A group of three Senate Democrats is introducing legislation that would require the federal government to return an estimated $175 billion in tariff revenue collected under tariff orders that the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled unlawful. The proposal comes from Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. Their bill would direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds within 180 days and pay interest on the returned funds.
The measure would also prioritize reimbursements for small businesses, while encouraging importers, wholesalers, and larger companies to pass the refunded money through to consumers. The lawmakers are framing the proposal as a response to higher prices and business costs, which they say were driven by the tariff policy. In public remarks cited by AP, Wyden described the refund effort as an initial step toward reversing economic harm to households, manufacturers, and small firms.
AP reported that the bill is considered unlikely to pass, but its introduction signals a broader political strategy. Democrats are using the issue to argue that the administration collected tariff revenue unlawfully and is now resisting direct repayment, a message that could become more prominent ahead of the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake.
White House and Treasury Reject Immediate Action
The Trump administration has argued that refunds should not be handled directly by the executive branch and should instead be resolved through ongoing court cases. According to AP, White House spokesman Kush Desai dismissed the Democratic push and defended Trump’s tariff policy as effective, while criticizing the new bill as politically motivated.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also rejected the premise that the administration should lead a refund effort. In remarks to CNN cited by AP, Bessent said the Supreme Court decision did not settle the refund question itself and maintained that lower courts would determine whether and how reimbursements occur. He said the matter was “not up to the administration,” reinforcing the White House position that litigation, rather than executive action, will decide the path forward.
That stance contrasts with the administration’s broader messaging on tariffs, which has emphasized speed and presidential authority. AP noted that Democrats are trying to exploit that contrast by asking why the government is not proactively returning funds if the tariffs were ruled illegal. Republicans, meanwhile, are navigating the issue while also promoting tax-cut messaging ahead of the election cycle.
Supreme Court Ruling Reshaped the Debate
The refund dispute follows a 6-3 Supreme Court decision striking down Trump’s sweeping tariff program. AP’s reporting on the ruling said the Court found that the president could not unilaterally impose and alter broad tariffs because the Constitution assigns taxing authority to Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the Framers did not place any part of the taxing power in the executive branch.
AP also reported that Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented. In the dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the tariffs were lawful under existing text, history, and precedent, even if their policy merits were debatable. The split deepened the political and legal significance of the ruling, which AP described as a major setback for a central pillar of Trump’s economic agenda.
In the immediate aftermath of the decision, Trump publicly criticized the majority and said he was “absolutely ashamed” of some of the justices. AP’s coverage also said he moved quickly to outline alternative tariff options, including a planned 10% global tariff under Section 122, while signaling he was considering other legal routes for new levies. That response has added to uncertainty around U.S. trade policy, even as the original tariff framework remains under legal scrutiny.
Economic Stakes and Refund Mechanics
The estimate of $175 billion in potential refunds comes from the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, according to AP. The outlet said that figure is roughly equal to about $1,300 per U.S. household on average, though the real-world impact would vary because tariff costs moved through the economy in different ways. Some importers absorbed the costs, while others passed them on, directly or indirectly, to customers.
That complexity is central to the policy dispute. Even if courts ultimately authorize refunds, designing a process that fairly compensates affected businesses and consumers would be difficult, since tariff costs were distributed unevenly across supply chains and retail prices. AP also noted that Trump has previously argued that large-scale refunds could worsen federal debt and hurt the economy.
Trump has suggested the matter could remain tied up in court for years. AP reported that he initially mentioned a possible two-year litigation timeline, but later said the process could last as long as five years. That timeline, combined with the Democrats’ new bill, sets up a parallel legal and political fight over who should return the money, how quickly, and who should benefit first.
