US deficit grows to $291 billion in July despite tariff revenue surge
The deficit for July was up 19%, or $47 billion, from July 2024. Receipts for the month grew 2%, or $8 billion, to $338 billion, while outlays jumped 10%, or $56 billion, to $630 billion, a record high for the month.
The month of July this year had fewer business days than last year, so the Treasury Department said that adjusting for the difference would have increased receipts by about $20 billion, resulting in a deficit of about $271 billion.
Net customs receipts in July grew to about $27.7 billion from about $7.1 billion in the year-earlier period due to higher tariff rates imposed by Trump, a Treasury official said. These collections were largely in line with the increase in June customs receipts after steady growth since April.
Trump has touted the billions of dollars flowing into U.S. coffers from his tariffs, but the duties are paid by companies importing the goods, with some costs often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Consumer price index data on Tuesday showed increases in prices for some tariff-sensitive goods like furniture, footwear and auto parts, but they were offset by lower gasoline prices in the overall index.
For the first 10 months of the fiscal year, customs duties totaled $135.7 billion, up $73 billion, or 116%, from the year-earlier period.
The overall year-to-date budget results showed a $1.629 trillion deficit, up 7%, or $112 billion, from the same period a year earlier. Receipts were up 6%, or $262 billion, to $4.347 trillion, a record high for the 10-month period, while outlays grew 7%, or $374 billion, to $5.975 trillion, also a 10-month record.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
12 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
I used to go to Vegas four times a year like clockwork - there are two reasons why the city is dying
A former Las Vegas regular has revealed why they believe Sin City is dying amid falling tourist numbers. Vegas tourism is down 11 percent and overall visits to Las Vegas are down more than 6 percent this year, figures from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority show. This week the oldest casino - The Golden Gate Hotel & Casino - announced a huge sweeping change. It will no longer have live table dealer games and instead replace human dealers with electronic games. A former Vegas regular took to Reddit explaining they believe the tourist boycott is down to two things; 'the pandemic' and 'corporate greed'. 'I booked a trip and was on the strip the day some of the casinos reopened (after the pandemic) and it was dead, of course, but it was on it's way back,' the user wrote. As companies attempted to claw their way back into the green following the Covid-19 shut down, the user blamed the city's decline on corporations relying on 'the common man' to recoup their losses. After having been a 'Vegas regular for over 20 years', they saw how prices were soaring following the pandemic. 'Resort fees. They started implementing them and every year they go up,' the user took issue with first. 'Even if you are getting comped rooms, some of these places have nightly resort fees ranging from about 40-80 bucks. That gives you access to Wi-Fi and usually the spa. Both things that were previously free.' The user said that food prices also took a noticeable increase, where buffets used to be served at around $20 to $30. 'Now there are fewer buffets to be had and they are all around 50 and up,' they wrote, noting that 'most are brunch only so forget about a full dinner buffet'. The gambling tables also had increased minimum bets if you wanted to sit and play. 'Pre-pandemic you could walk into most strip casinos and find 5-10 dollar tables and most would be full day and night,' they wrote. 'Now you find a rare low minimum table anywhere on the strip and most have jumped to 25-50 minimum.' But the gambling tables came with another issue as staffing numbers were also reduced, according to the user. With fewer staff comes slower service, which they said is a 'huge problem' when gambling. 'Most gamblers like to take advantage of the free drinks, but if they have to wait 20 minutes or more for a waitress to even come by and notice them, then another 20 for her to make it back around, that's a problem,' they wrote. Yet, even if gambling is not your cup of tea, other forms of entertainment have also seen a prices 'skyrocket'. 'Shows and events, prices have just skyrocketed for shows,' the user wrote. 'Prices everywhere have gone up but most people can't justify paying 2-300 a ticket for a show per ticket.' They also noted that parking fees can cost a driver around 30 to 50 dollars per day if they wanted to 'park at hotel where they were actually staying.' After having spent the last 20 years going to Vegas 'four times a year like clockwork', the user has since cut their trips down to two and even considered skipping their second trip for this year. 'People need to just avoid Vegas until they realize they have to adjust prices that reflect what middle America are willing and able to pay,' they said. Another frequent visitor said they had been 'five times since 2012, always for business', but agreed that corporate greed was a major issue. 'The first time I came, I was pleasantly surprised that I could just wander from casino to casino, having a beer here and there and some nice food in between. Enjoy the spectacle, hang out with colleagues and watch the crazy people,' they wrote on the Reddit thread. 