The USPS posted a net loss of $9 billion in fiscal year 2025—a figure not just a number for the organization, but a reflection of the long-term challenges the U.S. Postal Service has been grappling with for several years. Official reports attribute the deficit in part to out-of-control expenses and declining mail volumes, while the USPS is currently attempting to maintain its liquidity by borrowing more from the Treasury.
The balance between expenses and revenue is distorted. First-class mail volumes have been declining for decades, and while revenue from packages and logistics has increased, margins are limited. Rising employee compensation and other operating expenses have exacerbated the deficit. The USPS has recently proposed changes to some pricing and service standards to increase revenue, but these steps alone do not appear to be sufficient to address the problem.
The demand for additional borrowing from the Treasury for financial relief is even more worrying because it is only a short-term remedy to the problem, not a permanent solution. According to reports, the USPS has begun exploring new borrowing options while remaining within the post office’s traditional debt limits – but experts say that without structural reforms, this borrowing may avert the crisis but will increase risks in the long run. In this context, the organization has repeatedly demanded USPS financial loss reforms that include not just cuts but also revenue increases and policy changes.
In its official presentation, USPS calls for some consolidation and policy changes—such as reviewing pension/retiree health funding rules, better asset utilization, and controls in major expense categories like wages and workers’ compensation. These reform plans call for administrative and legislative changes, but also point to greater transparency and a long-term business strategy. Therefore, it’s repeatedly stated that USPS financial loss reforms should not be solely cost-cutting measures, but should also emphasize revenue diversification and service model reengineering.
Impacts to consumers and small businesses could be both direct and indirect. Potential consequences include postal rate increases, delays, or service standard adjustments for some service categories, and competitive changes with shipping companies. Online sellers and small businesses are particularly vulnerable because shipping costs and delivery times impact their operations. Policymakers and businesses must understand the delicate balance between postal reforms, service standard changes, and financial stability.
USPS Financial History
History also offers warnings: USPS has borrowed in the past to shore up liquidity, and statutory demands like pension prepayments have exacerbated financial pressures. Experts therefore suggest that relying solely on short-term borrowing would be risky—what’s really needed are transparent USPS financial loss reforms, concrete revenue-growth plans, and realistic service transformation.
China stocks close volatile as US-China trade tensions rocket brakes
In conclusion, the $9 billion FY2025 deficit and the attempt to borrow more from the Treasury indicate that the USPS faces both financial and structural challenges. As readers, you need to see what policies are implemented next—whether these reforms are practical steps toward USPS financial loss reforms, or will they be limited to short-term relief. Whatever the case, monitoring and policy dialogue will have long-term impacts—not only on postal users, but also on the logistics network of the US economy.
