FACT-CHECK: Tariffs Struck Down — $65 Billion in Refunds Still Owed to Importers

Introduction: The Legal Victory of the Century — and the Money Still Waiting

When the Supreme Court Said No to Trump

On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential commercial rulings of the modern era. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, by a vote of six to three, the justices ruled: the IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act — does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. In seven words, Chief Justice Roberts erased months of aggressive trade policy. The immediate result: approximately $166 billion in unlawfully collected duties had to be refunded to American importers.

But four months later, as deadlines stretch and legal appeals multiply, the money is not flowing back as quickly as expected. Of those $166 billion, barely $20 to $24 billion had actually been transmitted to the U.S. Treasury for disbursement. And the Department of Justice, true to its instinct for obstruction, is now contesting the very authority of the court tasked with ordering those refunds across all importers. This article separates the facts from the political theater.

A $166 Billion Case Putting American Democracy to the Test

This case extends far beyond commercial law. It raises a fundamental question about the balance of powers: when a court orders the executive to return funds collected illegally, can the executive legitimately appeal to reduce the scope of that order? The legal answer is yes — that is the right of appeal. But the moral answer is more nuanced. Approximately 330,000 American importers are waiting for their refunds, a large proportion of them small and medium-sized businesses that absorbed illegal costs for more than a year.

This fact-check relies exclusively on verified primary sources: court filings, CIT testimony, official Senate letters, and analyses from specialized firms published between June 1 and June 22, 2026. No figure is invented; no claim is unsourced. Here is the real state of the case, supported by the numbers.

The Supreme Court Ruling: A 6-3 Decision That Redraws the Balance of Power

IEEPA Is Not a Tariff Weapon — the Court Was Clear

The February 20, 2026 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. et al. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) established a foundational principle: the IEEPA permits the president to regulate imports during a national emergency, but it does not confer the power to set tariffs. Chief Justice John Roberts, author of the majority opinion, articulated the idea with the economy of words befitting a major constitutional decision. The White House argument — that imposing tariffs constituted a justified national emergency — was swept aside.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in his dissent, nonetheless warned that the ruling left a considerable "mess" regarding the refund mechanism. He was not wrong. The ruling invalidated all tariff programs based on IEEPA: the reciprocal duties applied to nearly every country, nation-specific tariffs, and the anti-fentanyl duties imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico. Section 232, Section 301, and anti-dumping duties remained in force — but the core of Trump 2.0's aggressive trade policy collapsed in a single day.

What the Ruling Invalidates — and What It Does Not Touch

Precision is required: the Supreme Court did not invalidate all of Trump's trade policies. It confined its verdict solely to the use of IEEPA as a basis for tariffs. Duties based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — covering steel, aluminum, and copper imports for national security reasons — remain intact. So do Section 301 duties targeting China's unfair trade practices. These distinctions are crucial for importers: only the IEEPA layer is refundable, not the other duties that sometimes overlapped with the same entries.

In practice, this means the basis for calculating refunds is more complex than it appears. An importer who paid IEEPA duties on top of Section 301 duties on Chinese goods will only be refunded for the IEEPA component. This nuance catches many companies off guard when filing in the CAPE system — and can significantly reduce the amount each individual importer can actually recover.

$166 Billion: The True Scale of America's Tariff Liability

Numbers That Stagger the Imagination

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had collected, under IEEPA, approximately $166 billion in customs duties — including $134 billion in 2025 alone. This is an unprecedented amount in modern American tariff history, levied on some 330,000 importers over roughly one year. As early as March 4, 2026, the Court of International Trade (CIT) — in Atmus Filtration, Inc. v. United States — ordered CBP to reliquidate all affected entries and refund the unlawfully collected duties, with interest, to all importers, not just the plaintiffs.

The CIT then extended its order to cover all benchmark importers who had paid IEEPA duties — a universal injunction of rare scope. That universality is at the heart of the current legal dispute. Because if 330,000 importers are theoretically eligible, experts estimate the total refunds, including interest, could reach $175 billion. Giants such as Costco, FedEx, and Amazon are among the largest potential beneficiaries. Startups and small businesses are on the list too — but with far fewer resources to fight.