'And at the end, I wasn't completely broke, or maybe even won a couple $$. Now, it seems like the only reason to go to a certain casino is if you have a hankering for a specific restaurant. 'Everything else is generified and looks the same. The prices for food are astronomical... the corps have realized that people will pay anything, because once they are on the Strip for an event, they have no other options.' Another user chimed in and agreed that corporate greed has been one of the biggest factors keeping Vegas from coming back to life. 'I live in Vegas... this is 100 percent what I've heard the locals say is the problem too,' they said. '[Big companies] talk about how they're optimizing for the high rollers now but [there] just aren't that many. And as they lose money they continue to raise prices to make up the difference but that just locks out even more people.' But Vegas has not only struggled financially following the pandemic, but also due to a steady decline in tourism which has been attributed to the president's rigorous immigration efforts. The same user claimed that 'Trumps anti immigrant stuff is really hurting international tourism'. 'I've heard people say that we used to get a lot of Canadian tourism here but not anymore. The strip is super empty.' Another user added: 'Finally, someone has said it. People I know from other countries who used to come to the US regularly (especially Vegas and Florida) say they are boycotting us. Some of this is due to the spike in cost, some is out of fear and some is political.' 'We're all starting to freak out,' Charlie Mungo, 36, a tattoo artist in downtown Las Vegas told the Wall Street Journal. Mungo further told WSJ that Trump's new policy was positive, but it doesn't help the root of the problem. 'No tax on tips, that's a rad thing,' the tattoo artist said. 'But it doesn't really do us much good if there isn't any people to get tips from.' Mungo said he now makes about $1,500 a month and has lost nearly a third of his clients after Canadian tourists who used to represent 30 percent of his business stopped coming. But the employees are not the only ones feeling the loss of tourism, as companies are also reporting major losses. Caesars Entertainment, which runs eight casino resorts and one non-gaming hotel on the Strip, reported a 3.7 percent year-over-year decline in net revenue in the second quarter of 2025, according to SEC filings. From April to June, the company brought in $1.054 billion in Las Vegas, down from $1.095 billion in the same time period in 2024.
Reuters
42 minutes ago
- Reuters
EU push to protect digital rules holds up trade statement with US, FT reports
Aug 17 (Reuters) - The European Union is trying to prevent the United States from targeting the bloc's digital rules as both sides work through the final details of a delayed statement to formalise a trade deal reached last month, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. EU officials said disagreements over language relating to "non-tariff barriers", which the U.S. said include the digital rules, are among the reasons for the hold-up of the statement, the newspaper said. Reuters could not immediately verify the report.
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Independence won't come to a nation feart of itself
Thing is, water doesn't really do borders. Seemingly, this (and much else) seems to have escaped the US president, who thought he could make the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf of America with a swift stroke of a handy Sharpie. (Such is his legendary vindictiveness; he subsequently banned a news agency from White House press conferences following their refusal to sign up to this geographical lunacy!) In truth, land borders are always more problematic. Just ask Ukraine. Or Canada, for that matter, given Donald Trump's sudden enthusiasm for turning an entire country into nothing more than a US state. READ MORE: Tree-planting is not climate change fix, report urges And land borders became rather more difficult for Scotland when, despite voting Remain – as did Northern Ireland – we found ourselves adjoining a non-EU country in the shape of England. The difference with NI obviously is that they are now adjoining an EU country in the south unlike our being yoked to EU refuseniks; what Rishi Sunak rather infelicitously labelled 'the best of both worlds'. Indeed, Rishi. Meanwhile, the three Baltic states nervously eye their combined 543-mile-long border with Russia, protected, sort of, by their membership of Nato. Protected too by their somewhat belated withdrawal from an agreement which meant they accessed electricity from Russia rather than the EU. And also meant Moscow called the electric shots. However, they have had to contend with a whole spate of sabotage incidents damaging pipelines and cables under the Baltic Sea. Not a peep from the Kremlin, of course, but Vlad the bad would seem to have his fingerprints all over these incidents which, oddly, only occurred after the Baltic states did a new deal with the EU. When they indicated they were leaving the Russia/Belarus one, there was also a sudden spate of social media posts alleging huge price rises and supply shortages. Neither of which came to pass. What differentiates ourselves