U.S. Has Refunded ~$100 Billion in IEEPA Tariffs; Critics Say Refunds Go to Businesses, Not Consumers
N.R. Finch
$100 billion refunded — how much is still outstanding?
U.S. Customs collected roughly $166 billion in tariffs under IEEPA — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that lets the president impose economic sanctions during a declared emergency. As of late July, about $100 billion has been refunded, a 60% completion rate.
But more than 330,000 importers filed tariffs across 53 million import entries. The refund system has processed only about 252,000 claims so far. This means → a large share of small and mid-sized importers are still waiting.
Refunds flow through "CAPE," a tracking platform Customs launched in April: importers file a claim → Customs certifies it → the Treasury disburses the funds. The $100 billion figure covers claims already certified and sent to Treasury.
Why is the government refunding tariffs at all?
The Supreme Court ruled on February 20 that IEEPA does not authorize the president to levy tariffs. In plain terms = the court said this law covers emergency economic sanctions, not import duties — the administration used the wrong legal tool.
About two weeks later, federal Judge Richard Eaton ordered full refunds of all IEEPA-based tariffs to importers.
California importer Freestyle World has filed a class-action suit on behalf of small businesses facing obstacles in the refund process. The government argues the class certification request came too late and is invalid.
Who got the money — and why not consumers?
Every dollar has gone back to corporate importers, not end consumers. This reflects how tariffs work mechanically — importers pay duties at the border, so refunds go to importers.
Democratic Representative Greg Casar said this week: "Trump sent 'refunds' to corporations, not to working people. Every cent should go back to American consumers."
This means → consumers who paid higher prices because of the tariffs have no formal channel for reimbursement. Whether companies pass savings on through lower prices depends entirely on market competition — there is no requirement to do so.
How is Trump trying to work around the Supreme Court?
Trump told Fox News: "Tariffs are working really well… The Supreme Court gave us a little hit, but we can do it a different way."
He has taken two alternative steps: first, imposing a temporary 10% global tariff under a legal authority never before used for tariffs; second, issuing a new round of global tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a provision designed to counter unfair or discriminatory trade practices by other countries.
In plain terms = the IEEPA door was shut by the court, so Trump is trying two different legal keys on the same lock. But these replacement tariffs already face fresh legal challenges — whether they survive judicial review remains an open question.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.