Trump Administration Begins Refunding $166 Billion In Tariffs - Slashdot

Trump Administration Begins Refunding $166 Billion In Tariffs - Slashdot
Close
binspam
dupe
notthebest
offtopic
slownewsday
stale
stupid
fresh
funny
insightful
interesting
maybe
offtopic
flamebait
troll
redundant
overrated
insightful
interesting
informative
funny
underrated
descriptive
typo
dupe
error
181812312
story
"After a Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Feb. 2026, many tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were
declared illegal
because the president overstepped his authority," writes Slashdot reader
hcs_$reboot
. "As a result, the U.S. government now
has to refund
a massive amount of money, around $160-170+ billion, paid mainly by importers." According to the New York Times, the administration has now
begun accepting refund requests
, "surrendering its prized source of revenue -- plus interest." From the report:
For some U.S. businesses, the highly anticipated refunds could be substantial, offering critical if belated financial relief. Tariffs are taxes on imports, so the president's trade policies have served as a great burden for companies that rely on foreign goods. Many have had to choose whether to absorb the duties, cut other costs or pass on the expenses to consumers. By Monday morning, those companies can begin to submit documentation to the government to recover what they paid in illegal tariffs.
In a sign of the demand, more than 3,000 businesses, including FedEx and Costco, have already sued the Trump administration in a bid to secure their refunds, with some cases filed even before the Supreme Court's ruling. But only the entities that officially paid the tariffs are eligible to recover that money. That means that the fuller universe of people affected by Mr. Trump's policies -- including millions of Americans who paid higher prices for the products they bought -- are not able to apply for direct relief.
The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds, something that few have publicly committed to do. Some have started to band together in class-action lawsuits in the hopes of receiving a payout. Many business owners said they weren't sure how easy the tariff refund process would be, particularly given Mr. Trump's stated opposition to returning the money. The administration has suggested that it may be months before companies see any money. Adding to the uncertainty, the White House has declined to say if it might still try to return to court in a bid to halt some or all of the refunds.
The money will mostly go to importers and companies, since they were the ones that directly paid the tariffs. While individual refunds with interest could take around 60 to 90 days to process, the overall effort will probably move much more slowly because of how large and complicated it will be.
There are also legal questions around whether companies would have to pass any of that money on to consumers. Slashdot reader AmiMoJo commented: "This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history. Most of those companies will just pocket the refund and not pass any of it on to the consumer. If prices go down at all, they won't be back to pre-tariff levels. You paid the tariffs, but you ain't getting the refund."
Related Links
Palantir Posts Bond Villain Manifesto On X
US Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Global Tariffs
Trump Administration Says It Can't Process Tariff Refunds Because of Computer Problems
Submission: Trump Administration to Begin Refunding $166 Billion in Tariffs
Deezer Says 44% of Songs Uploaded To Its Platform Daily Are AI-Generated
Trump Administration Begins Refunding $166 Billion In Tariffs
More
Reply
Trump Administration Begins Refunding $166 Billion In Tariffs
Comments Filter:
All
Insightful
Informative
Interesting
Funny
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
From THIS government ?!?
Score:
by
Snert32
( 10404345 )
writes:
Of course, I'd trust this government to honour the decision of the courts and pay back what they've unfairly taken. There are SO MANY things I trust them on....
Re:
Score:
by
nikkipolya
( 718326 )
writes:
The fun part is, some countries imposed reciprocal tariffs, which was mostly borne by the exporting companies. And that money is money gone to governments of other countries. Thanks to trigger happy Trump, that money is not coming back.
Re:
Score:
by
nikkipolya
( 718326 )
writes:
which was mostly borne by the exporting companies
Correction: Some of which was borne by exporting companies, depending on the incidence of tariffs. Same goes for importers too.
corrupt
Score:
, Interesting)
by
Drannex
( 6312714 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:07PM (
#66103646
Ah, yes, of course. Refund the very companies that increased prices and made far more money than they should have, by just giving them even more money.
Not, you know, average out the entirety of the tariff intake and disperse them to the American people. Besent had his son buy up tariff 'debt' months before this ruling, knowing it would fall, so that he can be 'refunded' if it ever came to fruition. Essentially buying up the rights to the returns from the companies for pennies, and then asking the government to pay out the full amount.
Most corrupt administration in American history, that's for sure.