The Reality of 53 Million Customs Entries at Stake

Beyond the dollar amounts, the logistical scale of the refund can be measured in customs entries. According to the TariffsTool portal, which compiles CBP data, the IEEPA entry universe covers approximately 53 million customs entries in total. Filings submitted through the CAPE system that had passed file validations covered nearly 16 million entries as of June 10, 2026. Of those, approximately 8.5 million entries had already been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties. CBP was processing in the space of six weeks what it had processed in tariff entries during an entire ordinary fiscal year — roughly 338,000 entries in total.

This comparison illustrates the colossal administrative effort demanded of an agency that, by its own admission, lacked the IT systems to process refunds at this scale instantaneously. Deputy Commissioner Susan Thomas explicitly told Judge Eaton: "We cannot do everything at the same time." That administrative honesty deserves acknowledgment — while being weighed against the administration's simultaneous decision to contest the very orders organizing the refund process.

The CAPE System: 16 Million Entries to Process, a Three-Phase Mechanism

The Refund Tool: A Deliberately Phased Architecture

To manage the logistical scale of the refund, CBP created a dedicated portal called CAPE — Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries — launched on April 20, 2026. The system is built in several phases. Phase 1, active since launch, covers entries not yet liquidated and those liquidated within the 80 days preceding the filing. According to data provided by CBP to the CIT on June 10, 2026, CAPE filings that passed file validations covered nearly 16 million entries, of which approximately 8.5 million had already been liquidated or reliquidated without IEEPA duties.

Phase 2 is scheduled for June 29, 2026. It expands the portal to reconciliation entries and entries linked to anti-dumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD), with an estimated additional refund potential of approximately $28.7 billion, covering 2.8 million additional entries. Phases 1 and 2 combined are expected to cover roughly $130 billion of the total $166 billion. Phase 3, expected by late July 2026, will address finally liquidated entries — but only for importers who have filed a lawsuit at the CIT. That is where the problem lies.

The Bottlenecks: ACH, Reconciliation, and AD/CVD

The CAPE process is not without obstacles. A first identified bottleneck is the banking registration problem: more than 4,000 consolidated refunds had not been transmitted to the U.S. Treasury due to missing valid ACH (automated clearing house) bank transfer information in the ACE portal — CBP's secure data system. Each of these blocked refunds could cover hundreds of individual entries, making the financial impact significant. Importers are asked to ensure their ACH information is correctly registered before submitting their requests.

A second obstacle involves reconciliation and AD/CVD entries excluded from Phase 1: these entries involve complex interactions between CBP's liquidation procedures and the liquidation schedules of the Department of Commerce, which oversees anti-dumping duties. CBP cannot process IEEPA refunds on these entries without risking interference with Commerce's liquidation timeline — hence their exclusion from Phase 1 and planned inclusion in Phase 2. This technical complexity is real and cannot be reduced to bad faith.

$20 Billion Refunded, $146 Billion Pending: State of Play as of June 22, 2026

What Has Been Paid — and What Remains Owed

According to CBP's May 26, 2026 court filing, the CAPE system had accepted for processing approximately $85 to $90 billion in potential and certified refunds. Of that amount, $20.6 billion had been transmitted to the U.S. Treasury for disbursement as of May 22, 2026 — a figure subsequently updated to approximately $23 to $24 billion according to Holland & Knight data from June 15, 2026. Democratic senators Markey and Wyden, in their June 10, 2026 letter to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, cited approximately $146 billion remaining to be refunded.

Susan Thomas, CBP's executive deputy commissioner, testified before Judge Eaton on June 9, 2026 that refunds the agency was currently capable of processing should exceed $60 billion by the end of June. That figure — rounded in some analyses to $65 billion — represents the intermediate tranche of refunds expected in the near term. But a major bottleneck persists: more than 4,000 consolidated refunds have not been transmitted to the Treasury due to missing valid ACH banking information — each refund potentially covering hundreds of entries.

The Mid-Course Progress: Less Than 15% Refunded After Four Months

For context: as of May 22, 2026, approximately 20% of the $166 billion potential had been accepted into the CAPE queue — and only a fraction of that amount had actually been transmitted to the Treasury. In raw figures: $20.6 billion transmitted out of $166 billion potential represents approximately 12.4% of the total. By comparison, the U.S. government had, in the weeks before the Supreme Court ruling, collected these tariffs with near-instantaneous efficiency — every tariffed entry was debited the moment it passed through customs. The refund process takes infinitely longer than the collection process.

CBP also noted that the administration had represented before Judge Eaton that at least $40 billion would have been disbursed by the end of June 2026 according to its own projections — a commitment made during June hearings. If that target is met, the total refunded as of June 30, 2026 would represent approximately 24% of the total liability. Progress, to be sure — but one that still leaves more than $120 billion in limbo with no clear resolution timeline.

