US customs duties top $100 billion for first year
David Lawder
,
Reuters
Shipping containers are stacked on container ships at the Port of Los Angeles on 25 June, 2025, in Los Angeles, California.
Photo:
AFP/ Getty Images - Mario Tama MARIO TAMA
US customs duty collections surged again in June, as US president Donald Trump's tariffs gained steam, topping $US100 billion for the first time during a fiscal year and helping produce a surprise $27b budget surplus for the month, the Treasury Department has reported.
The budget data showed that tariffs were starting to build into a significant revenue contributor for the federal government, with customs duties in June hitting new records, quadrupling to $27.2b on a gross basis and $26.6b on a net basis, after refunds.
The budget results are likely to reinforce Trump's view of tariffs as a lucrative revenue source and as a hammer to enforce non-trade foreign policy. On Tuesday, he said "the big money" would start to flow in, after he imposes higher "reciprocal" tariffs on US trading partners on 1 August.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X that the results showed the US "reaping the rewards" from Trump's tariff agenda.
"As President Trump works hard to take back our nation's economic sovereignty, today's Monthly Treasury Statement is demonstrating record customs duties - and with no inflation!" Bessent said.
Another promise made. Another promise kept.
Our nation is reaping the rewards from
@POTUS
's America First agenda.
As President Trump works hard to take back our nation's economic sovereignty, today's Monthly Treasury Statement is demonstrating record customs duties – and with…
https://t.co/LN4HI66jJg
For the first nine months of fiscal 2025, the customs take reached records of $113.3b on a gross basis and $108b on a net basis, nearly double the prior-year collections. The US government's fiscal year ends on 30 September.
Based on those results, tariffs have now grown into the fourth-largest revenue source for the federal government, behind individual withheld receipts at $2.683 trillion for the fiscal year, non-withheld individual receipts at $965b and corporate taxes at $392b.
In the space of roughly four months, tariffs - as a share of federal revenue - have more than doubled to about five percent from about two percent historically.
The June budget surplus represented a turnaround from the $71b deficit in June 2024. The new tariff-related revenue helped boost total budget receipts last month by 13 percent - or $60b - to $526b, a record for that month, the US Treasury said. Outlays in June fell seven percent - or $38b - to $499b.
Adjusting for calendar shifts of some revenue and benefit payments, it said there would have been a budget deficit of $70b in June, along with a year-ago adjusted deficit of $143b.
The overall year-to-date deficit, however, increased five percent - or $64b - to $1.337 trillion, as outlays rose for healthcare programmes, Social security retirement benefits, defence spending, debt interest and the Department of Homeland Security, the US Treasury said.
Receipts for the first nine months of the fiscal year rose seven percent - or $254b - to a record $4.008t, driven in part by withheld taxes from higher employment and wages, while outlays grew six percent - or $318b - to a record $5.346t.
The Treasury's interest costs on the national debt continued to grow, exceeding all other individual outlays at $921b for the first nine months of the fiscal year, up six percent - or $53b - from the year-ago period, but the Treasury's weighted average interest rate largely had stabilised at 3.3 percent at the end of June, up two basis points from a year ago, a Treasury official said.
Earlier this week, Bessent suggested a steeper ramp-up in tariff collections, telling a cabinet meeting that calendar-year 2025 collections could grow to $300b by the end of December.
At the June run rate, gross customs collections would hit $276.5b in six months, which means reaching Bessent's target would require some increases.
Ernie Tedeschi, economics director of the Budget Lab at Yale University, said it may take more time for the tariff revenue to fully ramp up, because businesses and consumers have sought to front run the duties by buying ahead.
Once that effect fades and Trump implements higher "reciprocal tariff" rates after a 1 August deadline, the Treasury may collect an extra $10b in tariffs per month, bringing the total to $37b, he said.
"I think there's a significant risk... that we get addicted to tariff revenue," said Tedeschi, who served as a White House economic adviser during the Biden administration. He added that tariff income could fade over time, as businesses and consumers adjust their behaviour.
This week, Trump has ratcheted up his tariff actions, announcing 50 percent levies
on copper imports and goods from Brazil
and a 35 percent tariff
on Canadian goods
, all due to start on 1 August.
