“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“…a very valuable contribution.” - Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury and director of the National Economic Council, president emeritus, Harvard University
“Unintended Consequences is far smarter and more thought-provoking than most economics written for the general public” - Greg Mankiw, Harvard University, Former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“Unintended Consequences is full of substance, it is one of the must-read books of the year, and once I finish it I will be giving it a second read through right away.” - Tyler Cowen, Professor, George Mason University
“…a fresh argument for the productive value of inequality.” - David Autor, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
“…a must-read for serious students of economic policy.” - Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers
“…reminds us that inequality sends a signal of what society lacks most, in America’s case, entrepreneurship and risk taking.” - Lawrence Lindsey, CEO, The Lindsey Group, former Director of the National Economic Council
“…challenges misconceptions that distort our economic debates.” - Arthur Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“…a comprehensive explanation of the modern economy.” - Julian Robertson, Founder, Tiger Management
“A full-throated defense of economic dynamism.” - The Wall Street Journal
AI Summary.Incorporating tariffs into the standard cost-of-capital framework, researchers estimate US tariffs raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new investment by 4.2 percentage points to 17.0%, with equipment hit hardest at 26.1 percentage points. That increase offsets the 3.5 percentage point reduction from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Kyle Pomerleau, Thomas Brosy, Robert McClelland and John WongAmerican Enterprise Institute
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
The IEEPA tariffs through January 2026 raised equipment’s user cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%. With depreciation unchanged, the required pre-tax net return rose 1.6pp, 4.3% to 5.9%, a tax at purchase that expensing cannot eliminate.
Do tariffs raise the effective tax rate on new investment?
Core argument: Tariffs in force before the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new US investment by 4.2 points, from 12.8 percent to 17.0 percent, and the cost of capital by 2.7 percent, the AEI authors estimate.
The standard Hall-Jorgenson user cost of capital framework defines the minimum gross required return on an additional unit of capital. The service price of capital (SS) is the minimum pretax gross return required on a new investment; the minimum pretax net return (ρrho) equals SS minus economic depreciation. Consider imported equipment requiring a 25% gross return: 20% to cover depreciation and 5% shareholders’ demanded return. A 10% tariff raises the cost of capital to 27.5%. [Thus the minimum pretax net return—the hurdle rate—rises from 5% to 7.5%]. For equipment, tariffs raise the cost of capital 9%, from 17.7% to 19.3%: 86% of the burden is direct, 14% indirect. 100% bonus depreciation reduced the equipment METR from 19.1% to 4.1%; tariffs raised it to 30.3%, more than offsetting the tax cut.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Tariffs in force before the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Learning Resources v. Trump raised the economy-wide marginal effective tax rate on new US investment by 4.2 points, from 12.8 percent to 17.0 percent, and the cost of capital by 2.7 percent, the AEI authors estimate.
Equipment bore the largest estimated burden, with its marginal effective tax rate rising 26.1 points from 4.1 percent to 30.3 percent and its cost of capital up 9.0 percent, while mainframes and PCs saw a 26.6 percent cost-of-capital increase.
The estimated 4.2 point tariff-driven increase in the marginal effective tax rate offset the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s 3.5 point reduction, leaving a net 0.8 point rise economy-wide and an 11.1 point net increase for equipment.
Related Articles:
Blunt Tariffs Undermine Efforts To Reshore High-Tech Manufacturing— Computer and electronic products manufacturers import 37% of their intermediate inputs and capital equipment, chemical manufacturers 33%, and transportation equipment manufacturers 27%. Broad tariffs may push some sourcing domestically over time, but many inputs will simply cost more, making American manufacturers less competitive globally.
Help for the Heartland? The Employment and Electoral Effects of the Trump Tariffs in the United States— The authors find that the combined effect of U.S.-China trade war import tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and farm subsidies on employment in exposed U.S. locations was at best a wash and possibly mildly negative, while residents of tariff-protected areas became less likely to identify as Democrats and more likely to vote Republican.
