Yes, there is tariff revenue coming in. But no, you're not getting a rebate (unless you're a farmer)

With recent talk about repurposing tariff funds and possible bailouts of farmers, I wanted to take a look at the numbers involved, and see if that was even possible.

About a month ago, the Congressional Budget Office gave an update on how much tariffs were bringing in and how much higher they were compared to 2024.

As of November 15, we estimate that the effective tariff rate for goods imported into the United States is about 14 percentage points higher than the roughly 2.5 percent it was a year ago, measured by applying current tariff rates to 2024 trade flows. We now project that increases in tariffs implemented from January 6, 2025, to November 15, 2025, will decrease primary deficits (which exclude net outlays for interest) by $2.5 trillion over 11 years if the higher tariffs persist throughout the 2025–2035 period. By reducing the need for federal borrowing, those tariff collections will also reduce federal outlays for interest by $0.5 trillion. In total, the tariff changes will reduce deficits by $3.0 trillion. Those estimates do not account for effects on the size of the economy. The additional budgetary effect of the economic changes will be incorporated in CBO's next set of economic and baseline budget projections that will be published in The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036.

Our current estimates are smaller than those from August (reflecting the effects of tariffs implemented between January 6 and August 19, 2025), which projected an 18 percentage point increase in the effective tariff rate, a $3.3 trillion decrease in primary deficits, and a $0.7 trillion reduction in interest outlays. Roughly two-thirds of the downward revisions result from adjustments to reflect new data. Modifications to tariffs, which on net lowered the effective tariff rate (although rates on certain products were higher in November than they were in August), also reduced the estimated effect on the deficit.

Since then, we've seen tariff revenue numbers come in for October and November, and it indicates that we are getting around $20 billion to $25 billion a month more in customs duties than we were getting at the start of 2025.

So I'd say a reasonable estimate for would be around $275 billion for 12 months of these tariff taxes, but that number may diminish over time as consumers and companies adjust (IF companies ever change their sourcing and manufacturing of materials). So CBO's $3 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade seems to be in line.

That $3 trillion in tariff revenue would make up around 60% of the nearly $5 trillion in lost revenue that is projected to happen from Tax Scam 2.0 over the same time period. But hey, if you combine it with the cuts to programs such as Medicaid, Obamacare tax crdits, and SNAP, total deficits would only end up increasing around $700 billion in total over the next decade between the tariffs and the One Big Bunch of Bollocks passed back in July.

(Reminder - that's increasing the deficit beyond the baseline budget deficits of those years, which were already projected to be between $1.7 trillion and $2.6 trillion in each year.)

Keep those numbers in mind when Trump blathers his BS about a $2,000 "tariff refund check". The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers, and said tariffs wouldn't come close to that kind of check.

President Trump proposed paying a dividend of “at least $2,000 a person” with new tariff revenue in a post on Truth Social this weekend. The post noted that “high income people” would be excluded from the dividend and also discussed paying down the national debt.

Assuming these dividends are designed like the COVID-era Economic Impact Payments, which went to both adults and children, we estimate each round of payments would cost about $600 billion.1 In comparison, President Trump’s new tariffs currently in effect have raised approximately $100 billion thus far and – including those tariffs that have been ruled illegal pending a Supreme Court appeal – are projected to raise about $300 billion per year.

While the President did not specify the frequency with which dividends would be paid, nor the precise amount (he said “at least $2,000 a person”), we estimate that $2,000 dividends would increase deficits by $6 trillion over ten years, assuming dividends are paid annually. This is roughly twice as much as President Trump’s tariffs are estimated to raise over the same time period.

Yeah, don't think anyone living in the real world has an appetite for adding even more to the deficit and our already-rising long-term interest rates with a gimmick like this. And while a $500-per-person relief check may be able to be afforded from the tariff revenue, that sure isn't going to make up for the higher inflation that CBO says tariffs have caused for this year.

Recently, TrumpWorld has also been talking about another taxpayer-funded reaction to tariff costs - this one targeted to farmers.

President Donald Trump announced the $12 billion bailout package alongside Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday afternoon during a roundtable with farmers at the White House. The money comes from a U.S. Department of Agriculture fund, Politico reports.