The Trump administration is preparing more sector-based tariffs on semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.
-
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Defence Spending Is Like Insurance – How Will NZ Pay The Higher Premiums?
Defence spending is like insurance – you have to pay for it but you hope you never have to use it. And the higher the risk you face, the higher your premium will be. New Zealand has now committed to paying those higher defence insurance premiums. The government's 2025 Defence Capability Plan, released in April, includes NZ$9 billion in extra funding over the next four years. That's a sizable increase on a current annual budget of just under $5 billion. New Zealand is not alone, of course. Driven by geopolitical tensions and US President Donald Trump's demand that other countries spend a higher proportion of their GDP on defence, global military spending rose for the tenth year in a row to US$2,718 billion in 2024, with huge increases in Europe and the Middle East. How much 'insurance' a country should buy in the form of defence spending will vary. Too little, and it cannot respond when it needs to; too much, and resources are needlessly wasted. For New Zealand, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Economically, however, defence spending is more complicated than simply buying weapons and recruiting more personnel. There can be benefits beyond basic security considerations. One involves what economists call 'technology spillovers'. Past innovations developed for military use – such as jet engines, GPS and the internet – often found important civilian applications. The challenge is to design defence investments to deliberately build skills and technologies with wider economic benefit: advanced manufacturing, cybersecurity or clean tech. New Zealand's defence plan includes this kind of spending, including between $100 million and 300 million on cybersecurity. On the other hand, promises of new jobs from large projects are often overstated, with New Zealand's best known example being the ' Think Big ' policy of the 1970s. Rather, there can be job substitution as people move from civilian roles into military ones. Guns and butter In the end, of course, increased defence spending must be funded – through higher taxes, more debt or reduced spending on other items. Higher GDP growth would make the expenditure more affordable, but even then we face the same tradeoffs. It's not possible to have lower taxes and debt as well as higher government spending. Most of the expenditure set out in the defence plan will be on equipment. But any increase in the output of the defence industry will likely crowd out other consumer and investment goods. While clearly an extreme example, one only has to look at how defence spending rose during WWII. The increase in military output came at the expense of other goods, leading to shortages and rationing. New Zealand doesn't face that scale of change, but there is still likely to be some shift in production from 'butter to guns'. We might also see a shift in how businesses spend their research and development money, towards military and away from civilian applications. New Zealand does not have a large defence industry and will need to import much of the new equipment. This implies a need for higher exports to pay for those imports, meaning fewer goods for New Zealanders to consume. Costs and benefits Most countries are understandably reluctant to cut spending on health, education and other things voters care about in order to boost defence. Hence, governments can be tempted to label new expenditures as 'defence' when it could otherwise be classified as 'updated infrastructure'. Spending on dual-purpose capital works is likely to increase, therefore, with projects earmarked for defence more likely to be funded. The New Zealand defence plan already allows for housing, airfield and port facilities that can all have multiple uses. There are also ethical considerations. Many consumers prefer not to invest in the arms trade, but components used in weapons manufacture often have non-military uses as well. Similarly, many consumer items, such as phones, vehicles and food, can be purchased by the military but clearly have non-military uses. We may see more of the output of companies that also produce non-military items directed into defence. All of this can make it difficult to classify a company as a defence contractor, and may be challenging for large investors (such as superannuation funds) with ethical investment policies. At the same time, the cost of not investing in defence firms might also rise as demand for their products or services increases and they become better investments. Like people in general, countries prefer lower insurance premiums. But when risks increase, so too does the price of insurance. Voters will disagree on how much should be spent on defence, but that is largely a political question. What economics teaches us, however, is that if you want to reduce your insurance premium, then reduce your risk. And that is something easier said than done.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
K-Defense Day: Pimping For The Arms Dealers