Tariffs are Dumb Enough to (Almost) Work— A universal 15% tariff on imported goods could raise roughly $300–$400bn annually, a fraction of what a value-added tax would generate but real revenue given U.S. imports of about $4tn. The author argues tariffs are a poorly designed form of consumption tax that could build political groundwork for replacing them with a more efficient value-added tax.
AI Summary.An analysis projects that by 2030 a rapid artificial intelligence growth scenario—3.3% annualized GDP growth with a rising capital share of income—could raise US federal revenues by up to $216bn, 3.3% above the Congressional Budget Office baseline. Because capital income receives preferential tax treatment, a falling labor share of income reduces the revenue gain that output growth would otherwise produce.
John Iselin and Ryan NunnYale University
Date Posted:
Iselin and Nunn expect AI to increase output growth but to reduce labor’s share of income. “This bias in AI-induced growth reduces the revenue increase one would otherwise expect, given the preferential tax treatment afforded to capital income.”
How much would AI-driven growth raise federal tax revenues?
Core argument: In a rapid AI growth scenario of 3.3% annualized GDP growth with a growing capital share, federal revenues by 2030 could grow by up to $216 billion, a 3.3% increase on top of CBO's 2026 baseline.
The additional output growth that is often expected from AI—a clear positive for the fiscal picture —is not the only potential impact that matters. Another widely expected consequence of AI adoption is a reduction in the labor share of income. This bias in AI-induced growth reduces the revenue increase one would otherwise expect, given the preferential tax treatment afforded to capital income. Further, any labor inequality effects of AI could increase revenues (in the case of increasing inequality) or reduce them (in the case of decreasing inequality). Because these channels are of first-order importance for understanding AI effects on tax revenues, our analysis focuses on their roles. Other channels, not considered here, could also turn out to have meaningful revenue implications. We project that by 2030, in a rapid AI growth scenario (3.3% annualized GDP growth and a growing capital share), federal revenues could grow by up to $216 billion, a 3.3% increase on top of CBO’s 2026 baseline.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
In a rapid AI growth scenario of 3.3% annualized GDP growth with a growing capital share, federal revenues by 2030 could grow by up to $216 billion, a 3.3% increase on top of CBO's 2026 baseline.
A reduction in the labor share of income from AI adoption would blunt the revenue gains otherwise expected from faster growth, because capital income receives preferential tax treatment.
AI's labor inequality effects could raise revenues if inequality increases or reduce them if inequality decreases, a channel of first-order importance alongside the shift in labor share.
Related Articles:
How Might Fiscal Policy Respond to the Rise of Artificial Intelligence?— The Congressional Budget Office estimates that a permanent 0.5 percentage point increase in annual productivity growth would lower publicly held federal debt after 30 years by 39% of GDP, offsetting roughly half the projected rise from 101% of GDP to 175%. Higher revenue and slower spending growth outweigh higher interest costs.
Can AI Avert the Impending Federal Budget Crisis?— U.S. GDP per capita, about $87,000, is projected to reach $102,000 by 2035 with 1.8% annual productivity growth, or $110,000 with 2.7% growth. Because the healthcare sector has been slow to adopt AI, health spending is projected to rise from 18.3% of GDP to 21% under slower growth and 21.7% under faster growth.
U.S. Treasury Investors Are Long in AI— The authors find U.S. government debt has a large positive productivity beta, because the tax code makes federal revenue highly sensitive to productivity growth while spending commitments change little, leaving bondholders implicitly long productivity growth. They argue greater market confidence in sustained productivity gains from AI could substantially reprice government debt, lowering nominal yields.
AI Summary.The authors estimate that billionaire departures tied to a proposed California wealth tax would cut state income, sales, and other tax collections by $3.53bn–$4.49bn a year, with a $2.77bn lower bound based only on the nine publicly identified emigres. The analysis classifies 212 California billionaires by wealth source, assuming departures retain different shares of California-source income.