from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is the widespread enthusiasm for independence they enjoyed at the time of severance. Mind you they already thought themselves independent at the end of the First World War until the then Soviet Union contrived to annex them. But they managed to maintain their culture and their ambitions and so Lithuania declared full independence in March 1990, while Estonia and Latvia followed in August 1991. One of the highlights of their independence movements was a giant linkage of hands across all three countries and one of the most moving, the sight of Lithuanian weans singing their anthem word perfectly despite decades of suppression. Some of these activities were labelled 'The Singing Revolution'. Would that we could orchestrate something similar. According to the current First Minister, his plan is the only one which would confer international legitimacy on declaring ourselves a separate state. Some 43 SNP branches choose to differ. It will be, to quote his party, a huge 'democratic deficit' if the annual conference body swerves a proper debate on ALL the options. The longer the wait goes on, the more impatient I become for a Scottish government to stop being super cautious and risk-averse. READ MORE: Kate Forbes: Scotland's stories are being lost as tourists focus on aesthetic posts Meanwhile, amid the publishing furore accompanying Nicola Sturgeon's memoir, not many people have cottoned on to the reasons she gives for our not having Baltic-style smeddum. She traces it back to the referendum of March 1979, when a London-based Scottish MP came up with the notorious 40% rule which said that only if 40% of the entire electorate voted Yes, could it succeed. Not only would a simple majority not suffice (although, at 51.6%, one was obtained) but effectively everyone who couldn't be bothered to vote was assumed to be a No. Sturgeon wasn't old enough to have a vote herself at that juncture but she declares in Frankly: 'The effect of this on the Scottish psyche is hard to overstate. It's always been part of the Scottish character – or at least the caricature of it – that we talk the talk much better than we walk the walk. We are full of bravado but, when push comes to shove, lack the gumption to follow through.' There will be those who would turn the same judgement on her, given the various trigger points ignored during her term of office. But the point is well made. In various tests of resolve Scotland has proved too feart to take the ultimate plunge. Maybe we won't until, Baltic-style, we construct a huge and enthusiastic majority. If we needed further proof that Scotland is indeed a goldfish bowl for frontline politicians, we need look no further than the media furore surrounding the publication of the Sturgeon memoir. How much of this is down to the publishers extracting maximum coverage for their much-anticipated book launch, and how much is self-inflicted we might never know. What is undeniable is that every jot and tittle of the former First Minister's thoughts have been minutely scrutinised and analysed. Every time she opens her mouth these days, it seems to prompt another media feeding frenzy. It was the late Margo MacDonald who declared that if every indy-minded person convinced just one other voter, the 2014 poll would have spelled victory for the Yes camp. She wasn't wrong then; she still isn't. It won't be an easy ask. There are those who are implacably opposed to breaking the Union, and nothing and nobody will dissuade them. Their views can and must be respected but, to quote a certain PM, they are not for turning. Not ever. However, there is a soggy centre who can be won over with an honest appraisal of the benefits independence might bring. Not to mention an honest look at how the statistics are continually pochled and never in our favour. There must be a similarly frank flagging up of the downsides; few countries have made an entirely seamless transition to determining their own destinies. The bumps in the road will soon enough appear. Then again, no country has ever concluded that reverting to servile status is an option. I've just been reading a book about Scottish timelines which puts all of our significant milestones into both a UK and a global context. Among much else, it reminded me what an ancient and proud nation we have been, one which long preceded the Unions of the Crowns and Parliaments. Obviously, one of our milestones was the 1707 Act of Union, which rarely, these days, feels much of a union and certainly not a partnership. In those days, the electorate consisted of feudal nobles, lesser nobles with feudal rights, and representatives from royal burghs (with varying electorates). Even so, with Jock Tamson's bairns only able to look on impotently, the majority was a mere 43. That all led to a British parliament in which 150 Scottish peers were graciously permitted to anoint 16 of their own to the Upper House, 30 MPs were to represent the counties, and a whole 15 covering all the burgh districts. As ever, the establishment looked after its own. Thus were the most powerful recipients of feudal favours able, rather modestly, to shape the new parliament. Of course, we still await the answer to the question often posed but never answered; if this is an alleged partnership of equals, how can this alleged partner extricate themselves? Not that the breath is being held.