Militarism is catching on across the countries of advanced economies and beyond. The sly, disingenuous term of 'defence' is used in this context, encouraging arms manufacturers, contractors and the entire apparatus of the military-industrial complex to fatten for the cause. The European Union huffs and struts towards higher targets of expenditure that will cull projects for peaceful development in favour of a fatuous rearmament agenda. Member countries of the NATO alliance, lent on by the administration of President Donald Trump, are doing the same. The countries of the Middle East continue to add to the numbers, with warring Israel seeing a 65% increase in 2024 to US$46.5 billion, the sharpest annual increase since the Six-Day War in 1967. In East Asia, military contractors are also preening themselves in Tokyo and Seoul, pressing the flesh and pursuing contracts. Japan's military spending rose by a gulping 21% in 2024. The amount of US$55.3 billion is the largest since 1952. In Seoul, on the occasion of K-Defense Day on June 8, President Lee Jae-myung made it clear that he did not want South Korea's own defence industry to miss out on all the fun. In a closed-door discussion held at the Grand Hyatt Seoul hotel organised by the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Lee solemnly promised to 'do my best to push ahead, as long as we don't end up being labelled arms dealers'. This somewhat idiosyncratic caveat is bound to make little difference, given Lee's ambitions to promote the value of South Korea's killing inventory. DAPA, wanting to make the most of its first Defense Industry Day themed 'Remembering the dedication and passion of Korea's Defense Industry', was in a bullish mood to promote Korean military prowess. Some well minted propaganda did the rounds, drawing inspiration on the exploits of Admiral Yi Sun-sin on July 8, 1592, when the turtle ship was committed to the Battle of Sacheon against the Japanese fleet. The turtle ship, in its 'historical significance', symbolised 'Korea's will to protect its territory and its independent technological prowess.' Those in the defence industry had been worried that the new President might give them the cold shoulder on this grand occasion. He had previously attacked the installation of the US Terminal High Altitude Defense system on Korean soil, ostensibly to protect South Korea from North Korean missiles, as needlessly provocative. The militarists need not have worried. All the relevant mandarins were in attendance, including the Minister of National Defense nominee Ahn Gyu-baek and Chairperson of the National Defense Committee, Seong Il-jong. The industry titans were also represented. Numerous awards of merit were also presented. Lee had purportedly told his aides that K-Defense Day, put on the calendar of commemorations by his impeached predecessor Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023, would be a good opportunity to 'highlight our support for defence.' According to Korea JoongAng Daily, Lee outlined his various achievements of late to the closed gathering, including attending the G7 summit held last month in Canada. 'A big reason I went was to showcase the strength of our defence industry and to ask them to buy our submarines.' In May, it was revealed that a trio of South Korean firms – Hyundai Heavy Industries, Hanwha Ocean and Hanwha Aerospace – had made a combined offer to the Canadian armed forces valued between US$14 to 17 billion in submarines, with US$720 million worth of armoured vehicles and artillery systems. It was a good time for the Koreans to strike, given the stated view by newly-elected Canadian Prime Minister Mike Carney that 'the old relationship with the United States based on… tight security and military cooperation is over'. Lee also explained his purpose for seeking an invitation to the latest NATO summit held in The Hague. Despite wanting to avoid accusations of being a grubby arms dealer, the ROK President was clearly placing the ambitions and wallets of arms dealers ahead of the common citizenry. He had become a pimp for arms: 'The biggest reason I wanted to go was to advertise our defence industry and weapons.' Participants at the forum pressed Lee to depart from the view that defence was a matter of procurement and competition between parties rather than a total industry beneficial to the state. The response was suitably patriotic – at least if you are a merchant of death: 'Defence and arms exports are not just a competition between companies; they're a competition between nations. We have to win as 'One Team Korea.'' In public remarks made at the start of the forum, Lee offered the sort of reasoning that launders the military-industrial complex of its stains, concealing its insatiable appetite to stimulate the cause for war. 'I hope the defence industry not only strengthens our security but also becomes one of Korea's future growth engines. The government will continue investing and providing strong support.' In response to 'the rapidly changing security environment', the government would also 'develop state-of-the-art weapon systems using artificial intelligence (AI) and unmanned robots and build a healthy business ecosystem that goes beyond the industrial structure centred on big corporations to allow small and medium enterprises and diverse talent to participate.' Militarism, following this seedy rationale, should not just be for the big corporations and arms manufacturers. In the business of killing, the little guys should also be given a chance.