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Informative)
by
innocent_white_lamb
( 151825 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:36PM (
#66103732
The justification is simple.
The government collected money from these companies illegally.
Therefore, they must return the illegally collected money to the companies they collected it from.
I see no problem with that. In fact, any other action would be unjustifiable.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Drannex
( 6312714 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:39PM (
#66103736
They increased prices on consumers to pay for the tariffs, this is known. The consumer collective paid for it, the consumers should be refunded directly, the consumers paid the price, not the megacorps (the largest benefactor from this).
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Mr. Barky
( 152560 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:56PM (
#66103782
They increased prices on consumers to pay for the tariffs, this is known
How are you going to pay "the consumers" back? Everybody an equal share? How about those people who intentionally buy American and hardly buy anything else? Should they be reimbursed? Do you have receipts that show how much extra you paid? Without a doubt, prices were raised. But quite often a lot of businesses chose to reduce their own profit - i.e. the costs of the tariffs were shared and prices weren't raised as much as the costs. Sorting this sort of thing out is just about impossible.
I don't understand it could work any other way than the people who directly paid the tariffs (businesses for the most part) should be the ones that get their money back. If they in turn choose to reimburse their customers, good for them.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
Mr. Barky
( 152560 )
writes:
Responding to myself to add a point.
Businesses that raised their prices likely lost sales. Basic Econ 101 that most goods have lower sales when prices go up. So a business simply repaying the tariffs to its customers is likely to be a net loser. These businesses will not ever fully refund the tariffs paid.
Re:
Score:
by
ToasterMonkey
( 467067 )
writes:
They increased prices on consumers to pay for the tariffs, this is known
How are you going to pay "the consumers" back? Everybody an equal share? How about those people who intentionally buy American and hardly buy anything else? Should they be reimbursed? Do you have receipts that show how much extra you paid? Without a doubt, prices were raised. But quite often a lot of businesses chose to reduce their own profit - i.e. the costs of the tariffs were shared and prices weren't raised as much as the costs. Sorting this sort of thing out is just about impossible.
I don't understand it could work any other way than the people who directly paid the tariffs (businesses for the most part) should be the ones that get their money back. If they in turn choose to reimburse their customers, good for them.
What do you mean buy American? 51% assembled in America.. mostly, from mostly components mostly assembled in America built from raw materials mostly dug up or cut down in America? You were all exposed to imports and the effects of tariffs. But I agree that refunding everyone is stupid, importers were taxed, we paid market prices.
If we want to lay blame for fucked up market prices, there's one person we can point to.
Re:
Score:
by
Ol Olsoc
( 1175323 )
writes:
If we want to lay blame for fucked up market prices, there's one person we can point to.
Disagree - All Republicans are guilty. They made a series of choices.
Re:
Score:
by
stabiesoft
( 733417 )
writes:
Depends a bit on what you buy. As an example, I build hobby electronics. Digi-Key has during the entire time added a line item to anything I buy that is tariff'd with the exact amount. I know exactly how much tariff I pay. I just ordered a relay that was I think 4.56 with a tariff of 1.14. I would expect many of the amazon orders are similar except the seller just pre-adds in the amount to the sales price. I recall Donald threatened sellers that did that back when he first when on a tariff frenzy, so amazon
Re:
Score:
by
nightflameauto
( 6607976 )
writes:
They increased prices on consumers to pay for the tariffs, this is known. The consumer collective paid for it, the consumers should be refunded directly, the consumers paid the price, not the megacorps (the largest benefactor from this).
In the end, there will be no attempt to force the corporations to repay the consumers. We gave up on treating humans as important in the face of corporations at some point in the 1980s. From that point forward, corporations and the ultra-wealthy who found them, have been deemed far more important than consumer class individuals. The government being forced to hand money back to the corporations will most likely be fine and dandy. Anything beyond that? No go. Consumers are fodder, cattle for the collective t
Re: corrupt
Score:
by
wgoodman
( 1109297 )
writes:
That point was Citizens United. Corporations are legally people now, with all of the benefits and none of the liabilities.
Re:
Score:
, Insightful)
by
ToasterMonkey
( 467067 )
writes:
They increased prices on consumers to pay for the tariffs, this is known. The consumer collective paid for it, the consumers should be refunded directly, the consumers paid the price, not the megacorps (the largest benefactor from this).