The DOJ's Role: Contesting the CIT's Authority to Order Universal Refunds

The Unconstitutional Universal Injunction Argument

On June 2, 2026, the Department of Justice formally filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against the CIT order requiring universal refunds. The central argument: the CIT exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the refund process to importers who had not filed suit, and by ordering refunds of entries finally liquidated more than 80 to 180 days earlier. The DOJ argued on May 29, 2026 that the CIT's universal order was equivalent to a prohibited nationwide injunction — relying on the Supreme Court's own ruling in Trump v. CASA (2025), which had specifically limited the power of lower courts to issue such injunctions.

In practice, if the DOJ's argument prevails, refunds for finally liquidated entries — estimated at more than $30 billion — would only be accessible to importers who had individually obtained a CIT order. Government attorney Claudia Burke summarized this at the June 9 hearing: "The issue is before the Federal Circuit." Translation: stand in line and wait for justice to rule while your money sits in federal coffers.

The Practical Consequences for Non-Plaintiff Importers

The DOJ explicitly stated in its filing: "CBP has no authority to reliquidate or refund funds without a court order." This position creates a sharp divide between two categories of importers. Those who filed suit at the CIT — approximately 4,000 importers according to Holland & Knight — will benefit from CAPE Phase 3 for their finally liquidated entries. The others — the vast majority of the 330,000 eligible importers — could find themselves in indefinite limbo for that category of entries.

Holland & Knight warned that the deadline to file a protective action at the CIT is itself limited. Every day of inaction increases the risk that additional entries will move into the finally liquidated category — and fall into the legal gray zone the administration is working to protect. The irony is sharp: it is the most proactive importers — those who had the resources to file — who will be made fully whole. The others wait on the mercy of a government that is simultaneously appealing its own obligations.

Finally Liquidated Entries: The Gordian Knot of the $11.4 Billion Dispute

Final Liquidation: A Technical Concept at the Heart of the Standoff

In American customs law, liquidation is the final determination of the amount of duties owed on an entry. It typically occurs 314 days after the entry date. An entry is considered finally liquidated when 180 days have elapsed since that initial liquidation — the window during which a protest could be filed. Past that point, according to CBP's and DOJ's position, the agency no longer has statutory authority to reliquidate an entry or refund funds without a court order specific to that entry.

Susan Thomas noted during her testimony that finally liquidated entries represented approximately 6.9% of total IEEPA duties, or roughly $11.4 billion. DOJ attorney Claudia Burke confirmed before Judge Eaton: "6.9% constitutes the only zone of dispute today." But attorneys representing importers make a strong counter-argument: since the tariffs were illegal from the outset, the statutory framework of final liquidation simply does not apply. The constitutional decision must override ordinary procedural rules. Judge Eaton himself had declared: "The time has come to ensure that all duties are refunded."

The Legal Paradox: Procedural Rules That Protect Illegality

The importer attorneys' argument deserves to be examined in full. If IEEPA tariffs were unconstitutional ab initio — from the moment of their imposition, never having had a valid legal basis — then the liquidation mechanics built around them are themselves tainted. You cannot oppose the procedural deadlines of an ordinary legal regime to funds collected in violation of the Constitution. Holland & Knight framed the argument this way: "To the extent there is tension between liquidation statutes and the Supreme Court ruling, the constitutional decision prevails."

That is precisely the question the Federal Circuit will have to resolve in the coming months. The government's initial briefs were due on June 17, 2026, with a full brief expected on August 3, 2026. An appellate decision is likely in 2027. Until then, affected importers find themselves in an uncomfortable legal void: they are potentially owed refunds the government refuses to issue, pending a court ruling on whether that government had the right to refuse.

Alleged Obstruction: Senators Markey and Wyden Sound the Alarm

A Scathing Letter Sent to the CBP Commissioner

On June 10, 2026, Senators Edward Markey (Democrat, Massachusetts) and Ron Wyden (Democrat, Oregon) sent a letter to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, demanding that refunds be issued without further delays, without obstruction, without complications. Their tone was withering. They accused the administration of "deliberately slowing the refund process from the start", citing the CIT's April 7, 2026 order that had required universal and immediate refunds. In their letter, the two senators declared: "American businesses should not be forced to bear the cost of the Administration's unlawful tariff scheme and subsequent legal defeat. The courts have spoken."