Up to $11 billion is slated for farmers who grow row crops, such as corn, soybeans, sorghum and cotton. Rollins said eligible farmers will know how much money they will receive by the end of the month, and the dollars will move by the end of February 2026.

The other $1 billion will be reserved for farmers who grow specialty crops like fruits and vegetables, she said.

So where would this $12 billion come from? It’s actually not from tariffs.

In his first term, Trump provided bailouts to tariff-impacted farmers using what's called the Commodity Credit Corporation fund at the US Department of Agriculture.

The plan is to use the same mechanism this time around, despite concerns that the fund is running low and may require additional money to be appropriated by Congress.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins offered reporters some clarification, saying that "the tariffs we consider an offset" and confirming that the direct source of the funding would again be the Commodity Credit Corporation fund.

To fill it, she added, "We had to, kind of, move some things around, but we've got that $12 billion set aside." Rollins added that the president is open to adding more money in the future if needed.

What is former Cotton Bowl Queen Brooke Rollins talking about when it comes to finding funds in the CCC to bail out farmers?

The CCC program is considered to be mandatory spending, just like Social Security, Medicare, and SNAP (well, when the President isn’t illegally impounding SNAP, of course). As part of last month’s deal to end the government shutdown, programs at the US Department of Agriculture were extended for another year. This includes both SNAP and the CCC through next September 30, and Congress’s information sheet on the CCC and its financing setup says there is quite a bit of flexibility to pay for bailouts like the one the Trump Administration wants to do.

CCC recoups some money from authorized activities (e.g., sale of commodity stocks, loan repayments, and fees), though not nearly as much money as it spends, resulting in net expenditures. Net expenditures include all cash outlays minus all cash receipts, commonly referred to as "cash flow." CCC outlays or expenditures represent the total cash outlays of the CCC-funded programs (e.g., loans made, conservation program payments, commodity purchases, and disaster payments). Outlays are offset by receipts (e.g., loan repayment, sale of commodities, and fees). In practice a portion of these net expenditures may be recovered in future years (e.g., through loan repayments).

CCC also has net realized losses, also referred to as nonrecoverable losses. These refer to the outlays that CCC will never recover, such as commodities sold or donated, uncollectible loans, storage and transportation costs, interest paid to the Treasury, program payments, and operating expenses. The net realized loss is the amount that CCC, by law, is authorized to receive through appropriations to replenish its borrowing authority (see Figure 2).

Notice the huge jumps in Fiscal Year 2020 and 2021. Those are to pay back the billions in bailouts that Trump Admin 1.0 gave to farmers from 2018 through 2020. The borrowing authority limit for CCC is $30 billion, which was breached during those Trump 1.0 bailouts, but Congress and President Trump agreed to “front” some of those funds to USDA through extra taxpayer dollars, which kepy the CCC from the prospect of shutting down due to too much money being borrowed for the bailouts.

As the fact sheet notes, the funds for the CCC bailout in Trump 2.0 would have to be set aside when USDA has its next budget year start on Oct 1, 2026.

Many farm program payments are required to be made annually in October (e.g., Agricultural Risk Coverage, Price Loss Coverage, Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program). In most years, CCC has enough room within the borrowing authority limit to make these payments before receiving its annual appropriated reimbursement. In years of high expenditures, CCC could reach its borrowing authority limit before receiving its appropriation. If CCC reaches its borrowing limit, all functions and operations of CCC would be suspended until the borrowing authority is restored through the reimbursement that is pursuant to an appropriation.

So it won’t directly be “tariff funds” that will be used to pay back farmers who have suffered tariff-related losses. But given that tariff funds are mixed in with other tax dollars when it comes to Uncle Sam paying his bills, it’ll be part of the way that these bailouts are paid for. As well as the other typical way we pay for this and most other government activities - taking on more debt.

All this tariff revenue shifting seems pretty ham-handed, and it isn't doing much to protect or grow American industries. So what is this accomplishing? A partial offset of regressive tax cuts with even more regressive tariffs? But hey, tariffs do serve as a nice way from Trump 2.0 to solicit bribes from businesses who might want exceptions from the duties, aren't they?