In the end, there will be no attempt to force the corporations to repay the consumers. We gave up on treating humans as important in the face of corporations at some point in the 1980s. From that point forward, corporations and the ultra-wealthy who found them, have been deemed far more important than consumer class individuals. The government being forced to hand money back to the corporations will most likely be fine and dandy. Anything beyond that? No go. Consumers are fodder, cattle for the collective to harvest. There is no need for concern. The system is working precisely as designed.
Drain the middle class and down. Feed the upper class and the government.
Stop acting like the problem wasn't implementing the tariffs in the first place in an entirely chaotic and arbitrary manner to extort deals that favor the Trumps.
You're not a victim because you paid more for a laptop, you first world problem cry baby. The only rational thing to do when crazy people took the economic helm was start saving money and spending less. Stop crying about some abstract class problem when the corrupt policy at the root of this was so crystal fucking clear. If you spend all you take i
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
No, this is absurd from a legal standpoint.
If I overpay my taxes, the Government doesn't go search for every tenant I may have overcharged as a result of my increased costs.
I see a lot of people with opinions like yours- people who just... missed... some kind of critical thinking education.
The court cannot order the Government to undo the illegal transactions by sending them to people it did not collect them from, no matter how much it makes your feels more fuzzy.
Re:
Score:
by
Ol Olsoc
( 1175323 )
writes:
The court cannot order the Government to undo the illegal transactions by sending them to people it did not collect them from, no matter how much it makes your feels more fuzzy.
I can't even imagine the mechanism they would attempt to use. Have every company who ever sold anything with a tariff connected to it go through all their records, then send the government a comprehensive listing of each sale , then the guvmint issuing checks? Or sending the money directly to the businesses then having the business figure it out?
This version of tariffs was just a really bad, illegal idea, and was for all intents and purposes, just a punitive tax that harmed both businesses and consumers.
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Spot on.
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
This is why you lose. If you weren't trying to misrepresent what I said, then you're actually just functionally fucking stupid- life-long fry cook type shit.
I didn't justify fraud in the slightest. Refusing to justify demanding a Constitutional authority overstep its mandate to make you feel better is not justifying the result of it not doing so.
I suppose repatriation of the funds to the populace- but that is not the purview of the Supreme Court. That requires the executive, or an act of Congress to for
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
*support
Re:
Score:
by
nealric
( 3647765 )
writes:
Some consumers (like myself) paid directly. I bought a bunch of car parts from Europe a year ago that were illegally taxed. Of course the system is not user friendly for individuals who need to process a few invoices.
Re:
Score:
by
martin-boundary
( 547041 )
writes:
Why? The consumers got what they voted for, and the other consumers got what they couldn't be bothered to vote against. The remaining consumers got the policies that they are too lazy to oppose.
The way I see it, the consumers are happy.
Re:
Score:
by
Ol Olsoc
( 1175323 )
writes:
Why? The consumers got what they voted for, and the other consumers got what they couldn't be bothered to vote against. The remaining consumers got the policies that they are too lazy to oppose.
The way I see it, the consumers are happy.
While the logic is interesting, no, consumers aren't happy. They were just presented with two horrible candidates, and the Dems were off the rails, confused and officially believing some things that were just wrong.
And while I didn't vote Republican, it looks like that hard left and irrational swing the dems took just made the equally bad Republican choice look like the lesser of two evils.
I question that choice, but here we are.
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Interesting)
by
stabiesoft
( 733417 )
writes:
on Tuesday April 21, 2026 @10:22AM (
#66105006
Homepage
I'll disagree a bit. Initially, yes the R's and the D's offered literally crazy old white men. Then the D's dumped theirs and offered a pretty smart mixed race woman. I expect it was the woman part that was unpalatable. Weirdly the US was pretty early in the women's rights thing. But now even Japan has elected a PM that is a woman, Sanae Takaichi. Crazy to me that Japan which even a short couple of decades when I was there barely allowed a female engineer to speak at a meeting is now leap frogging the US electing women to top offices. I also see crazy hate for gm's CEO, Barra. I think that a vast part of the country, D's included have a bias against women leaders. I've seen women in positions that they should not be in, but I've also met some very very very capable women leaders. I had no problem voting for Harris and in fact preferred her to Biden based on her abilities.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
That sounds nice and would be fair. Except that in general, this is totally impossible to coordinate and manage. Another reason why the tariffs were such an excessively bad idea (besides being illegal).