Jared WalczakCalifornia Tax Foundation
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Walczak estimates the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would reduce annual state tax revenues by ~$3.53B to $4.49B due to billionaire departures and associated spillovers. The NPV of these ongoing losses would be several times the wealth tax revenue.
How much state tax revenue would billionaire departures cost annually?
Core argument: The authors estimate the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would cut state income, sales, and other tax collections by $3.53 billion to $4.49 billion per year under their primary billionaire-departure scenarios.
This paper estimates ongoing annual reductions in state tax revenue under scenarios based on announced and anticipated billionaire departures. The analysis considers direct impacts on individual income and, to a much lesser extent, sales tax collections, along with spillover effects. We identify 212 California billionaires using the Forbes billionaire list and classify each based on whether their wealth is primarily held in publicly traded equity, a privately held operating business, financial fund management, or a diversified mix of sources. We use classification-specific assumptions of income loss subject to a given billionaire’s departure, assuming that only 5% of public founders’ income will remain California source after a departure, compared to 55 percent for private operating business owners, 35% for financial management, and 15% for diversified wealth. Under our primary scenarios, the wealth tax yields ongoing reductions of $3.53 billion to $4.49 billion per year in income, sales, and other tax collections. Calculations based exclusively on the nine publicly identified billionaire emigres yield $2.77 billion in recurring revenue loss and can be regarded as a lower bound. Actual out-migration almost certainly already exceeds that which has been publicly reported, and continued departures should be expected should the initiative advance.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The authors estimate the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would cut state income, sales, and other tax collections by $3.53 billion to $4.49 billion per year under their primary billionaire-departure scenarios.
Limiting the calculation to the nine publicly identified billionaire emigres yields $2.77 billion in recurring revenue loss, which the authors regard as a lower bound.
The analysis classifies 212 California billionaires from the Forbes billionaire list and assumes post-departure California-source income of 5% for public founders, 55% for private operating business owners, 35% for financial management, and 15% for diversified wealth.
What’s Missing in the Fed’s Data about Ultrarich Portfolios— The Federal Reserve's Distribution of Financial Accounts defines "private business" narrowly as proprietor's equity in noncorporate, nonfinancial businesses, excluding S-corporations, other private corporations, and private equity and hedge fund partnerships, which are lumped into "corporate equities." The Survey of Consumer Finances instead shows private business is roughly 45–50% of top 0.1% wealth.
Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking”— A debate on U.S. fiscal policy argues that spending increases, rather than the tax increases needed to fund them, slow growth, and that higher taxes would reduce the expected value of America's innovative risk-taking. The argument holds that cutting debt below 100% of GDP is critical.
AI Summary.A proposed California ballot measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of state residents with at least $1.1bn, dedicating most of the revenue to health care. The union leading the campaign argues the tax is needed to offset federal cuts to Medicaid and other health insurance programs.
Laurel RosenhallNew York Times
Date Posted:
The SEIU claims it has collected enough signatures to get its proposed 5% wealth tax on Californians with at least $1.1B on the ballot. Several other ballot measures are gathering signatures that could undermine the proposed tax.
Will voters approve a one-time billionaire wealth tax funding health care?
Core argument: A proposed California ballot measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of state residents holding at least $1.1 billion, dedicating most of the revenue to health care.
If approved to go on the ballot, the proposal will kick off an expensive election fight that will tap into voter anxieties about economic inequality as well as concerns from business leaders that California could lose its luster as a cradle of technological innovation. The measure calls for placing a one-time 5% tax on the assets of California residents with at least $1.1 billion, and would dedicate most of the revenue to health care. The union leading the campaign, the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, argues that the tax is necessary to make up for cuts to Medicaid and other federal health insurance programs by the Trump administration last year.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
A proposed California ballot measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on the assets of state residents holding at least $1.1 billion, dedicating most of the revenue to health care.
The Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which leads the campaign and says it has the signatures needed for the ballot, argues the tax is needed to offset Trump administration cuts to Medicaid and other federal health insurance programs.
Placing the measure on the ballot would launch an expensive election fight tapping voter anxieties about economic inequality and business leaders' concerns that California could lose its standing as a cradle of technological innovation.
