Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (Updated August 10, 2026)

Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (Updated August 10, 2026)

International Tariffs Tax Policy

Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (Updated August 10, 2026)

PWBM · · 5 min read
Effective Tariff Rates and Revenues (Updated August 10, 2026)

The USITC recently released updated trade and tariff data. As of June 2026, the effective tariff rate stood at 7.1 percent.

Key Points

  • As of June 2026, the average effective tariff rate stood at 7.1 percent. The decline in recent months follows the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 declaration that the IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional.
  • Effective tariff rates vary dramatically by trade partner and product. Among major trading partners, China faces the highest effective tariff rate of 23.2 percent, although this is a marked decline from previous months. The share of imports from Canada and Mexico claiming an exemption under USMCA stood at 83.6 percent in June. Steel and aluminum products remain the most heavily tariffed product category at 40.9 percent, followed by automotive vehicles at 13.2 percent.

For forward-looking analysis, including long-term revenue and effective tariff rate projections, see our tariff simulator.

For real-time data on daily tariff revenue collections, see our Real-Time Federal Budget Tracker.

How Have Effective Tariff Rates Changed Over Time?

The Trump administration’s tariff policies have resulted in substantial increases in effective tariff rates. In January 2025, the average effective tariff rate was 2.3 percent. As of June 2026, it stood at 7.1 percent. The decline in recent months follows the Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 declaration that the IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional.

Figure 1 shows the evolution of aggregate effective tariff rates since February 2025. The chart compares the observed average effective tariff rate in customs data with a counterfactual that assumes imports would have followed historical trends, which we refer to as the “pre-substitution” rates. The gap between these lines reveals the impact of behavioral responses as importers adjust their purchasing patterns in response to tariff changes. The drop in both series in March reflects the repeal of the IEEPA tariffs in late February and their replacement with a 10 percent global tariff under Section 122.

Figure 1: Aggregate Tariff Rates

DOWNLOAD DATA

Note: The average effective tariff rate reflects the average rate observed in customs data, which is computed as the value of customs duties as a percentage of the value of imports. Pre-substitution rates are computed with observed effective tariff rates at the source country-product category level assuming the value of imports had followed historical trends. For longer-term projections, see our tariff simulator.
Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model calculations based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) DataWeb.

Among major trading partners, China faces the highest effective rate of 23.2 percent in June 2026. By major product category, steel and aluminum products face the highest effective tariff rates at 40.9 percent, reflecting both existing Section 232 tariffs and rate increases in June 2025, from 25 percent to 50 percent.

Figure 2: Effective Tariff Rates on Key Trading Partners and Product Categories

DOWNLOAD DATA

Note: The effective tariff rate is computed as the value of customs duties as a percentage of the value of imports. These rates are analogous to the post-substitution and pre-substitution rates shown in Figure 1.
Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model calculations based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) DataWeb.

How Did Changes in Import Behavior Affect Customs Revenue?

We estimate that new tariffs raised $283.9 billion in gross customs revenue between January 2025 and June 2026, before accounting for refunds following the IEEPA ruling. If importers had not accelerated purchases or changed their purchasing patterns, gross tariff revenue would have further increased by $58.7 billion over this period. Tariffs collected under the IEEPA authority prior to their removal totaled approximately $166 billion.1 Netting out those refunds leaves roughly $117.9 billion in net customs revenue raised by new tariffs since January 2025, assuming that all IEEPA tariff collections will be refunded.2 According to court filings, CBP has certified approximately $100 billion in refunds through July 2026, about 60 percent of the $166 billion collected.3

Figure 3: Decomposition of Gross Tariff Revenue Changes

DOWNLOAD DATA

Notes: The mechanical revenue effect (in red) is the increase in gross tariff revenue that would have been collected if importers had not accelerated purchases or changed their purchasing patterns. The behavioral revenue effect (in blue) is the decrease in gross tariff revenue that was not collected due to changes in import behavior. The overall increase in gross tariff revenue (in black) is the sum of the mechanical and behavioral revenue effects, before accounting for IEEPA refunds.
Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model calculations based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) DataWeb.

How Have North American Partners Responded to Tariff Hikes?

Tariff hikes in 2025 have driven a surge in the share of Canadian and Mexican imports that claim exemption from tariffs under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Figure 4 shows that the share of imports from Canada and Mexico claiming an exemption under USMCA remained stable through late 2024. This share has sharply increased for both countries since early 2025, standing at 83.6 percent in aggregate as of June 2026. This surge reflects importers aggressively leveraging USMCA rules of origin to secure duty-free status and avoid higher tariff rates.

Figure 4: Monthly Share of Import Value Claiming Tariff Exemption Under USMCA

DOWNLOAD DATA

Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model calculations based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) DataWeb.

Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model calculations based on data from U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) DataWeb and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Trade Statistics

Media (only): For the fastest response, email us at inquiries-pwbm@wharton.upenn.edu. All other responses: Please use our Contact Us. Sign up for PWBM Breaking News, Alerts and Newsletter. Unsubscribe anytime.

Footnotes

  1. Declaration of Brandon Lord, Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01259, ECF No. 31, para 12 (Ct. Int’l Trade Mar. 6, 2026). ↩

  2. This does not include indirect effects on other revenue sources such as income and payroll taxes. ↩

  3. Declaration of Brandon Lord, Freestyle World, Inc. v. United States, No. 26-01088, ECF No. 24, para 5 (Ct. Int’l Trade Aug. 4, 2026). ↩