President Donald Trump’s late‑2025 promise to “substantially be cutting and maybe cutting out completely” federal income tax for most Americans within two years is already reshaping debates on trade, revenue, and public spending. For immigrants and foreign workers in the 🇺🇸 United States, the idea of ending or sharply cutting federal income tax and replacing it with new tariffs raises direct questions: How would this affect their own tax bills, visa processes, and long‑term plans to stay in the country? And does the math Trump describes actually work when we look at the federal budget and the national debt?
Trump has said that Americans earning under $200,000 a year could see their income tax cut to zero first, with lost revenue replaced by a universal 10% tariff on all imports and a 60% tariff on imports from China, plus other targeted tariffs. He claims these new tariffs could not only keep the government running but even help pay down the national debt. For millions of immigrants who file U.S. tax returns, send money abroad, and depend on a stable economy to keep jobs and visas, it’s important to look at these claims carefully.
How Trump’s Proposal Connects to Immigrants and Foreign Workers
Many immigrants in the United States—whether on H‑1B, L‑1, or student visas, or as permanent residents—pay federal income tax just like U.S. citizens. They also often need IRS records to support immigration filings.
For example, sponsors of family‑based immigrants must usually file an Affidavit of Support on Form I-864 and attach U.S. tax returns or IRS transcripts. You can see the official instructions for this form on the USCIS I‑864 page.
If federal income tax is sharply reduced or removed for most workers, that would change the numbers that appear on tax returns, which immigration officers use to judge whether a sponsor can support an immigrant. Even if the government rewrote the rules to adjust for lower or zero taxes, there would likely be a period of confusion where sponsors, lawyers, and officers would struggle to apply older guidelines to a very different tax system.
International students, exchange visitors, and many temporary workers also deal with complex tax rules already, including special treaty rules and non‑resident tax forms. If the main federal income tax disappears but tariffs push up prices on food, clothing, and electronics, these groups might no longer see any tax savings, yet still pay more for daily life.
The Revenue Gap: What the Numbers Say
To judge whether tariffs can replace federal income tax, we have to start with the basic math presented in the source material:
- Individual federal income tax is projected at $2.3 trillion in 2025.
- Corporate income tax adds about $400 billion.
- Together, that’s about $2.7 trillion in yearly income tax revenue.
By contrast, tariff revenue in 2024 was about $100 billion. Economists cited in the source say that even with a 10% baseline tariff on all imports and steep 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, the maximum possible yearly tariff revenue would likely be only $300–400 billion.
That means even in the rosiest case, tariffs would replace less than 15% of what federal income tax now brings in. To reach the full $2.7 trillion, the tariff load would have to be roughly 27 times higher than current levels. For immigrants working in trade, logistics, or export‑heavy sectors, that scale of tariff pressure would almost certainly crush demand, close factories, and erase jobs that support many visa holders.
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, large revenue gaps usually force one of three moves:
- Cut federal spending
- Raise other taxes
- Increase borrowing, adding to the national debt
None of those paths is painless for immigrants hoping for stable programs, from refugee resettlement to student aid and job training.
Quick comparison table
| Revenue source | Current/Projected | Potential from tariffs (optimistic) |
|---|---|---|
| Individual income tax (2025 projection) | $2.3 trillion | — |
| Corporate income tax | $400 billion | — |
| Total income tax revenue | $2.7 trillion | — |
| Tariff revenue (2024 actual) | $100 billion | — |
| Tariff revenue (optimistic with steep tariffs) | — | $300–400 billion |
Tariffs, Prices, and Everyday Life for Immigrant Families
Tariffs are taxes on imports, but in practice importers pass most of that cost on to consumers through higher prices. Many immigrant households depend heavily on imported goods—rice, spices, electronics, clothing, car parts, and even some medicines.
Under Trump’s idea of “massive new tariffs,” several things would likely happen:
- Higher store prices: Day‑to‑day living costs would rise for everyone, including low‑income immigrants who might not owe any federal income tax even today.
- Inflation pressure: If prices jump for many basic goods at the same time, the overall cost of living rises. That especially hurts students, asylum seekers, and new arrivals with limited savings.
- Strain on remittances: Many immigrants send part of their U.S. income home. If rent, food, and transport cost more, there’s less money left to send abroad or to pay immigration fees.
For people trying to adjust status or bring relatives, higher prices might mean delaying filing Form I-130, Form I-129F, or humanitarian forms like Form I-134A for supporters of certain parole programs. Official information for Form I-134A is on the USCIS I‑134A page, and family sponsors already complain that it’s hard to meet financial demands. The combination of higher living costs and unclear tax rules could make sponsorship even harder.