What’s Missing in the Fed’s Data about Ultrarich Portfolios— The Federal Reserve's Distribution of Financial Accounts defines "private business" narrowly as proprietor's equity in noncorporate, nonfinancial businesses, excluding S-corporations, other private corporations, and private equity and hedge fund partnerships, which are lumped into "corporate equities." The Survey of Consumer Finances instead shows private business is roughly 45–50% of top 0.1% wealth.
Ed Conard Debates Furman On “The Expected Value of Risk Taking”— A debate on U.S. fiscal policy argues that spending increases, rather than the tax increases needed to fund them, slow growth, and that higher taxes would reduce the expected value of America's innovative risk-taking. The argument holds that cutting debt below 100% of GDP is critical.
AI Summary.Internal Revenue Service data show residents leaving Massachusetts took a net $4.2bn in adjusted gross income with them, an 8% year-over-year increase, in the first year of a 4% surtax on incomes above $1m, though the number of departing taxpayers slowed. Net outflows predate the surtax, and surtax collections have risen every year.
Greg RyanBloomberg
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
Net outflows of adjusted gross income from Massachusetts increased 8% y/y in 2023 to $4.2B, after a 4% surtax on income over $1mm took effect. Top earners leaving the state were responsible for 70% of the outflow.
Does a millionaire surtax accelerate income leaving the state?
Core argument: Residents leaving Massachusetts took a net $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, an 8% year-over-year increase and one of the largest totals in the country, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
Residents exiting Massachusetts took a net of $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, one of the largest totals in the country, after a tax on millionaires took effect. The amount was an 8% year-over-year increase, according to Internal Revenue Service data, even as the total number of taxpayers leaving the state slowed. This was the first year that residents were subject to a 4% surtax on incomes over $1 million after voters approved the levy in 2022 to fund schools and transportation. Despite the tax’s implementation, the number of residents moving out of Massachusetts who reported income of $200,000 or more — the top bracket tracked in the IRS data — fell year-over-year. Net outflows from Massachusetts long predate the millionaires tax, especially to Florida and New Hampshire, its northern neighbor, which has no tax on wages or capital gains. Total lost income was also higher in 2021 than 2023. The state’s millionaires-tax collections have increased every year since 2023 and so far in fiscal 2026 have jumped 19% year-over-year to $1.3 billion.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Residents leaving Massachusetts took a net $4.2 billion in adjusted gross income with them in 2023, an 8% year-over-year increase and one of the largest totals in the country, according to Internal Revenue Service data.
The number of Massachusetts out-migrants reporting income of $200,000 or more, the top bracket tracked in IRS data, fell year-over-year in 2023, the first year of the voter-approved 4% surtax on incomes above $1 million.
Massachusetts millionaires-tax collections have risen every year since 2023 and are up 19% year-over-year to $1.3 billion so far in fiscal 2026, while net outflows to Florida and New Hampshire predate the surtax.
Behavioral Responses to State Income Taxation of High Earners: Evidence from California— A California ballot measure raising top marginal income tax rates by up to 3 percentage points prompted an additional 0.8% of the affected tax base to leave the state, with an estimated income elasticity of 2.5–3.2 for high earners who stayed. The authors estimate these responses eroded 45.2% of windfall revenues within one year and 60.9% within two.
The Robin Hood State Is Coming For The Rich— In the US, increased redistribution has offset rising pre-tax inequality: Congressional Budget Office data show inequality of taxable income near record highs while inequality after taxes and transfers was lower than in several earlier years and only slightly above 1986. The top 1% of earners paid 40% of income tax in 2022, up from 33% in 2001.
AI Summary.Irish balance of payments data show foreign multinationals, almost all US-headquartered, reporting over $300bn in earnings in Ireland, generating roughly €35bn ($38-39bn) in Irish corporate tax revenue. Based on past patterns, a little under half likely comes from just three companies: Apple, Microsoft, and Eli Lilly.