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Geoffrey.landis
( 926948 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @10:24PM (
#66104328
Homepage
That is not exactly correct. There is a reason they are called "tariffs" not "taxes."
Tariffs can bring in revenue, but they can also be used for public policy, and trade policy.
And likewise, taxes can bring in revenue, but they can also be used for public policy, and trade policy. What's your point?
A tariff is a tax.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
, Informative)
by
Ol Olsoc
( 1175323 )
writes:
That is not exactly correct. There is a reason they are called "tariffs" not "taxes."
Tariffs can bring in revenue, but they can also be used for public policy, and trade policy.
And likewise, taxes can bring in revenue, but they can also be used for public policy, and trade policy. What's your point?
A tariff is a tax.
The Republican Party, which hates taxes, needed to use a different name when they decided that Tariffs are the path forward,
A tariff is a tax [Re:corrupt]
Score:
by
Geoffrey.landis
( 926948 )
writes:
Tariffs were specifically introduced into our law for the purpose of impacting trade policy, not raising revenue.
First, that doesn't change the fact that a tariff is a tax.
Second, Trump has said-- many times-- that tariffs would "raising revenue, pay off the US deficit and reduce Americans' tax burdens." He said this so many times that it's hard to pick just one, but here's
one example
[usatoday.com].
Whether you want to group them as taxes in a single umbrella or see them as distinct is purely semantics, they remain distinct in intent and practice from taxes intended to raise revenue.
They are not different. A tariff is a tax on incoming goods. Taxes are sometimes used to accomplish purposes other than merely raising revenue.
Re:
Score:
by
martin-boundary
( 547041 )
writes:
If they're a joke then laugh and move on. If not...
Re:
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
The OP is too stupid to understand even the basics of the law.
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Insightful)
by
gtall
( 79522 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @04:14PM (
#66103816
Yes, it is the most corrupt administration in American history.
However, you do not have a full picture of the damage those tariffs caused. They totally screwed many small businesses that will never get back what they lost. A lot of businesses sourced their raw materials and other products from outside the U.S. The tariffs caused them to be unable to afford that stuff. So they had to reject the shipments which meant they had nothing to sell. Try accounting for the business you lost because you had nothing to sell. Also, many small companies went titsup because of those tariffs. The owners will never be made whole.
Now if you took the $166 Billion and divide by roughly 300 million Americans, then we all get about $553. However, you did not pay the tariffs, Companies did. Some were able to pass the tariff cost in their products. Most were not, especially the small companies and certainly not the small companies that went out of business.
Number 1 Rule of el Bunko: he destroys everything he touches. And the Maggots made that asshole president, at least they get to pay for higher gasoline for their stupidity.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Informative)
by
CyberSnyder
( 8122 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @08:55PM (
#66104254
It also seems to have pushed smaller companies to offshoring. If you're assembling a widget now there are varying tariffs on the components because you can't buy everything in the US. It quickly became easier to just have the item made in China and then you only have one tariff to pay, things are more stable and predictable.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: corrupt
Score:
, Informative)
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
drink@hyperlogos.org
on Monday April 20, 2026 @06:32PM (
#66104052
Homepage
Journal
That's false. The majority of the tariffs were paid by businesses and the costs were passed on to consumers, but that is NOT the same thing as consumers paying them directly. Therefore you cannot reasonably refund them directly to consumers... Not even they know how much they in effect paid.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Tariffs were paid for by the consumers
Score:
, Insightful)
by
Geoffrey.landis
( 926948 )
writes:
You DO know that over 96% of the tariffs were paid for by consumers, and not the importers, don't you?
That's false.
Nope, it's true.
Americans Have Paid For 96% of Tariff Costs, Study Finds
[investopedia.com].
Or, try the Cato Institute:
The White House Still Can’t Grasp That Americans Pay US Tariffs
[cato.org].
The majority of the tariffs were paid by businesses and the costs were passed on to consumers,
That is the
mechanism
by which consumers paid for the tariffs.
but that is NOT the same thing as consumers paying them directly.
A distinction with no meaning. The consumers paid. If you want to argue that they paid indirectly... whatever. They still paid.
Therefore you cannot reasonably refund them directly to consumers... Not even they know how much they in effect paid.
Saying "it would be difficult to implement a repayment to consumers" is not the same as saying "consumers didn't pay for this."
