end, promising to “continue to share updates over the next few months that make it easier to facilitate cross-border transactions and incorporate the cost of tariffs into your shop operations.” The chief executive for eBay, Jamie Iannone, said during an earnings call on July 30 that the company is “not immune to the increased costs from tariffs” but believes it is “relatively resilient from that perspective, more so than others.”

The overall impact to the U.S. economy of eliminating the loophole is “likely to be limited,” Evercore ISI analysts said in a note. Shipments claiming the de minimis exemption were valued at $65 billion in the past fiscal year, amounting to around 2% of total U.S. imports.

While postal carriers for a number of countries have announced they’re temporarily suspending shipments to the U.S. due to operational uncertainty around the new policy, the Evercore analysts noted that Customs and Border Patrol data show that more than 90% of de minimis packages are carried by private express carriers and logistics providers, who are “not indicating any disruption when the policy takes effect.”

“The move will have an impact on some consumers who will now bear at least a share of tariffs as well as the higher administrative costs associated with processing smaller packages for tariff collection,” the Evercore analysts said. They noted that a recent study found that both high- and low-income households have taken advantage of the de minimis exemption, but that “low-income households benefit disproportionately as a share of their income.”

In addition, Evercore’s team noted that all existing tariffs now will apply to packages under $800, except during a six-month transition period when there will be an option of paying either a percentage rate equal to the country-specific tariff or a flat fee ranging from $80 to $200 that scales with the country’s tariff rate.

Peter Navarro, Trump’s senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, predicted on Thursday afternoon that ending the de minimis loophole “will save thousands of American lives by restricting the flow of narcotics and other dangerous and prohibited items, add up to $10 billion a year in tariff revenues to our Treasury, create thousands of jobs and defend against billions of dollars more lost in counterfeiting, piracy and intellectual-property theft.”

Navarro also criticized foreign postal carriers that have suspended shipments to the U.S.

“Foreign post offices need to get their act together when it comes to monitoring and policing the use of international mail for smuggling and tariff-evasion purposes,” the Trump adviser told reporters during a briefing. “We are going to help them do that, but at this point, they are vastly underperforming express carriers like FedEx (-0.29%), DHL (-0.36%) and UPS (+0.24%) .”

The Alliance for American Manufacturing is among the organizations praising Trump’s move.

“Closure of the de minimis loophole is an important step forward, but there’s still more work to be done in leveling the playing field for U.S. manufacturers,” AAM President Scott Paul said in a statement. He said the loophole hurt American manufacturers and was “exposing American consumers to illegal, counterfeit and toxic products.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-is-closing-a-shipping-loophole-shares-in-etsy-and-ebay-are-tumbling-baffd57f

Associated Press: Trump’s big plans on trade and more run up against laws of political gravity, separation of powers

On Wednesday, an obscure but powerful court in New York rejected the legal foundation of Trump’s most sweeping tariffs, finding that Trump could not use a 1977 law to declare a national emergency on trade imbalances and fentanyl smuggling to justify a series of import taxes that have unsettled the world. Reordering the global economy by executive fiat was an unconstitutional end-run around Congress’ powers, the three-judge panel of Trump, Obama and Reagan appointees ruled in a scathing rebuke of Trump’s action.

The setbacks fit a broader pattern for a president who has advanced an extraordinarily expansive view of executive power. Federal courts have called out the lack of due process in some of Trump’s deportation efforts. His proposed income tax cuts, now working their way through Congress, are so costly that some of them can’t be made permanent, as Trump had wished. His efforts to humble Harvard University and cut the federal workforce have encountered legal obstacles. And he’s running up against reality as his pledges to quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza have turned into slogs.

By unilaterally ordering tariffs, deportations and other actions through the White House, Trump is bypassing both Congress and the broader public, which could have given more popular legitimacy to his policy choices, said Princeton University history professor Julian Zelizer.

“The president is trying to achieve his goals outside normal legal processes and without focusing on public buy-in,” Zelizer said. “The problem is that we do have a constitutional system and there are many things a president can’t do. The courts are simply saying no. The reality is that many of his boldest decisions stand on an incredibly fragile foundation.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-judges-courts-setbacks-1864c944c8142f18fd3075d5643bdefc

Telegraph: Trump’s cabinet turns on tariff architect

Members scrutinising Peter Navarro after ‘smack in face’ court ruling halting levies

The architect of Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs is facing scrutiny from cabinet members after the levies were halted by judges.

A New York court ruled on Wednesday that Mr Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs were illegal and overstepped the authority of the Oval Office.

The ruling is a “huge smack in the face” for Peter Navarro, one of the president’s closest advisers, a source close to the White House told The Telegraph.

Members of Mr Trump’s cabinet are now closely scrutinising Mr Navarro, who is widely viewed as the architect of the president’s tariff scheme.

“Navarro has been given enough rope to hang himself,” the source said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/05/29/peter-navarro-donald-trump-tariff-court

MSNBC: Following vote from Senate Republicans, another ex-con joins Team Trump

It’s not common for people to transition from prison to a diplomatic position in Paris, but in Trump world, strange things happen.