Key takeaway: Even if federal income tax disappears for many, tariffs are likely to raise living costs and could erase the perceived benefit for immigrant families.
Trade Retaliation and Jobs that Depend on Global Markets
The source material warns that trading partners would likely answer U.S. tariffs with their own. That matters a lot for immigrants working in sectors exposed to global markets:
- Car manufacturing and parts
- Agriculture and food processing
- Technology and electronics
- Port operations, trucking, and warehousing
If other countries target U.S. exports, orders fall, and factories or farms may cut shifts or close. Many recent arrivals work in these sectors, sometimes on employment visas and sometimes as permanent residents.
Job loss can trigger visa problems, especially for nonimmigrant workers tied to a single employer through filings like Form I-129 (see the USCIS I‑129 page for details). Job loss can also push families into late rent, debt, or even homelessness. For those in the middle of green card or naturalization processes, long periods without stable work can raise questions during background checks or interviews.
Legal Questions Around Using Tariffs as Main Federal Funding
The source notes that the Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump’s tariff plans. The exact arguments are not spelled out in the material, but it raises worries that using tariffs to fund the entire federal budget might cross constitutional lines on how Congress can tax and spend.
Legal fights at this level almost always create long periods of uncertainty. Immigrants and employers remember how changes to the public charge rule, DACA, and travel bans bounced through the courts, leaving people unsure whether to file cases or travel abroad.
If a core part of federal funding rests on tariffs that might later be struck down or limited, that instability could spill into immigration programs that depend on steady congressional funding.
Understanding current federal income tax rules is already complex for many immigrants and cross‑border workers. Official background on today’s system is available from the Internal Revenue Service on the IRS “Taxation of Nonresident Aliens” page. Replacing this system partly or fully with trade taxes that sit on shaky legal ground would add another layer of confusion.
Impact on Deficits, the National Debt, and Future Immigration Policy
Because the math in the proposal does not cover the full loss of $2.7 trillion in income tax revenue, many economists and tax analysts quoted in the source warn of higher deficits and fast growth in the national debt if spending is not cut.
For immigration policy, that matters in several ways:
- Pressure on immigration services: When the federal budget is tight, agencies like USCIS and the State Department often face hiring freezes and backlogs. That slows green card cases, work permits, and student visas.
- Risk to refugee and humanitarian programs: These programs depend heavily on federal appropriations. Debt worries can make such spending politically harder to protect.
- Fee hikes: When Congress does not provide enough money, immigration agencies tend to raise filing fees instead. That puts more cost on applicants, many of whom are low‑ or middle‑income.
If the federal government tried to avoid adding to the national debt by cutting spending instead, immigrant‑related programs might be on the chopping block. The source material stresses that experts view the plan as “not mathematically feasible” without either deep cuts, much higher tariffs than described, or new forms of taxation.
Why the Plan Remains Popular with Some Voters
Despite the math problems, the idea of ending or sharply cutting federal income tax is naturally attractive, especially for middle‑income workers who feel overtaxed. For U.S.‑born and immigrant workers alike, a paycheck without federal income tax withholding sounds like instant relief.
Trump’s message that “the money we’re taking in is going to be so large” also suggests to some that tariffs make foreigners pay instead of Americans. In reality, as the source explains, the cost largely falls on U.S. consumers and businesses.
For immigrants who already face myths that they are a “burden” on the system, there is also a risk that political leaders will blame them when economic pain from tariffs becomes clear, even though immigrants do not set trade policy and often suffer from price hikes and job losses just like everyone else.
Most economists, tax policy specialists, and many business leaders cited in the material agree on one point: tariffs cannot come close to replacing current income tax revenue without severe damage to trade and heavy inflation. For immigrants building long‑term lives in the United States, that gap between political promise and economic reality is not just a technical issue. It influences job security, visa systems, support for new arrivals, and the fairness of the tax load they share with the rest of the country.
Trump’s proposal to cut or eliminate federal income tax and fund government with broad tariffs—10% baseline and higher China duties—faces strong doubts. Tariff revenue is unlikely to exceed $300–400 billion, far below the $2.7 trillion income tax total, creating a fiscal gap that would require spending cuts, higher fees, or more debt. Immigrants could face higher consumer prices, job losses in trade‑exposed sectors, disrupted visa processes, and legal uncertainty if tariffs become core federal funding.