More seriously, Markey and Wyden raised the question of the potential reallocation of illegally collected funds. They asked CBP to confirm whether communications had taken place with the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), or other federal agencies regarding an alternative use of unrefunded tariff revenues — particularly to fund immigration enforcement or other administration policy priorities. A response was expected by June 24, 2026. As of this writing, no public response has been made available.

Seven Embarrassing Questions for the White House

The senators' June 10 letter poses seven specific questions to Commissioner Scott, several of which are particularly explosive institutionally. The sixth question asks whether CBP has communicated with the Treasury, OMB, or other agencies regarding retention, transfer, or reallocation of unrefunded tariff revenues. The seventh demands information on the safeguards in place to ensure these funds are not being used for policy priorities unauthorized by Congress. These questions imply an assumption: that the administration may have been tempted — or may already have been — to use these funds for other purposes.

The senators also recalled the broader context: according to them, the administration had already been documented as seeking to divert billions of dollars intended for military readiness, global health, and other congressionally authorized missions, in favor of mass deportation operations and other favored priorities. If tariff funds collected illegally have been mobilized in the same way — even briefly — we have moved from an administrative dispute to a first-order constitutional crisis.

The Role of Michael Lowell and Private Lawyers: The Guardians of Importer Rights

When Commercial Law Becomes a Contact Sport

In this uncommonly complex legal battle, law firms specializing in trade law are playing a leading role. Michael Lowell, chair of the Global Regulatory Enforcement Group at Reed Smith, has been one of the clearest voices decoding the situation. He warned that while the DOJ's appeal created uncertainty for Phase 2 and Phase 3 entries, the Phase 1 refunds — covering approximately $85 to $90 billion — should not be directly affected by the appeal. He framed the administration's strategy with chilling clarity: "The endgame is clear: the government is trying to keep as much remaining money as possible."

The practical recommendation from Lowell and firms like Holland & Knight: do not wait. Importers whose entries are not covered by Phase 1 should seriously consider filing a protective action at the CIT — a step that does not prevent continuing to use CAPE in parallel, but preserves independent legal rights. Holland & Knight specified: importers who do not file suit risk being permanently excluded from refunds on finally liquidated entries if the government's position prevails on appeal.

Small Businesses Sacrificed on the Altar of Procedural Complexity

The recommendation to file a protective action is reasonable for large companies — but financially and operationally out of reach for most small and medium businesses. Filing a complaint at the Court of International Trade involves significant legal costs, a deep understanding of customs liquidation mechanisms, and the capacity to pursue lengthy and complex procedures. Companies like Kids2, based in Atlanta, preferred to sell their refund rights to investment funds — at a discount — rather than wait years for an uncertain judicial process.

This phenomenon of selling refund rights reveals an emerging secondary market around IEEPA tariffs. Private equity firms understood these claims were potentially very lucrative — and that small businesses, pressed by their immediate liquidity needs, were willing to accept significant discounts. The irony is that these same small businesses suffered most from the illegal tariffs — and will proportionally recover the least from their refunds.

Replacing IEEPA Tariffs: Section 122, Already Under Attack

Trump Did Not Wait for the Ruling Before Improvising a Plan B

The Supreme Court ruling came down on February 20, 2026. Within hours, the Trump administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a provision never used since its adoption — to impose a universal duty of 10% on virtually all imports. This section caps tariffs at 15% maximum and requires congressional approval after 150 days. Section 122 is thus structurally more constrained than IEEPA — but it allows the administration to maintain tariff pressure during the transition.

On May 7, 2026, a three-judge CIT panel found that Section 122 was also unlawful in its application. But on June 11, 2026, the Federal Circuit granted a stay of that ruling pending appeal, finding the government had shown sufficient likelihood of success on appeal. Section 122 duties are therefore still being collected for now, with a statutory expiration date around July 24, 2026 — unless Congress intervenes to extend them. A second front of potential refunds is taking shape on the horizon.

Section 301, Section 232: The Replacement Tariff Arsenal Already in Place

The Trump administration did not limit its response to Section 122. It simultaneously announced new Section 301 investigations targeting 60 countries for unfair trade practices, and an extension of Section 232 duties on industrial equipment. Specific investigations were launched against Brazil and Vietnam. The strategic objective is clear: maintain maximum tariff pressure on trading partners while building a stronger legal foundation — using statutory authorities whose constitutionality is less contested than IEEPA's.