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- RNZ News
Donald Trump announces 30 percent tariffs on Mexico and the European Union
US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP/NICOLAS TUCAT US President Donald Trump threatened duties of 30 percent on products from Mexico and the European Union, two of America's biggest trading partners, in an ongoing tariff campaign that's upended global trade since he retook office in January. "The United States of America has agreed to continue working with the European Union, despite having one of our largest Trade Deficits with you. Nevertheless, we have decided to move forward, but only with more balanced and fair TRADE," Trump wrote in the letter to Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, which he posted to Truth Social. Trump has imposed a slate of tariffs on US trading partners this year - then paused, modified, raised or lowered them, in a chaotic barrage of policy actions that's left everyone from major nations to individual Americans trying to figure out how to plan for the future even as economic uncertainty grows. The EU and Mexico join a growing list of countries whose imports will face updated duties on 1 August, since Trump began posting tariff letters on Monday (local time) with rates of up to 40 percent. In his letters to the EU and Mexico, Trump said that all imports were subject to the 30 percent tariff, excluding "Sectoral Tariffs," such as the 25 percent auto tariff. Von der Leyen said in a statement that the EU remains "ready to continue working towards an agreement" by the August 1 deadline. But, she said, a 30 percent tariff on EU exports would hurt supply chains, businesses and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. The EU "will take all necessary steps to safeguard EU interests, including the adoption of proportionate countermeasures if required," von der Leyen wrote. French President Emmanuel Macron agreed on X that the European Commission must "resolutely defend European interests". "In particular, this implies speeding up the preparation of credible countermeasures, by mobilising all the instruments at its disposal, including anti-coercion, if no agreement is reached by August 1st," he wrote in his post. Macron and von der Leyen's sentiments were echoed by other European Union officials in the strongest public pushback to the Trump administration's political pressure and trade whiplash that ensued in May. Products from Mexico, meanwhile, have mostly been able to enter the country duty-free, granted they were compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Trump negotiated in his first term. In his letter addressed to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, Trump said that tariff barriers were imposed to stop the flow of fentanyl into the United States, which he has previously used to justify earlier tariffs on Mexico as well. "Mexico has been helping me secure the border, BUT, what Mexico has done, is not enough," Trump wrote. Mexico's economy minister Marcelo Ebrard posted on X that a Mexican delegation told United States officials during a Friday meeting that plans to establish a new tariff rate would be "unfair treatment and that we did not agree." But the United States and Mexico are negotiating to find an "alternative to protect businesses and jobs on both sides of the border". "The letter clearly states that the aim is to reach an agreement so that these tariffs are not imposed," Sheinbaum said Saturday (local time) in a speech in the city of Guaymas, adding that she is confident about reaching an agreement and better trade terms with the United States. In the tariff letters, which were dated on Friday, Trump said that any retaliation of tariffs charged on US imports would be met with pushback from the United States. Trump said that "whatever the number you choose to raise (tariffs) by, will be added onto the 30 percent that we charge." He blamed both tariff and non-tariff trade barriers as additional reasons for imposing tariffs on the EU and Mexico. The Trump administration has taken particular issue with value-added and digital services taxes, which are prominent in several EU member countries. Digital service taxes are levied on the gross revenue that online firms collect from offering services to users. Countries with these taxes would be able to tax all the revenue large companies that operate online collect - even if the business is unprofitable. That can include what they collect from selling data, advertising as well as payments they receive for subscriptions, software and other kinds of online services users pay for. Trump and members of his administration said on multiple occasions that the EU was not negotiating in good faith. And two months ago, Trump was so enraged by the lack of progress in trade talks that he was prepared to slap a 50 percent tariff on goods from the EU come 1 June. "I'm not looking for a deal," he said at the time. A 30 percent tariff on the EU is more than the 20 percent "reciprocal" tariff which goods from there faced before Trump paused them in mid-April. After Trump made the threat in May, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox News interview that the "EU proposals have not been of the same quality that we've seen from our other important trading partners." On Saturday afternoon, Bessent posted on X that the United Kingdom "smartly secured an early deal". The letters to the EU and Mexico come after Trump threatened 35 percent tariffs on some Canadian goods on Thursday. According to the US Trade Representative's office, EU member countries are together America's largest trading partner at nearly US$976 billion in two-way goods traded in 2024. Mexico traded nearly US$840 billion in two-way goods and Canada traded just over US$762 billion in two-way goods with the United States. - CNN