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
What I said: "The majority of the tariffs were paid by businesses and the costs were passed on to consumers"
What you said: "Americans Have Paid For 96% of Tariff Costs"
Yeah,
American
businesses.
I get that you don't understand how anything works, but could you not waste my time with that? Thanks.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
but that's a distinction without consequence
It
obviously
is not. Government took money from specific parties, it has to return it to those specific parties. This is not even a complicated concept!
Re:
Score:
by
jvkjvk
( 102057 )
writes:
What matters is who actually, at the end, was out the money. And it was the consumers.
If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
What matters is who actually, at the end, was out the money. And it was the consumers.
That is not at all what matters to who receives the refunds, which can only be those who were charged.
If you can't see that I don't know what to tell you.
Tell me something that matches the law, or stop telling me things.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
The question of the mechanisms for returning money to the people who ultimately paid the tariffs, and how, or even if, it's possible to return the tariff payments to the consumers now that it's been ruled that the tariffs were illegal is a different question.
I can see how you would think that, if you were completely, utterly, totally, and in all other ways batshit insane. It's not possible for the government to do that, it would cost an absurd amount for the government to collect all of the information, calculate payments, and distribute them. Therefore the only thing government can do about it is refund the payments. It cannot even mandate that they be returned to buyers even when they can reasonably be identified because a) that will have costs for the busine
Re:
Score:
by
stabiesoft
( 733417 )
writes:
I think we can all agree it would be difficult to return the tariff's to consumers. I won't say impossible. And much like if you screw up with paying taxes, the IRS charges
penalties
and interest. I would suggest that because it was trump personally who thought this was a good idea, a penalty should be charged to trump to sort out the amount biz's owe to consumers. And yes, it is a very big number, probably enough to give him another personal bk. Oh well, IRS doesn't care if they break you with a penalty, w
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
I think Trump himself should have to make the tariff repayments until he's out of money, then the government can pick up where he was bankrupted. So basically the same plan, but more explicit
:)
Re:
Score:
by
Geoffrey.landis
( 926948 )
writes:
I already agreed with you that it would be difficult to return the payments to the consumers, and that it's a reasonable question to ask whether it's possible at all.
I'm not sure there's any point in further discussion here.
Re:
Score:
by
strikethree
( 811449 )
writes:
So, what you are saying is that the order that I placed with a foreign vendor that I paid an explicit amount to get out of customs, is not refundable because I am not a business and no American business received money for my purchase? Niiiiiice. I love equitable arrangements.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
To my mind, if you paid directly, you should be eligible for a refund directly.
Whether or not that will ever happen is anyone's guess, though we know what this "administration" (i.e. attack by a foreign power) will try to make happen.
The majority of tariffs were paid by businesses, and then consumers paid increased prices, not tariffs.
You
paid a tariff. You
should
be able to get a refund. Good luck!
Re:
Score:
by
necro81
( 917438 )
writes:
You DO know that over 96% of the tariffs were paid for by consumers, and not the importers, don't you? "Some" my ass.
The cost of tariffs did make its way into consumer goods, but not in any way that is easily accounted for. An importer can point to a line item on an invoice and say "here's where I paid a tariff that was ruled illegal." Can you point to a similar line item on your latest WalMart/Target/Amazon/Grocery bill?
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Informative)
by
Geoffrey.landis
( 926948 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @10:45PM (
#66104340
Homepage
I guess tell that to the hostages he rescued.
What
"hostages he rescued"?
I guess tell that to the illicit drugs that won't be comming here through Venezuela via Columbia.
Venezuela has never been a significant source of illegal drugs coming in to the US.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re: corrupt
Score:
by
fluffernutter
( 1411889 )
writes:
And nor has Canada. At least my country will benefit from this somehow. It is a symbolic win at the least.
Re:
Score:
by
ceoyoyo
( 59147 )
writes:
The American public imposed an illegal tax that it now has to refund to the entities that paid it. Using the money to distribute cheques to that same public isn't a good solution.
Don't like it? Don't vote for criminals or the people who let them get away with their crimes. You didn't in the first place? Welcome to being part of a society.
Re:corrupt
Score:
, Insightful)
by
swillden
( 191260 )
writes:
shawn-ds@willden.org
on Monday April 20, 2026 @08:13PM (
#66104214
Journal
Ah, yes, of course. Refund the very companies that increased prices and made far more money than they should have, by just giving them even more money.

