How do Section 301 tariffs, Section 232 tariffs, and antidumping duties each contribute to overall US tariff revenue?
Executive summary
The recent wave of U.S. tariffs — including Section 301 (targeted trade remedies), Section 232 (national security) and traditional antidumping duties — has sharply increased customs revenue: analysts estimate new tariffs raised roughly $88–$195 billion in 2025 to date (short‑run and FY figures vary by method) and projections run into the hundreds of billions over the next decade [1] [2]. Different legal authorities and tariff types play distinct roles: duties on Chinese goods are a single largest source of revenue [3], whereas Section 232 has concentrated increases on steel, aluminum and autos [4] [5].
1. Different legal tools, different footprints
Section 301 actions typically target unfair trade practices and have been used to hit broad swaths of Chinese imports — these tariffs have generated a large share of revenue because they combine high rates with a substantial import base (duties on Chinese goods are the largest single revenue source) [3]. Section 232 tariffs are framed as national‑security measures and have been most visible on steel, aluminum and autos; those categories show some of the highest effective tariff rates (steel and aluminum ~39.8%, autos ~21%) and thus disproportionately raise revenue per dollar of import value [4] [5]. Antidumping and countervailing duties remain narrower, product‑specific remedies that can yield meaningful but smaller and more targeted revenue streams; available sources do not give a precise split of revenue from antidumping separate from other duties in 2025 (not found in current reporting).
2. How much revenue each contributes — what the numbers say (and don’t)
Estimates vary by data source and horizon. The Penn Wharton Budget Model calculates that tariff changes raised about $101.2 billion between January and August 2025 and pushed the effective tariff rate to about 10.55% by August [4]. Yale’s Budget Lab reports roughly $88 billion in new 2025 tariff revenues through August, with $23 billion in August alone [1]. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget cites $195 billion in customs duties for FY2025 — a jump compared with FY2024 — but notes legal uncertainty could force refunds [2]. These figures reflect aggregate customs receipts from all applied tariffs; none of the cited pieces provides a clean, published breakdown that isolates Section 301 vs. Section 232 vs. antidumping revenue in a single table (not found in current reporting).
3. Why composition matters: rates, bases, and exemptions
Revenue = rate × taxable import value, net of exemptions/refunds. Headline tariff rates often overstate revenue impact because exclusions, delays, stacking rules, and agency decisions reduce the effective rate; PIIE and other trackers measure effective revenue as a share of import value to show this gap [6] [4]. Steel, aluminum and autos have very high effective rates and therefore punch above their weight in revenue terms [4]. Conversely, antidumping duties often apply only to specific products or firms, so even high margins can yield modest totals relative to sweeping measures on China [3] [4].
4. Legal fights and transient vs. persistent revenue
Several outlets stress that much of the 2025 revenue depends on tariffs whose legality is challenged. Lower courts have ruled many IEEPA‑based tariffs unlawful; if the Supreme Court requires refunds or repeals authorities, large portions of FY2025 receipts could be returned, and long‑run projections would fall dramatically [2] [7]. The White House has argued revenue is “incidental” to the national‑security or foreign‑policy purpose of some tariffs — a legal framing with clear implications for whether collections survive court review [8].
5. Macro context and tradeoffs: revenue vs. economy
Budget shops and think tanks stress trade‑offs. Some models project large ten‑year revenue gains from current tariffs (Tax Policy Center and CRFB-style projections in sources), but they also warn about economic costs: lower GDP, higher consumer prices, and potential retaliatory tariffs that could reduce net revenue and economic output [9] [10] [2]. Nonpartisan analysts note that part of customs receipts will be offset by reduced income and payroll tax receipts (the “offset” factor), reducing net budgetary gain [3].
6. Bottom line and reporting limits
Available sources agree tariffs substantially raised U.S. customs receipts in 2025, with duties on Chinese goods and high‑tariff categories (steel, aluminum, autos) the biggest contributors [3] [4] [1]. However, no single public source among those provided offers a definitive, line‑by‑line breakdown quantifying exactly how much revenue came from Section 301 vs. Section 232 vs. antidumping duties for the whole year — and court outcomes could materially change reported totals (not found in current reporting; p1_s6). Follow Treasury and USITC detailed reconciliations for the clearest future splits and watch the Supreme Court ruling for the largest single legal risk to the revenue figures [2] [8].