Democrats demand Trump refunds USD 175 billion collected in tariffs after US Supreme Court quashing
With November’s midterm elections drawing closer, Democrats have started telling voters that Trump illegally increased taxes and is now declining to give the money back to the public.
A group of Senate Democrats is urging the federal government to refund about USD 175 billion in tariff revenues after the Supreme Court ruled that the money was collected under an unlawful set of orders issued by President Donald Trump.
Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are introducing legislation that would require US Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds within 180 days and pay interest on the returned amounts.
The proposal would prioritise small businesses and encourage importers, wholesalers and large companies to pass refunds on to customers.
"Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” Wyden said, adding that the “crucial first step” is “putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible".
The bill is unlikely to pass, but it highlights how Democrats are increasing pressure on the Trump administration, which has shown little interest in returning tariff revenues following the Supreme Court’s 6 to 3 ruling on Friday.
With November’s midterm elections approaching, Democrats have begun telling voters that Trump unlawfully raised taxes and is now refusing to return the money to the public.
Shaheen said that addressing the higher prices caused by the tariffs begins with “President Trump refunding the illegally collected tariff taxes that Americans were forced to pay”. Markey added that small businesses often have “little to no resources” and that a refund process can be “extremely difficult and time consuming”.
The Trump administration has argued that refunds should be determined through further litigation in the courts.
Asked whether Trump believed Congress should play a role in issuing refunds, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: “President Trump used tariffs to actually deliver where Democrats could only talk, so naturally Democrats are rolling up their sleeves to undermine President Trump and the American people, pathetic but unsurprising.”
Democrats’ message could put Republicans on the defensive as they seek to explain why the government is not proactively returning the funds. Republican lawmakers had planned to campaign on the income tax cuts Trump signed into law last year, arguing that tax refunds would benefit families.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN that it is “bad framing” to raise the issue of refunds because the Supreme Court ruling did not directly address the matter.
The administration maintains that any refunds will be decided by lawsuits moving through the legal system, rather than by executive action.
“It is not up to the administration, it is up to the lower court,” Bessent said, adding that he would “wait” for a judicial opinion on refunds.
Trump has defended his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose sweeping tariffs on nearly all US trading partners, saying the measures helped resolve military conflicts, generate federal revenue and strengthen trade negotiations.
According to estimates from the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, the refunds would total about USD 175 billion, equivalent to roughly USD 1,300 per US household.
Structuring reimbursements would be complex, as tariff costs filtered through the economy, with some consumers paying directly and some importers either passing on or absorbing the additional expense.
The president has previously argued that issuing refunds would increase government debt and harm the economy. On Friday, he told reporters that the process might not conclude until after he leaves office.
“I guess it has to get litigated for the next 2 years,” Trump said, later revising his estimate: “We’ll end up being in court for the next 5 years.”