Not, you know, average out the entirety of the tariff intake and disperse them to the American people.
That sounds nice and all, but there's really no legal way to do that. The money was collected illegally, so it has to be returned (with interest) to the people it was collected from -- the importers.
Most corrupt administration in American history, that's for sure.
It's going to take years to find out just how corrupt, and we'll never get the full story. What we can see isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
unixisc
( 2429386 )
writes:
Ah, yes, of course. Refund the very companies that increased prices and made far more money than they should have, by just giving them even more money.
Not, you know, average out the entirety of the tariff intake and disperse them to the American people. Besent had his son buy up tariff 'debt' months before this ruling, knowing it would fall, so that he can be 'refunded' if it ever came to fruition. Essentially buying up the rights to the returns from the companies for pennies, and then asking the government to pay out the full amount.
Most corrupt administration in American history, that's for sure.
If they are to comply w/ the SCOTUS order, then doing what you suggest is
not
an option. Since SCOTUS ruled that it was illegal for them to have charged tariffs in the first place (a decision I strongly disagree w/), the only course of action left to the administration is to reimburse everybody who paid the tariffs. Not play Robin Hood w/ the proceeds
Yeah, I'm not thrilled about this administration being bought & paid for by the likes of Qatar, but on this one, since they had lost at the highest cou
Re:
Score:
by
gweihir
( 88907 )
writes:
What a dementedly stupid post. The tariffs were illegal. They have to be paid back. The companies raised prices because they had to. Now they _could_ offer after-the-fact discounts to customers, but in most cases that will be a logistic nightmare.
Tariff refunds - cards against humanity.
Score:
, Interesting)
by
ichthius
( 198430 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:31PM (
#66103712
Cards Against Humanity has already promised to refund your tariffs.
[getyourfuc...eyback.com]
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
, Interesting)
by
SumDog
( 466607 )
writes:
Honestly, I don't think most smaller companies can and stay afloat at this point. Their sales tanked in general due to the price rises. One of the points of the tariffs was to destroy small businesses. Dell and HP could just absorb the cost or use their existing inventory, while smaller shops like HYTE just pulled out of the US market entirely for a bit.
I paid one tariff directly and it was to FedEx. I wonder if/when I'll get a notice about getting that one back. All the others I'm sure got absorbed somew
Some of those companies are gone
Score:
by
Hasaf
( 3744357 )
writes:
One company that comes to mind is Light & Motion. They made premium bicycle lights in the US.
The problem is that bicycle lights were exempt from the tariff, while components to make bicycle lights were not. This meant that they not only had to compete with imported knock-offs, but they also paid more for the parts they needed. The result is that an established American company went out of business.
It's all part of the "Making America Second Rate Again."
Let's Just Recap
Score:
, Insightful)
by
organgtool
( 966989 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:23PM (
#66103674
Dickhead imposed tariffs that were obviously illegal
Congressional dickheads refused to assert their checks against the obviously illegal tariffs
Businesses paid many billions for the obviously illegal tariffs and passed on much of that cost to consumers
Businesses get paid back the money (plus interest) for the obviously illegal tariffs
Consumers get no relief from the additional costs of the obviously illegal tariffs but do have the privilege of having their tax dollars pay for the interest on the obviously illegal tariffs
Yup, seems about right.
The extent to which consumers realize any gain hinges on whether businesses share the proceeds
Oh, that is fucking hilarious. History is consistent when it comes to being ruled by elites who are this fucking tonedeaf. Do they not fear the Mario Bros.?
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Let's Just Recap
Score:
, Insightful)
by
ChatHuant
( 801522 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @04:25PM (
#66103836
(...)
Consumers get no relief from the additional costs of the obviously illegal tariffs but do have the privilege of having their tax dollars pay for the interest on the obviously illegal tariffs
You forgot one final item:
A considerable percentage of the most affected customers blame the additional costs on the previous administration and continue to vote for the same people...
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
sinkskinkshrieks
( 6952954 )
writes:
The core problem requires corrective manufacturing consent to trick ~60% (the stupids) into scapegoating rich billionaires rather than brown people and trans athletes rarer than leprechauns riding unicorns. Most Americans are dangerously stupid, ignorant, gullible, and incapable of rational thought to make useful assessments of potential leaders. Furthermore, there is a multi-generational lack of ethics, integrity, and community making America a de facto tin pot dictatorship and third-world country.. this c
Re:
Score:
by
KILNA
( 536949 )
writes:
Continuing:
Dickhead starts a war which is a plausible reason for continued inflation
Businesses keep prices anchored even higher than the tariff-level highs
Consumers also do not get relief going forward either
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of anyone who paid a tariff to the Government being refunded.
