New legislation would require Customs and Border Protection to return duties collected under emergency powers, including interest, within six months.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Senate Democrats on Monday introduced legislation that would require the Trump administration to return approximately $175 billion in tariff revenue collected under emergency authority, following a recent Supreme Court decision that limited the president’s use of those powers.
The proposal, titled the Tariff Refund Act of 2026, is sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire. The bill would direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund duties collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, including interest, within six months.
The legislation also includes a “sense of Congress” provision stating that importers, wholesalers, and larger businesses — “especially those that raised prices or passed on direct costs from those unlawful duties while they were in place” — should pass along the refunds to customers, including small businesses and families affected by the tariffs.
Shaheen, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a news release, “President Trump’s reckless and chaotic tariffs have only caused uncertainty and pain — raising prices on consumers and businesses when they can least afford it.”
She added, “Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear that the president did not have the authority to unilaterally impose sweeping emergency tariffs, it’s critical that American families and small businesses get the relief they need. That starts by President Trump refunding the illegally collected tariff taxes that Americans were forced to pay.”
The push follows a 6-3 decision issued Friday by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not provide clear congressional authorization for broad global tariffs imposed under that statute. While the ruling found the tariffs were collected without sufficient statutory authority, the court did not explicitly direct the government to issue immediate refunds.
According to estimates from the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, reversing the IEEPA tariffs could result in up to $175 billion in refunds. Separately, the Congressional Budget Office has projected total U.S. tariff revenue of roughly $300 billion annually over the next decade.
Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, said in the same release, “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.”
He continued, “Senate Democrats will continue fighting to rein in Donald Trump’s price-hiking trade and economic policies. A crucial first step is helping people who need it most, by putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”
The Trump administration has signaled it intends to revise its trade strategy. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Sunday that the administration will reconstruct its trade policy using other statutory authorities, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, both of which have previously withstood legal challenges.
Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax last week that the president retains authority to impose substantial tariffs despite the Supreme Court’s decision. He argued that the administration’s earlier legal framing emphasized tariffs as a revenue measure, placing them under Article I of the Constitution, which grants Congress the power to levy taxes and duties.
Dershowitz suggested the administration could instead frame tariffs as an exercise of foreign policy authority under Article II of the Constitution. He said that under such a rationale, Congress would have “no power to limit it.”
The Tariff Refund Act now faces consideration in a divided Congress, as lawmakers debate the scope of presidential trade authority and the potential economic consequences of returning billions in collected duties.
Original article
Comments