The practical result for importers is a growing overlay of distinct tariff regimes. An entry that carried an IEEPA duty (refundable), plus a Section 301 duty (non-refundable), may now potentially be covered by a new Section 301 or Section 232 duty as a replacement. The net result for an importer may therefore be less favorable than the $166 billion gross refund figure suggests — as replacement duties eat into expected gains.

Congressional Democrats and the Political Pressure on CBP

Schumer, Markey, Wyden: A Legislative Offensive on All Fronts

Political pressure comes not only from the courts. In March 2026, Senator Markey had led a coalition of Democratic senators to demand a refund process that would not create additional burdens on small businesses. In April, he directly challenged major retailers — Amazon, FedEx, Walmart, Costco, DHL, and UPS — to pass refunds along to their customers and to the small businesses that had absorbed the costs of the illegal tariffs. The response from many companies was disappointing: no firm commitment to refund their own customers.

In June, with Wyden, Markey raised the stakes. The seven questions sent to Commissioner Scott — the most sensitive concerning potential communications about the reallocation of unrefunded tariff funds toward administration policy priorities — constitute an unprecedented indirect indictment. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer had participated in publishing an April report on the damage caused by "Liberation Day" tariffs one year after their announcement. The political dynamic is clear: Democrats have transformed the refund case into a tool of institutional pressure.

The Limits of Parliamentary Theater Against an Impervious Administration

The letters, reports, and challenges from Democrats have undeniable merit: they document, for the historical record, the administration's behavior toward its legal obligations. But their immediate practical effectiveness remains limited. Without a Senate majority to force a legislative vote, Markey and Wyden can only expose and document — not compel. The administration's response to the seven questions was expected by June 24, 2026; in the absence of a public response by that date, political pressure must yield to other enforcement mechanisms.

The most promising avenue remains legislative: a law forcing automatic and universal refunds without requiring individual legal action would cut short the DOJ's entire delay strategy. But in a Congress where the Republican majority is little inclined to cross the administration on this front, this option remains politically hypothetical in the short term. Importers therefore wait for justice to do its job — slowly, but inexorably.

Large Companies Facing Refunds: Who Benefits and Who Waits?

Costco, FedEx, Amazon: Billions at Stake for Commerce Giants

Among the 330,000 potentially eligible importers, large American companies occupy a strategic position. FedEx had seen certain cross-border commerce activities drop by 25 to 35% due to IEEPA tariffs — a massive operational impact. UPS has already launched its own refund process for eligible shipments, in coordination with CBP, covering payments made from January 30, 2026. Costco, whose business model relies heavily on low-cost imports, is among the largest beneficiaries in terms of recovered liquidity.

But large retailers face an additional pressure: will they refund their own customers? Studying supply chain structures reveals that in most cases, tariffs were passed down in cascade: from importer to wholesaler, from wholesaler to retailer, from retailer to end consumer. The amounts refunded by the government to benchmark importers do not necessarily correspond to the losses suffered by downstream actors. At this stage, the industry's response is disappointing: many large companies will likely retain most of their refunds as replenished equity capital — not as rebates to their customers.

The Question No One Wants to Ask: Who Reimburses the End Consumers?

In response to Senator Markey's challenges, many large retailers responded without committing. Amazon, FedEx, Walmart, Costco, DHL, and UPS have, for the most part, made no firm commitment to return their IEEPA refunds to their customers or downstream business partners. That is legally their right: benchmark importers are the legal holders of the refund. But morally, the situation is troubling: American consumers financed these illegal tariffs through higher prices for more than a year. And the return of that money will not reach them.

Class action lawsuits represent one avenue, but a long and uncertain one. Consumer suits have already been filed against some major importers — Kavout notes that consumer class actions add yet another layer to the already complex refund process. These proceedings could take years. And meanwhile, large companies will cash their government refund checks, improve their balance sheets, and continue business as usual.

The Truth About Trump's Tariff Promises: True, False, or In Between?

Separating Political Rhetoric from Legal Reality

Several claims by the Trump administration about its tariff policy deserve rigorous fact-checking. Claim 1: Tariffs were imposed to protect the American economy. Partially true in intent, but the Supreme Court established that the law invoked — IEEPA — simply did not confer that power on the president. Claim 2: The administration is quickly and efficiently refunding importers. False. After four months of processing, less than 15% of the total owed had been transmitted for disbursement, according to May 22, 2026 data. The administration is simultaneously appealing to limit the scope of its refund obligations.

