Short answer: The data we have so far suggest that the tariffs imposed under the revived Trump administration are generating sizable revenue but are also imposing a heavy economic drag—cutting U.S. output, wages, and consumer purchasing power. Whether that trade‑off counts as “working” depends on which goal you prioritize (revenue‑raising versus overall economic welfare).
What the numbers say
| Metric | What the analysis finds | Source |
|---|---|---|
| GDP impact | A projected ≈ 8 % reduction in U.S. real GDP (and a 7 % fall in wages) if the tariffs stay in place. | PWBM model, April 2025 |
| Revenue raised | Over $5 trillion in nominal revenue over a decade on a static‑price basis (about $4.5 trillion after accounting for dynamic effects). | PWBM model, April 2025 |
| Dynamic revenue | About $172 billion (0.57 % of GDP) in additional federal tax revenue in 2025 alone, after factoring in retaliation and macro‑economic feedback. | Tax Foundation, April 2025taxfoundation.org |
| Retaliation cost | Retaliatory tariffs from China, Canada, the EU and others shave another 0.2 % off U.S. GDP and cut projected 10‑year revenue by roughly $132 billion. | Tax Foundation, April 2025taxfoundation.org |
| Consumer price effects | Higher import prices raise household costs; a middle‑income family faces an estimated $58 k lifetime loss in real terms. | PWBM model, April 2025 |
How the outcomes line up with the stated goals
| Goal | Evidence of success | Evidence of shortfall |
|---|---|---|
| Protect domestic manufacturing / jobs | Tariffs on steel, aluminum and certain autos raise the price of imported competitors, giving U.S. producers a price advantage. | The same price hikes feed through to higher input costs for downstream manufacturers, eroding competitiveness and depressing overall employment growth. |
| Raise federal revenue | The tariff regime is indeed a large source of new revenue (several hundred billions per year). | The revenue gain is far outweighed by the loss in GDP and wages; the net welfare effect is negative when you factor in reduced output and higher consumer prices. |
| Force trade‑partner concessions | Some partners (e.g., Japan) have negotiated limited tariff reductions, but many (EU, China) have responded with their own duties, creating a tit‑for‑tat spiral. | Retaliatory measures have already cost U.S. exporters billions, undermining sectors that rely on foreign markets (agriculture, aerospace, tech). |
| National‑security rationale | Certain “strategic” goods (e.g., advanced steel) are now sourced more domestically, which can be framed as a security win. | The broad‑brush 10 % “reciprocal” tariff on almost every country adds little security value while inflating costs across the board. |
Bottom line
- Revenue‑wise, the tariffs are “working”: they generate a measurable boost to the Treasury.
- Economically, they are costly: the projected GDP and wage losses, plus the drag from retaliation, suggest the overall welfare impact is negative.
- Politically, the picture is mixed: supporters point to the symbolic protection of U.S. industry, while critics highlight the broader economic harm and limited leverage gained from trade partners.
If your interest lies in a particular dimension—e.g., the impact on a specific sector, the fiscal contribution, or the geopolitical bargaining power—let me know and I can dig deeper into that angle.U
Sources