Two weeks after Election Day 2024, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama assured the public that Donald Trump wouldn’t choose “a criminal” for a governmental position. About a week later, the then-president-elect tapped Peter Navarro, who completed a prison sentence earlier this year after being convicted for contempt of Congress, for an advisory post at the White House.

Trump also announced his intention to nominate Charles Kushner — despite his own criminal past — to serve as the U.S. ambassador to France. As NBC News reported, the Senate has now confirmed Kushner to the post.

Seriously, folks, who’s the biggest crook here?

  1. Peter Navarro, convicted of 2 counts of contempt of Congress.
  2. Charles Kushner, pleaded guilty 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering
  3. King Donald, convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records.

King Donald is the hands down winner!

Navarro & Kushner are petty crooks compared to the King!!!

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/vote-senate-republicans-another-ex-con-joins-team-trump-rcna207957

New Republic: Transcript: Trump’s Threats to Defy Courts Suddenly Get More Dangerous

As Trump’s intent to override the courts gets more obvious, a legal commentator who closely observes MAGA lawlessness explains why the Trump-MAGA strategy here is darker than you thought.

This is The Daily Blast from The New Republic, produced and presented by the DSR network. I’m your host, Greg Sargent.

President Donald Trump is very unhappy with how things went at the Supreme Court when it comes to his effort to end birthright citizenship. He uncorked two angry epic tirades about the High Court, essentially putting it on notice that it had better rule his way on this and other matters coming before it or else. This may look like typical Trumpian bullying and threats, but we think there’s a game going on here that people are missing. It’s that Trump is, in a very real sense, playing chicken with the Supreme Court. He’s trying to bluff the justices into constraining themselves from putting limits on Trump’s power. We’re going to explore how this really works today with one of our favorite legal commentators, Matthew Seligman, a fellow at Stanford Law School.

Best to click on the link and read the dialogue:

https://newrepublic.com/article/195392/transcript-trump-threats-defy-courts-suddenly-get-dangerous

The Atlantic: Trump’s Inevitable Betrayal of His Supporters

On Sunday, Donald Trump went on TV and told Americans that their children should make do with less. “They don’t need to have 30 dolls; they can have three,” the president said on Meet the Press. “They don’t need to have 250 pencils; they can have five.” Critics were quick to point out the irony of America’s avatar of excess telling others to tighten their belt. But the problem with Trump’s remark goes beyond the optics. It’s that his argument for austerity contradicts his campaign commitments—and exposes the limits of his transactional approach to politics.

Throughout his 2024 run, the president promised Americans a return to the prosperity of his pre-COVID first term. “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods,” he told a Montana rally in August. “They’ll come down, and they’ll come down fast,” he declared days later in North Carolina. But at the same time, Trump also promised to impose steep tariffs on consumer goods—dubbing tariff one of “the most beautiful words I’ve ever heard”—even though the levies would effectively serve as a tax on everyday Americans.

These two pledges could not be reconciled, and once elected, Trump was forced to choose between them. The results have disillusioned many of those who voted for him. Trump’s approval on the economy has plunged since he announced his “Liberation Day.” A former strength has become a weakness. “If you look at his economic net approval rating in his first term, it was consistently above water,” the CNN analyst Harry Enten noted last month. “It was one of his best issues, and now it’s one of his worst issues.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-s-inevitable-betrayal-of-his-supporters/ar-AA1EosZ3

The Dispatch: Trump’s Team of Losers

The president has hired lots of people who couldn’t win their own elections.

He’s not alone. Hegseth is only one member of the second Trump administration to have been plucked from the pantheon of electoral duds and given a second lease on political life. From the Cabinet all the way to high-profile White House aides, there are failed candidates for major office who might have otherwise toiled for years in obscurity or, even worse, local politics if not for Trump’s magnanimity. Contrary to the president’s boasted affection for winners, it’s loyalty to Trump, sometimes even in the face of defeat, that remains the most valuable characteristic for a Republican looking to get ahead these days. Even the losers.

So the pathway for aspiring MAGA politicians is clear: in order to get the Trump administration imprimatur to win a future race for office, try losing one first.

Telegraph: Trump’s attempt to upend the global order has already been defeated

America has emerged from the trade war as an international laughing stock

Characterised by screeching handbrake turns, made-up policy on the hoof and mixed-messaging on steroids, it’s been another week of chaos in Washington.

If anyone knows what on Earth it is that the US is trying to achieve on trade, and much else besides, then I’d like to hear from them, because having come to the US capital in the hope of garnering some insights, I’m none the wiser.

What’s now increasingly obvious, however, is that Trump is in ragged retreat; he’s compromising all over the shop, such that if the plan was to upend the established global order, one can almost definitely say that, beyond the rhetoric, it is already over.

Rank lack of professionalism and organisation has defined the endeavour all along, and now it’s coming apart at the seams. Sensing an administration on the run, no one is any longer hurrying to do a trade deal with the US. From Britain to Canada and beyond, getting the right deal rather than a quick one has become the new mantra.

Trump has in the meantime made himself – and the US – into an international laughing stock, never mind the damage that policy uncertainty is inflicting on the global economy. You’d be forgiven for thinking that chaos is itself the policy goal.

Repeatedly forced to row back on its demands and aspirations, the White House has been left looking back-footed and ridiculous.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/26/trumps-attempt-to-upend-the-global-order-defeated