The tariff revenues are amazing — $700 billion a year. That's just net new money the government never had before. You take that for ten years, that's $7 trillion.

The claim breaks down into two main components: first, that tariff revenues are $700 billion annually, and second, that this revenue is 'net new money' the government never had before, totaling $7 trillion over ten years. While some proponents, including Howard Lutnick and Peter Navarro, have asserted figures around $600 to $700 billion per year,usa.news-pravda.comusa.news-pravda.comHoward Lutnick: "The tariff revenues are amazing — $700 billion a yearfactcheck.orgfactcheck.orgIndependent Analyses Contradict Navarro's $6 Trillion-Plus Tariff Revenue...x.comx.comRapid Response 47 on X: ".@howardlutnick: "The tariff revenues are amazing independent analyses and economic models provide substantially lower estimates.

The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects about $5. 2 trillion in tariff revenue over ten years, which averages to roughly $520 billion annually but also accounts for reduced import demand due to higher prices.budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edubudgetmodel.wharton.upenn.eduThe Economic Effects of President Trump’s Tariffs Other reputable sources like the Tax Foundation estimate even lower revenues, around $1.

7 trillion over ten years under a universal tariff scenario.taxfoundation.orgtaxfoundation.orgHow Much Revenue Can Tariffs Really Raise for the Federal Government? Additionally, some economists argue that tariffs can have negative dynamic effects on revenue due to economic distortions and retaliation.budgetlab.yale.edubudgetlab.yale.eduWhere We Stand: The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All U.S....theguardian.comtheguardian.comFact check: are US tariffs really bringing in $2bn a day as Trump claims? The claim that this is purely 'net new money' ignores these economic feedbacks and the fact that tariffs can reduce trade volumes and increase costs for consumers and businesses.

Therefore, while tariff revenues are significant, the specific figures cited are inflated compared to credible economic forecasts and do not fully consider economic consequences or net fiscal impact. This leads to a conclusion that the claim is mostly false due to substantial overestimation and omission of important context.