Brad SetserCouncil on Foreign Relations
Date Posted:
American multinationals largely headquartered in the US booked $300B in profits in Ireland last year, generating $38–39B for the Irish Treasury, with ~ half coming from Apple, Microsoft and Eli Lilly. Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!
How much corporate tax revenue does Ireland collect from US multinationals?
Core argument: Irish balance of payments data show foreign multinationals, almost all American-headquartered, reporting over $300 billion in earnings in Ireland.
The Irish balance of payments data now shows that foreign multinationals (almost all American headquartered multinationals) report earning over $300 billion in Ireland—a remarkable sum. Those “Irish” profits generated close to 35 billion euros ($38-39 billion) or so in Irish corporate tax revenue in 2025—with a little under half likely coming from just three companies (Apple, Microsoft and Eli Lilly, which replaced Pfizer in the top 3 a couple of years back) judging from past patterns. The lost tax revenue from Eli Lilly, Apple, and Microsoft [$17-18 billion] would buy roughly four nuclear attack subs a year.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
Irish balance of payments data show foreign multinationals, almost all American-headquartered, reporting over $300 billion in earnings in Ireland.
Profits booked in Ireland generated close to €35 billion ($38–39 billion) in Irish corporate tax revenue in 2025, with a little under half likely coming from Apple, Microsoft and Eli Lilly, judging from past patterns.
The $17–18 billion in tax revenue lost to Eli Lilly, Apple and Microsoft would buy roughly four nuclear attack submarines a year.
Related Articles:
This Loophole Buried in Trump’s Bill Is Anything but Beautiful— U.S. tax law taxes global profits from intellectual property moved offshore at 10.5%, versus 21% on domestic profits, and American companies report roughly $350bn in annual profits in major corporate tax havens such as Ireland, Luxembourg and Singapore. Pharmaceutical companies shifted patents and manufacturing abroad, reporting nearly all income overseas and largely ceasing to pay domestic corporate tax.
American Pharmaceutical Companies Still Aren’t Paying Tax in the U.S.— The six largest U.S. pharmaceutical companies by revenue reported a combined U.S. corporate income tax provision of zero or less for their profits, with only Eli Lilly setting aside a significant sum of roughly $1bn. The author attributes this to holding intellectual property offshore, producing patent-protected drugs offshore, and booking profits on U.S. sales offshore.
AI Summary.The US administration is reviewing the list of steel and aluminium derivative products subject to tariffs of up to 50%, and plans to exempt some items, halt further expansion of the lists, and instead open more targeted national security investigations into specific goods. Officials viewed the tariff regime as too complicated to enforce.
Aime Williams and Andy BoundsFinancial Times
Date Posted:
The administration has signaled that tariffs on steel and aluminium products will be scaled back in an effort to reduce consumer prices.
Are metals tariffs being rolled back over enforcement complexity?
Core argument: The Trump administration plans to exempt some products from tariffs of up to 50% on steel and aluminium imports, halt expansion of the affected product lists, and launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods, according to three people familiar with the matter.
[Trump] hit steel and aluminium imports with tariffs of up to 50% last summer, and has expanded the taxes to a range of goods made from those metals including washing machines and ovens. But his administration is now reviewing the list of products affected by the levies and plans to exempt some items, halt the expansion of the lists and instead launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods, according to three people familiar with the matter. Officials felt the tariff regime was “too complicated to enforce,” one person said, and needed to be simplified. One European business leader, who declined to be named, said they knew of a company that had sent four identical containers of machinery to the US and was charged different rates for each one.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
The Trump administration plans to exempt some products from tariffs of up to 50% on steel and aluminium imports, halt expansion of the affected product lists, and launch more targeted national security probes into specific goods, according to three people familiar with the matter.
Officials found the metals tariff regime, extended to derivative goods including washing machines and ovens, "too complicated to enforce" and in need of simplification, one person familiar with the matter said.
A European business leader, who declined to be named, said a company sent four identical containers of machinery to the United States and was charged a different rate on each one.
