\n This range is well below the 20-plus percent estimates that were pencilled\n in by many economists following the sky-high \u201creciprocal\u201d tariff levels\n announced in April 2025, the peak period of market angst. Since then, the\n rate has dropped following U.S. trade deals with key partners such as the\n EU, Japan and South Korea, among others, and an important trade truce\n with China.\n <\/p>\n
\n \n It would be in keeping with the administration\u2019s character to issue\n additional tariff threats periodically this year, including ahead of the\n United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) mandatory review in July.\n <\/p>\n \n \n RBC Global Asset Management economists assess that foreign and domestic\n companies have been sharing the tariff burden by a roughly 50\/50 percent\n split.\n <\/p>\n \n \n RBC economists anticipate tariff pass-through will continue this year,\n which should keep the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and other consumer\n inflation measures somewhat elevated above the Federal Reserve\u2019s preferred\n level.\n <\/p>\n \n \u201cOn the whole, however, the impact of tariffs on growth and CPI looks like\n it will ultimately be less than models originally suggested,\u201d according to\n RBC Global Asset Management Inc. Senior Economist Josh Nye.\n <\/p>\n \n \n The Tax Foundation estimates that tariffs represent an\n \n The Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Urban Institute and Brookings\n Institution, sees a greater hit in its recently updated forecast. It\n estimates the Trump 2.0 tariffs will represent an\n average $2,100 burden per household in 2026.<\/strong>\n <\/p>\n \n \n \n Even if the Court were to rule against the administration\u2019s IEEPA use, RBC\n Global Asset Management Inc. Chief Economist Eric Lascelles wrote, \u201cthe\n reality is that the U.S. can virtually instantaneously introduce temporary\n 15 percent tariffs and then, after some obligatory research and hearings, impose\n just about whatever tariff rate it desires at a later date. Thus,\n \n Lascelles believes\n \n Polls show the Trump 2.0 tariffs lack popularity, with 60 percent of\n Americans disapproving of them, according to Pew Research.\n <\/p>\n \n Ahead of the midterm elections, Congress is pushing back. The House of\n Representatives recently voted by a very narrow margin to terminate the\n IEEPA tariffs on Canada. More tariff votes in the House and Senate seem in\n the offing this year; Trump holds the veto pen, however.\n <\/p>\n \n \n In Jan. 2026, the $27.74 billion in tariff revenue was almost four\n times the average from 2021 to 2024, according to customs data compiled by\n the U.S. Department of the Treasury, calculated on a \u201cconventional\n basis\u201d\u2014meaning the actual dollars coming into customs, without negative\n side effects being taken into consideration.\n <\/p>\n \n \n Source – RBC Wealth Management, U.S. Department of the Treasury,\n Bloomberg; monthly data through 1\/31\/26\n <\/p>\n \n The chart shows monthly customs receipts from January 2021 through\n January 2026. In January 2021 receipts began at $5.87 billion.\n Collections crept somewhat higher through early 2022 and then started\n drifting a bit lower later that year and reached a low point of $5.23\n billion in May 2024. From 2021 through 2024 receipts averaged $7.08\n billion per month. In April 2025 tariff revenues began to spike,\n reaching a high of $31.35 billion in October 2025. By January 2026\n they had pulled back to $27.74 billion.\n <\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n The government collected $264 billion in net customs revenue in 2025, and\n the amount should be a lot higher in 2026, the first full year under the\n Trump 2.0 tariff framework.\n <\/p>\n \n If the current tariffs remain in place, the Tax Foundation forecasts they\n will raise over $2.1 trillion in federal revenue on a conventional basis\n from 2026 through 2035 (or $1.44 trillion on a \u201cdynamic basis\u201d when\n negative side effects are considered).\n <\/p>\n \n \n \n But this is still a relatively big number\u2014far from Treasury Secretary\n Scott Bessent\u2019s goal of around three percent of GDP by 2028 and well above\n the two percent level we would consider palatable.\n <\/p>\n \n The Congressional Budget Office forecasts a 5.8 percent deficit-to-GDP\n ratio in 2026, an increase to 6.0 percent in 2028, and an even higher\n level in 10 years.\n <\/p>\n \n \n The country hasn\u2019t seen spending discipline since a brief period in the\n 1990s, and unfortunately, we don\u2019t think this will change anytime soon,\n regardless of which party is in power\u2014unless the Treasury market forces\n Washington\u2019s hand.\n <\/p>\n \n After a year of uncertainty, tariff rates have stabilized at lower levels than feared\u2014and become a significant U.S. government revenue source. We assess the tariff landscape ahead of the Supreme Court\u2019s important ruling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":31797,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"rbcwm_post_date":"2026-02-19T16:48:53","editor_notices":[],"rbc_url_alias":"","rbcwm_featured_desktop_image_position":"","rbcwm_featured_mobile_image_position":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[73],"tags":[993,768],"rbcwm_content_owner":[607],"rbcwm_need":[],"rbcwm_segment":[],"rbcwm_solution":[],"rbcwm_topic":[74],"rbcwm_channel":[],"rbcwm_format":[],"class_list":["post-31796","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis","tag-tariff-rates","tag-tariffs","rbcwm_content_owner-pag","rbcwm_topic-global-insights"],"acf":{"rbcwm_subtitle":"After a year of uncertainty, tariff rates have stabilized at lower levels than feared\u2014and become a significant U.S. government revenue source. We assess the tariff landscape ahead of the Supreme Court\u2019s important ruling.","rbcwm_post_author":[1346],"rbcwm_custom_breadcrumb_text":"","rbcwm_custom_breadcrumb_link_url":"","rbcwm_disclaimers":{"add_disclosures":["Yes"],"perspective_disclaimer":"","expandable":"","omit_from_pages":"","disclaimer_footnote":""},"rbcwm_insight_cta_id":[11937],"rbcwm_pagination":{"next_link":"","next_link_text":"Next article","previous_link":"","previous_link_text":"Previous article"},"rbcwm_video_duration":"","article_time":"","rbcwm_enable_toc":false,"rbcwm_toc_selector":"h2"},"yoast_head":"\nWho is actually paying the tariffs?<\/h2>\n
SCOTUS to weigh in soon<\/h2>\n
Are tariffs here to stay?<\/h2>\n
Tariff revenue has surged<\/h3>\n
Net customs receipts to U.S. government by month (US$ billions)<\/h4>\n
![\"Net](\"https:\/\/www.rbcwealthmanagement.com\/assets\/wp-content\/uploads\/global\/tariffs-revenue-win-but-en-chart-1-in-page-corp.png\"\n)
\n Some deficit relief but not a panacea<\/h2>\n