How much tariff revenue did the U.S. collect in fiscal year 2024 and where did it go?

Executive summary — short answer up front: The United States collected roughly $77 billion in customs duties (tariff revenue) in fiscal year 2024, a figure that represents about 1.6% of total federal revenue and is notably below the FY2022 peak of $108.2 billion. A separate Customs and Border Protection accounting that aggregates duties, taxes and fees reports a higher total (about $88.07 billion) because it counts trade‑remedy and other fee categories differently; the official Treasury/OMB “customs duties” figure is $77 billion and that revenue is deposited into the General Fund and counted as federal receipts ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Why two different dollar amounts are floating around — definitions fight it out. The commonly cited $77 billion number comes from Treasury and OMB finalized revenue tables and is the standard federal accounting line labeled “customs duties,” which excludes some trade‑remedy and miscellaneous CBP fee categories; this figure is used in budget tallies and percentage‑of‑revenue calculations (1.6% of total receipts) ^{[1] [2]}. The $88.07 billion tally reported by U.S. Customs and Border Protection reflects a broader set of collections — total duty, taxes and fees — and allocates significant receipts to trade‑remedy programs such as Section 301 and Section 232; CBP breaks out about $38.19 billion attributed to Section 301 China measures and smaller sums for steel and aluminum remedies, explaining the higher total ^[3]. The discrepancy is therefore a matter of accounting scope, not arithmetic error.

2. Where the money goes — the General Fund, not a separate slush fund. Finalized Treasury and OMB tables show customs duties flow into the federal General Fund, becoming fungible receipts that offset spending or reduce borrowing needs rather than being earmarked for specific programs; Congressional Research Service analysis confirms that tariff revenue is recorded as general receipts in the budget ^[2]. Some reporting ties large tariff inflows in later years to deficit reduction headlines — for example, 2025 customs duties were described as offsetting part of that year’s deficit — but that reflects timing and bookkeeping rather than a legally distinct appropriation stream ^[4]. CBP collections used for trade‑remedy enforcement are reflected in CBP reporting, but the budgetary destination remains the General Fund ^{[3] [2]}.

3. What drove FY2024’s level and the recent volatility — policy decisions versus accounting timing. The FY2024 customs duties total sits well below the FY2022 peak because tariff policy, trade flows, and temporary measures (de minimis adjustments, enforcement actions) affect receipts; Treasury monthly preliminary data are updated annually in finalized statements, creating year‑end revisions ^[1]. The surge to higher revenues in FY2025 — reported as roughly $195 billion in some accounts — reflects new tariffs and trade‑remedy measures implemented late in FY2024 and into 2025, as well as changes in import volumes and administration of duties; that surge generated headlines about using tariff receipts to reduce deficits, though legal challenges and Supreme Court review introduced uncertainty about the durability of those receipts ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Composition matters — not all “tariffs” are created equal. CBP’s itemized reporting shows that a large share of certain years’ increased receipts are trade‑remedy collections tied to specific statutes (e.g., Section 301 for China, Section 232 for steel and aluminum) rather than traditional ad valorem duties on broad product lines; CBP counted about $38.19 billion from Section 301 China products in the broader duty/tax/fee total that year ^[3]. CRS and Treasury tables emphasize that roughly 70% of products enter duty‑free, and that net revenue is often less than gross receipts once offsets and scoring adjustments are applied; nonpartisan scoring conventions also factor into public estimates of net fiscal effect ^{[2] [6]}. Knowing which statutory tool produced revenues matters for legal durability and budget scoring.

5. What defenders and critics emphasize — different agendas, same receipts. Advocates for tariffs highlight the revenue and the use of trade remedies as tools to protect domestic industry and recoup costs from unfair trade practices; critics stress that higher duties raise consumer prices, distort supply chains, and that revenues are volatile and tied to contested legal authority, including cases that reached the Supreme Court and could retroactively affect collections ^{[4] [5]}. Government accounting and CRS briefs treat the numbers as neutral budgetary data (deposit to the General Fund), while CBP presents operational totals that emphasize enforcement and remedy collections; readers should note those different institutional incentives when interpreting headline figures ^{[3] [2] [4]}.