Claim 3: The Court of International Trade exceeded its authority by ordering universal refunds. Contested — and that is precisely what the Federal Circuit will have to decide. The DOJ relies on Trump v. CASA (2025) precedent, but importer attorneys argue that normal liquidation rules do not apply to funds collected under an unconstitutional law. Claim 4: Tariffs generated significant revenues for the government. Technically true — $166 billion collected. But if those revenues must be refunded with interest, the operation becomes a net liability for the U.S. Treasury.

The Factual Verdict: Four Claims, Four Rulings

A summary of this fact-check in four clear verdicts. On the legality of the tariffs: the Supreme Court has ruled — IEEPA tariffs were unlawful. This point is no longer debatable. On the speed of refunds: false — less than 15% refunded after four months, with parallel appeals slowing the process for the most complex entries. On the CIT's authority: contested before the Federal Circuit — ruling expected in 2027. On the net profitability of the tariffs for the government: negative in the long run — duties collected with interest represent a liability exceeding revenues generated, not counting the administrative costs of the refund process and legal proceedings.

A fifth verdict is required in conclusion: on the administration's good faith in the refund process, the evidence converges toward a deliberate minimization strategy. Contesting the CIT's authority, invoking Trump v. CASA to limit beneficiaries, resisting the CBP commissioner's appearance before the court — each of these elements, taken in isolation, may have a legal justification. Together, they paint a coherent picture of institutional obstruction that Senators Markey and Wyden summed up in unequivocal terms.

Conclusion: $65 Billion Waiting, a Democracy Tested by Its Own Laws

What This Case Says About the Rule of Law in America in 2026

The IEEPA tariff refund case is not simply a technical dispute between customs officials and importers. It is the revealing symptom of a fundamental tension within the American institutional system: an executive branch that resists applying judicial rulings unfavorable to it, while invoking the rule of law to justify its own actions. The Supreme Court said no to IEEPA. The CIT ordered refunds. The DOJ is appealing to limit their scope. And meanwhile, $130 to $146 billion remain in the pipeline of an administrative system advancing at its own pace — deliberately.

The coming weeks will be decisive. CAPE Phase 2 opens on June 29, 2026, and will significantly expand the number of importers who can file requests. CBP's responses to the seven questions from Senators Markey and Wyden were expected on June 24. And the Federal Circuit's ruling on the DOJ's appeal looms on the 2027 horizon. The West, which the United States claims to lead, draws its credibility from its capacity to respect its own laws — especially and above all when they run counter to the political priorities of the sitting government.

The Moment for Congress to Act

Judicial pressure alone will not suffice. The procedural timelines at the Federal Circuit — with briefs due in August 2026 and a decision expected possibly in 2027 — mean that hundreds of thousands of importers could wait months, even years more. Senators Markey and Wyden are right to demand transparency. But a law forcing automatic and universal refunds — without requiring individual legal action — would be the most direct way to close this chapter.

The money belongs to the importers. The courts have said so. The Supreme Court said so first. What remains now is finding the political will to return it — promptly, fully, and without gamesmanship. To paraphrase Senators Markey and Wyden: the courts have spoken, the money belongs to the importers from whom it was illegally taken, and the administration's obligation is to return it. The rest is politics.

Signed Maxime Marquette, columnist

Sources

Primary Sources

BDO USA — CBP IEEPA Refund Update and CIT Orders: 16 million CAPE entries, $20.6 billion transmitted, finally liquidated entries — June 22, 2026

Holland & Knight — IEEPA Tariff Refund Update: Government Appeals CIT Refund Order — June 15, 2026

U.S. Senate — Markey/Wyden Letter to CBP Commissioner Scott: $146 billion still owed, obstruction accusations — June 10, 2026

Secondary Sources

CFO Dive — DOJ appeal throws fresh uncertainty into tariff refund process: analysis of the June 2, 2026 appeal — June 5, 2026

Fortune — After issuing more than $20 billion in tariff refunds, the Trump administration is now pursuing legal action — June 1, 2026

Tax at Hand — Recent trade developments June 2026: Susan Thomas testimony, $60 billion by end of June — June 13, 2026

TariffsTool — CAPE Phase 2 Opens June 29, 2026: 53 million IEEPA entries, phase details — June 21, 2026

Kavout — The $166 Billion Question: What Just Happened with Trump's Tariffs: SCOTUS 6-3 ruling, Section 122 — June 19, 2026