Which US tariffs generated the most customs revenue in 2018–2023?

1. Big picture: tariffs became a nontrivial revenue item after 2018

Customs duty receipts climbed after 2018, peaking in recent years: Statista reports about $80 billion in customs duty revenue in 2023 and USAFacts records $77.0 billion for FY2024, underscoring the larger receipts after the tariff measures that began in 2018 ^{[1] [2]}. Analysts attribute much of the increase to new tariffs imposed on hundreds of goods—especially measures aimed at China plus steel and aluminum actions ^{[2] [5]}.

2. China-targeted tariffs explain a large share of revenue, but exact split is uncertain

Visual Capitalist’s country breakdown estimates that nearly one-third of U.S. tariff revenue is collected on imports from China, driven by both high import volumes and elevated trade-weighted tariff rates (it cites an estimated $205.2 billion in “trade revenue” on Chinese imports in its 2024-style calculation) ^[4]. That suggests China-focused tariffs were among the largest single drivers of customs receipts in the period, but Visual Capitalist’s method extrapolates by applying current rates to import values and is not the same as official Treasury accounting ^[4]. Available sources do not provide an authoritative, Treasury-based line-by-line revenue ranking of individual tariff actions for 2018–2023—so one cannot produce a definitive ordered list from these materials (not found in current reporting).

3. Steel and aluminum tariffs—and sector “safeguards”—added meaningful revenue

Industry and trade analyses point specifically to steel and aluminum tariffs as important contributors: the American Farm Bureau Federation cited that tariffs on steel, aluminum and Chinese products increased tariff revenues by an estimated $25 billion since January 2018 and were on pace to reach or exceed $72 billion in 2019 in that organization’s accounting ^[3]. This indicates that sectoral safeguards and the Section 232 tariffs materially raised receipts early in the trade dispute ^[3]. Caution: that estimate mixes timing and projection assumptions and isn’t the same as the federal government’s final, audited receipts series ^[3].

4. Measurement caveats: headline receipts ≠ net fiscal gain

Official receipts reported by Treasury or compiled by outlets include gross customs duties, but several factors complicate “which tariffs generated the most revenue.” The Bipartisan Policy Center notes Treasury’s Daily Treasury Statement sourcing and adjustments required to net out refunds or non-tariff excise components when comparing years ^[6]. The White House Council of Economic Advisers cautions that static revenue estimates overstate net fiscal benefits because tariffs can prompt retaliatory actions, reduce exports, and induce subsidies (e.g., farm aid) that offset duties—U.S. farmers received subsidies that equalled a large share of duties collected during the 2018–2019 dispute ^[7]. Thus, raw customs receipts overstate net budgetary or economic benefit unless one accounts for offsets ^{[7] [6]}.

5. Elasticities and behavior: revenue can fall as imports respond

Academic and policy studies show imports respond to tariff increases; elasticity estimates imply import volumes can fall substantially after tariffs, shrinking revenue over time. The Tax Foundation and related reviews cite evidence that import elasticity to tariffs was near -1 initially and grew larger over time, meaning a 10% tariff can cut imports by roughly 10% or more—this dynamic reduces the long-run revenue yield from tariffs imposed in 2018–2019 ^{[8] [5]}. The USITC and others found near-complete pass-through of some tariffs into U.S. prices, reinforcing that economic incidence fell on U.S. buyers and import volumes adjusted ^[5].

6. Country and product trackers provide indicative—but not definitive—rankings

Third‑party trackers (Visual Capitalist, Bipartisan Policy Center, PIIE trackers referenced in the results) provide country- and product-level approximations showing China, Mexico, and Canada as large sources of tariff receipts and consumer goods and industrial inputs as big categories ^{[4] [6] [9]}. These visualizations are useful to gauge where revenue concentrated, but the sources rely on current tariff schedules, import values, or modeling assumptions rather than a single Treasury table that attributes receipts to each specific tariff action across 2018–2023 ^{[4] [6]}.

7. Bottom line and recommended next steps for a precise ranking

Available reporting consistently points to China-targeted tariffs and steel/aluminum measures as the largest contributors to the post‑2018 increase in customs revenue, but the provided sources stop short of an official, itemized ranking of revenues by specific tariff line or action for 2018–2023 ^{[4] [3] [5]}. To produce a definitive ranked list you would need Treasury or Customs & Border Protection detailed revenue-by-HTS line tables or a consolidated official breakdown attributing receipts to each tariff measure—documents not present in these search results (not found in current reporting).