Do you think it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to order the Government to instead disburse those funds to the populace as a whole?
You're a reminder of why we're fucking doomed.
Re:
Score:
by
GoTeam
( 5042081 )
writes:
Maybe you didn't read the post I replied to...
The original post points out the path that got us to our current situation (tariffs needing to be refunded). They correctly point out that the relief will stop with the company receiving compensation for the money they paid in tariffs. A consumer who made a purchase during that time will not receive relief. The consumer can decide not to use products from that business in the future, but that doesn't really resolve anything, does it? I pointed out that we have a
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Did I say the supreme court needed to provide downstream relief, or did you imagine that so you could pop off with some obvious point?
You implied it when you said:
I think it's pretty clear that the supreme court ruled in favor of big businesses getting financial relief in addition to providing relief from the tariffs going forward.
No, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of one of the parties of the lawsuit.
and:
Not a surprise, just a reminder of who really runs the country.
Because the Supreme Court didn't overstep its Constitutional bounds to make you feel better?
Re:
Score:
by
DaFallus
( 805248 )
writes:
Do you think it's appropriate for the Supreme Court to order the Government to instead disburse those funds to the populace as a whole?
That would be more just than paying it back, with interest, to conglomerates that passed those costs onto customers.
You're a reminder of why we're fucking doomed.
Says the person bitching and moaning that people dare demand the government represent their interests and not just the interests of multi-billion dollar corporations.
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
That would be more just than paying it back, with interest, to conglomerates that passed those costs onto customers.
Those who handed the money off to the Governement, yes.
Says the person bitching and moaning that people dare demand the government represent their interests and not just the interests of multi-billion dollar corporations.
Says the ignorant fuck who doesn't know what the Supreme Court does.
The Supreme Court does not represent your interests. It represents the interests of 2 parties fairly under the law.
What you want needs to be done by the legislature, or executive branches.
Re: Let's Just Recap
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
"The Supreme Court [...] represents the interests of 2 parties fairly under the law."
Hahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahah
Wait, I am cofused
Score:
, Funny)
by
KrispiCritter
( 1992638 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:35PM (
#66103726
Didn't the other countries pay these? All the people in the administration insisted this was so. Therefore, shouldn't these refunds be going to China?
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:Wait, I am cofused
Score:
, Funny)
by
93 Escort Wagon
( 326346 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @03:38PM (
#66103734
That'll happen right after Mexico gets reimbursed for The Wall.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
right after Mexico gets reimbursed for The Wall.
How can you have any flan if you won't eat your menudo?
so being legal or not the consumer gets screwed
Score:
by
Nicholas Grayhame
( 10502767 )
writes:
this must be Joe or Hunter Biden's fault...
Re:
Score:
by
93 Escort Wagon
( 326346 )
writes:
I'm certain the answer can be found somewhere on Hunter's laptop!
Costco has no excuses
Score:
, Interesting)
by
alispguru
( 72689 )
writes:
They know exactly what I've bought from them and when, so computing the tariffs I've paid through them is a matter of database queries.
They know how to give the money back to me - they send me a credit based on my executive membership every year, and that would be an acceptable and minimally painful way to refund the tariff windfall. They could give Costco store credit cards to non-executive members.
Re:
Score:
by
drinkypoo
( 153816 )
writes:
Costco claims they will give refunds
[yahoo.com], so we'll see what happens with that.
DOGE
Score:
by
Art Challenor
( 2621733 )
writes:
Good job the government cut spending so this $160B of illegal taxation won't just add to the deficit. They did make thoughtful and intelligent cuts right? right???
Re:
Score:
by
ndsurvivor
( 891239 )
writes:
I was not about waste, fraud, or abuse. It was not about cutting the deficit or debt. It was a full out, ideological assault on America. Look at the facts about the budget if you don't believe me.
Re:
Score:
by
walterbyrd
( 182728 )
writes:
Untold billions in outright fraud were uncovered. Want to try again?
Well-
Score:
by
WolfgangVL
( 3494585 )
writes:
I actually had my fingers crossed, AAAANNNDDDDD You didn't say no backsies and whoops, no money! Sorry, we broke- Fighting not-wars and funding federal jump-out squads is not cheap!