Related Articles:
The Incidence of Tariffs: Rates and Reality— The authors estimate that tariff pass-through into US import prices was 80% in 2018–2019 and 94% more recently, while exchange-rate pass-through was low in both periods. Because imported inputs matter for US manufacturing, they argue much of the tariff burden falls on US producers, roughly a 1–2 percentage-point tax on manufacturing.
Are Businesses Absorbing the Tariffs or Passing Them on to Their Customers?— About three-quarters of manufacturing and service firms facing tariff-driven cost increases reported passing at least some of those costs to customers through higher prices, while roughly a quarter of each said they absorbed the full increase without raising prices. Nearly a third of manufacturers and about 45% of service firms reported full pass-through.
U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump’s Tariffs Aren’t Helping— U.S. manufacturing employment has declined for eight straight months following the announcement of sweeping new tariffs, leaving fewer Americans working in manufacturing than at any point since the end of the pandemic. Federal figures show more than 200,000 manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2023.
AI Summary.The authors estimate that 94% of U.S. tariff costs were borne domestically over the first eight months of 2025, with a 10% tariff associated with only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices. Pass-through into U.S. import prices later declined to 86%, shifting more of the burden to foreign exporters.
Mary Amiti, Chris Flanagan, Sebastian Heise, and David WeinsteinFederal Reserve Bank of New York
Date Posted:
Is Database:
Database
Is Important:
Important
A FRBNY analysis finds that ~90% of tariffs’ economic burden was borne by American firms and consumers in the first 8 months of 2025. Between January and November, however, that incidence declined 8pp as firms reorganised supply chains.
Are U.S. buyers bearing most of the cost of tariffs?
Core argument: U.S. buyers bore 94% of the 2025 tariff incidence during the first eight months of the year, with a 10% tariff associated with only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices.
94% of the tariff incidence was borne by the U.S. in the first eight months of 2025. This result means that a 10% tariff caused only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices. The tariff pass-through into import prices has declined in the latter part of the year. That is, a larger share of the tariff incidence was borne by foreign exporters by the end of the year. In November, a 10% tariff was associated with a 1.4 percent decline in foreign export prices, suggesting an 86% pass-through to U.S. import prices. Given that the average tariff in December was 13% our results imply that U.S. import prices for goods subject to the average tariff increased by 11% (13 times 0.86) more than those for goods not subject to tariffs. These higher import prices caused firms to reorganize supply chains.
Takeaways by Macro Roundup® AI
U.S. buyers bore 94% of the 2025 tariff incidence during the first eight months of the year, with a 10% tariff associated with only a 0.6 percentage point decline in foreign export prices.
Tariff pass-through into U.S. import prices declined later in 2025: in November a 10% tariff was associated with a 1.4% decline in foreign export prices, suggesting 86% pass-through.
With the average tariff at 13% in December, the results imply U.S. import prices for tariffed goods rose 11% more than for untariffed goods, prices that led firms to reorganize supply chains.
Related Articles:
A Note On Tariffs From The Real World— A large retailer reports that pre-tariff inventory is still being sold, so tariff costs will show up as margin hits later, and that prices must eventually rise roughly 10–15% to cover them. The retailer says its sector's tariff rate went from about 12% to about 33%, and that retailers are holding prices through the holiday season before raising them.
U.S. to Cut Tariffs on Bananas, Coffee and Other Goods From Four Countries— The U.S. announced joint statements with four Latin American countries under which it would reduce tariffs on a range of goods not produced domestically, including bananas and coffee from Ecuador and beef from Argentina. Officials said no government-sponsored beef shipments are planned, but tariff cuts on beef are expected.
Tariffs Are Generating Meaningful New Revenue— New U.S. tariffs are estimated to generate $1.3tn in net new revenue through the end of the current presidential term and $2.8tn through 2034 before economic effects, about $600bn more than previously enacted tariffs. If a court ruling striking down some tariffs is upheld, the remainder could raise as little as $800bn through 2034.
