U.S. Refunds $100bn in Struck-Down Trump Tariffs as Legal Battle Over Trade Powers Continues

Customs filing shows more than half of invalidated tariff collections have been returned to importers, although some critics believe consumers have yet to benefit

The Trump administration has refunded approximately $100 billion in tariffs that were collected before the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a large portion of President Donald Trump’s trade duties earlier this year, according to a court filing, marking one of the largest repayments of tariff revenue in U.S. history.

The disclosure, contained in a filing submitted Tuesday to the U.S. Court of International Trade by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials, provides the clearest picture yet of the government’s efforts to unwind tariffs that the nation’s highest court ruled had been imposed without proper legal authority.

According to the filing, “refunds (duties plus interest) of approximately $100 billion have been completed using the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries Refund component, certified by the agency, and sent to the U.S. Department of Treasury for disbursement.”

The figure came from refunds processed through the end of July and represents more than half of the approximately $166 billion in tariff revenue invalidated by the Supreme Court’s February ruling. The repayments include both the original duties collected and accrued interest, with the money being returned primarily to businesses that imported goods subject to the tariffs.

The refunds stem from the Supreme Court’s landmark February 20 decision striking down most of Trump’s broad tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The court concluded that the decades-old emergency powers law does not authorize a president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on imports from U.S. trading partners, curbing one of the administration’s principal trade policy tools.

The ruling marked a significant constitutional and legal setback for the White House, limiting the scope of executive authority in trade policy and reinforcing Congress’ central role in setting tariffs.

The decision affected roughly $166 billion in tariffs collected under the IEEPA framework, triggering an extensive refund process administered by Customs and the Treasury Department.

Tariffs have remained a defining feature of Trump’s economic agenda throughout his presidency. The administration has argued that higher import duties protect domestic manufacturers, encourage companies to relocate production to the United States, and provide leverage in trade negotiations with foreign governments.

However, the administration’s approach has faced sustained legal challenges from businesses, trade groups and state governments, many of whom argued that the president exceeded statutory authority by invoking emergency powers to impose broad-based tariffs.

The latest court filing illustrates the substantial financial consequences of the Supreme Court’s ruling, with federal agencies now tasked with returning tens of billions of dollars already collected. While businesses that paid the tariffs are receiving the refunds, critics argue that the repayments do not compensate American households that ultimately absorbed much of the higher cost through increased prices on imported goods.

“Trump is sending the ‘refunds’ to the companies, not working people. Every single cent of these refunds should go back to American consumers,” Democratic Representative Greg Casar said this week.

Economists have long debated who ultimately bears the cost of tariffs. Although importers pay the duties at the border, many companies pass some or all of those costs through supply chains to wholesalers, retailers and ultimately consumers in the form of higher prices.

As a result, consumer advocates argue that businesses receiving refunds may already have recovered much of the tariff expense by raising prices during the period the duties were in effect.

The Supreme Court’s decision has not ended Trump’s use of tariffs.

Following the ruling, the president sharply criticized the justices, describing them as “disloyal,” and quickly introduced a temporary 10% tariff on imports under a different statutory authority that, like the IEEPA, had not previously been used by any president to impose broad tariffs.

The administration subsequently expanded its trade measures by invoking Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a long-established legal mechanism that authorizes the United States to respond to unfair or discriminatory trade practices by foreign countries.

Unlike the emergency powers statute rejected by the Supreme Court, Section 301 has been used by successive administrations to impose tariffs following investigations into foreign trade practices, making it a more established legal foundation for trade enforcement.

The administration has noted that the revised tariff framework complies with existing law while preserving its broader strategy of using import duties to address trade imbalances, protect domestic industries and encourage manufacturing investment in the United States.

While the government has already returned about $100 billion, roughly $66 billion in invalidated tariff collections remains to be refunded, suggesting the unwinding of the Supreme Court’s decision will continue for months.