U.S. proposes new tariffs citing national security! Over 1,000 companies sue the U.S. government demanding "tax refunds"

According to CCTV News, on the 23rd local time, U.S. media reported that the U.S. government is considering imposing a new round of tariffs on approximately six industries under the pretext of “national security.” Sources said the proposed tariffs could cover industries such as large batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, plastic pipes, industrial chemicals, as well as power grid and telecommunications equipment. These new tariffs will be implemented separately from the recent announced global 15% tariff measures.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling stating that the U.S. International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose large-scale tariffs. On the same day the ruling was announced, the White House website posted an executive order signed by Trump, confirming the termination of the previously imposed tariffs invoked under the IEEPA.

Court records show that over 1,000 companies in the U.S. have joined lawsuits demanding the government to refund the tariffs paid. Major companies involved include Costco, Reebok, and others.

△Associated Press reports that after the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s tariff policy, the arduous task of refunding taxes begins

On February 22 local time, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen was interviewed by CNN, where host Dana Bash asked a seemingly straightforward but difficult-to-answer question: Since the Supreme Court has ruled that Trump’s government lacked authorization under the IEEPA to impose broad “emergency tariffs,” will the large amounts of tariffs collected earlier be refunded, and how?

While the Supreme Court clarified whether tariffs could be imposed, it did not specify how to refund the money, which has become the most sensitive and closely watched issue in Washington and Wall Street at present.

△The Hill reports that after the Supreme Court dismissed Trump’s tariff policy, the difficult task of refunds has begun

Yellen emphasized two points in her CNN interview: First, the Supreme Court made a “very narrow” interpretation of the president’s authority to impose tariffs under the IEEPA, but did not address the issue of refunds; second, the case has been remanded to lower courts, so the refund “is not a decision made by the government, but by the lower courts.” On the surface, these two statements are somewhat truthful, but overall, they resemble a skillful shift of responsibility.

First, regarding the “correctness” of Yellen’s statement: She repeatedly emphasized that the Supreme Court did not provide a specific plan for “how to operate the refunds,” and that the issue of refunds will depend more on subsequent procedures by lower courts and enforcement agencies. Legally, this is indeed plausible. Because the Supreme Court only addressed a core issue: whether the president could impose such broad, high-rate tariffs under the IEEPA. The answer is no. But the ruling did not specify “how much money the Treasury must refund within a certain deadline,” nor did it design any specific refund process. Therefore, Yellen’s statement is not wrong in this regard.

However, the problem lies in Yellen framing the “lack of details on refunds” as “the Supreme Court did not touch the core issue, only a narrow interpretation, and we have to wait weeks or even months for lower courts,” which is a “taiji” (tactical move). First, this kind of statement can easily lead the audience to believe that: the Supreme Court merely kicked the ball back, and the legality of the IEEPA tariffs remains unresolved. In fact, the Supreme Court’s conclusion is very clear: the IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Second, although the ruling leaves the refund issue to lower courts, the entities responsible for executing refunds will definitely be customs, the Treasury, and other administrative agencies. The courts at most will issue orders and set principles, but cannot directly make payments or handle accounts for the government. Finally, in judicial practice, administrative agencies can proactively develop refund plans, negotiate settlements with companies, or, conversely, delay or appeal through procedural tactics, dragging out the process for years. These are real policy tools, not just court rulings that leave the government passive and obedient.

Another more pragmatic “evasion point”: Yellen described the refund as “not a key issue” on camera, which is actually pushing political and fiscal risks further back. Because once it is acknowledged that “refunds should happen,” three sharper questions will arise: who gets the refunds? how much (including interest)? where does the money come from? These cannot be simply dismissed with “waiting for the courts.” On that day, multiple media outlets quoted Yellen’s statement that “refunds will be handled by lower courts,” which is less a legal judgment and more a political posture—leaving the initiative to time under no firm commitment.

In fact, Yellen had already called large-scale refunds a “ultimate corporate benefit” in an earlier interview, hinting at a policy stance unwilling to return money. Today, using “court decisions” to respond to media inquiries can hardly be seen as anything but a deliberate downplaying of administrative responsibility and a political tactic to pressure companies and Congress. For markets and companies, this attitude signals: legally, refunds are possible, but politically, they are very unpopular. Do not expect the Treasury to open its wallet in the short term.

△U.S. Treasury Secretary Yellen told CNN that the issue of refunding collected taxes depends not on the government but on lower courts

Public opinion generally focuses on how much money needs to be refunded. When CNN asked Yellen, the figure of about $134 billion was mentioned. Yellen did not respond directly, but the core source of this data is the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s published tariff collection data up to mid-December 2025, which has been compiled and widely cited by media and research institutions. However, research from institutions like the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Budget Model, which models based on tariff codes, products, and countries, suggests that if future periods and adjustment factors are included, the potential refund amount could exceed $175 billion. In other words, the $133 billion is more like a confirmed partial amount, while $175 billion is a broader risk upper limit that could be pursued.

△CNBC reports that, according to Wharton School’s model, the U.S. government may need to pay up to $175 billion in refunds to importers

As for the next steps in implementing refunds, public analysis suggests that courts, customs, and administrative agencies will likely operate in parallel.

On one hand, the White House has signed an executive order requiring agencies to quickly terminate additional tariffs imposed under the IEEPA and to push for amendments to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule; but the same order also clearly states that ending the IEEPA-based tariffs does not affect tariffs imposed under other laws such as Section 232 and Section 301. In other words, stopping further collection and refunding previous collections are two different matters. The former can be ordered by the White House, but the latter will likely depend on claims and lawsuits to achieve results.

On the other hand, the reason many companies have recently filed lawsuits is that refunds are highly dependent on “procedural windows.” Industry insiders understand that once imported goods are liquidated, importers generally have a limited period to protest and request refunds. Wharton’s model indicates that, under normal circumstances, importers can file protests and request refunds with Customs and Border Protection within about 180 days after liquidation. Meanwhile, importers can also initiate lawsuits in international trade courts within a certain timeframe, and the case volume may continue to surge. This explains why many companies prefer to file cases early—not necessarily to get refunds immediately, but to secure their qualification and priority.

Additionally, a practical variable exists: to prevent a flood of cases from overwhelming courts, international trade courts are likely to adopt a “model case + batch application” approach—selecting a few representative cases to clarify issues like qualification, amount calculation, and interest handling, then requiring Customs to follow this template for other similar importers. In this process, courts will set boundaries and rules, while administrative agencies will design specific procedures and systems. The interaction between the two will determine the pace and scope of refunds.

△Media outlets like Fox Business have reported on how companies should pursue tax refunds

This “refund war” over IEEPA tariffs, from a legal perspective, is about the Supreme Court pulling tax authority back to Congress and specialized trade courts; from a fiscal perspective, it is a tug-of-war between companies and the Treasury over hundreds of billions of dollars in cash flow; and from a political perspective, it is Trump’s team, under reluctant defeat, packaging legal setbacks as opportunities to continue being tough domestically through rhetoric and new tariffs. Under this framework, Yellen’s statement that “this is not a key issue” exposes the core: whether tariffs are refunded or not has become the most reluctant-to-answer but unavoidable core issue for the current U.S. government.