Tough luck.
Does anybody actually think this administration even has the money to pay back? This is going to be the biggest shitshow in American history. We're going to be talking about "the tariff refund scandal" for decades.
Call me crazy
Score:
by
sizzlinkitty
( 1199479 )
writes:
Trump should personally be on the hook to pay those interest payments. He knew these tariffs were illegal but decided to push thru with them anyways.
We need a new law called the presidential accountability act that outlines if a president causes excessive financial damage to the country, they and their entire administration gets booted the curb and a new government is elected.
The submission and fealty of Jeff Bezos
Score:
, Interesting)
by
AlanObject
( 3603453 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @04:57PM (
#66103900
Anyone remember when Trump did his first tariff spree, Amazon was going to show a tariff surcharge on its orders. So you could tell how much of the bill was due to tariffs.
Trump had a fit. Fake News! Democrat Traitors! Socialism!
Guess what Amazon did or didn't do? It would have been useful about now -- you could put in a claim for those surcharges. But do you think Bezos would risk the ire of Trump?
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
eth1
( 94901 )
writes:
They're certainly not going to break it out in the future, regardless of any threats. Any company that did has now created a specific liability, and could end up receiving tons of small claims cases if they don't refund. Companies that didn't can just claim they absorbed the cost, and don't owe anyone anything.
So the rich get richer... sounds familiar
Score:
by
0x537461746943
( 781157 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @05:31PM (
#66103950
So big businesses just get to keep all the extra money that they collected from American's... and get to keep prices high. Once they raise prices, what is the incentive to reduce them?
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
I thought foreign countries would pay?
Score:
by
DollyTheSheep
( 576243 )
writes:
So the president LIED to us, when he said foreign countries would pay for the tariffs? I'm so disappointed, I can tell you.
For the consumer?
Score:
by
sixsixtysix
( 1110135 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @06:04PM (
#66104008
What about the tariff costs that were directly passed onto the consumer? Are we getting any of this?
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
How About An End Run...
Score:
by
rally2xs
( 1093023 )
writes:
...to the benefit of the American people.
The FairTax is essentially a luxury tax on new goods and services sold at retail.
The poor pay $0 FairTax.
The FairTax completely abolishes ALL the income taxes - personal, payroll, corporate, capital gains, self-employment, gift, alternative minimum, estate, all of them.
Prices of American-made good fall by 18% - 22% due to being free of the income taxes during their manufacture.
Prices of foreign goods do not fall at all.
The FairTax exclusive rate of 30% is applied to
Biggest Wealth Transfer in History?
Score:
by
klashn
( 1323433 )
writes:
Not every event can be the biggest wealth transfer in history.
Was this as big as the Dot Com crash? The Great Recession? COVID?
NO.
Barely scratches the tip of this subject
Score:
by
slincolne
( 1111555 )
writes:
If the tariffs are now considered unlawful, it opens some additional issues for the US Government:
What about people whose businesses failed due to the increased cost of imported goods ? If the increased import costs caused businesses to fail, do they get to sue the US Government for compensation over this?
This also has ramifications for other countries - if the tariff's are unlawful doe other countries get to take the US to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to pursue compensation over the impact the tar
Trump heterodox economics
Score:
by
Elektroschock
( 659467 )
writes:
The tariff policy is outrageous for trade economists. I was trained in that area of economics. Trump put amateurs in the position to develop "Fair trade" economics. completely bogus teachings. Even the Heritage Foundation project 2025 had to hedge the fair trade dossier with an alternative essay on classic free trade policy.
Now, he did technical mistakes and it costs XXX billions figures. But no one talks about that. He is immune from the consequences of his action where in every other country a head of sta
Why are fed ex and DHL etc able to claim?
Score:
by
Growlley
( 6732614 )
writes:
my understanding is they paid the tarrif on the customers behalf then charge them the extra and and an admin fee alleady, so the customer was the importer and paid the tariff.
In GOP We Trust
Score:
by
hAckz0r
( 989977 )
writes:
From the ACE Portal: "
Recipients use the ACE Portal account to provide CBP with bank account information
After what Trump did with charging his supporters credit cards multiple times once they had the CC number, there is not a chance I'm going to hand over my bank account number to an organization so ill-equipped that they only accept a non-encrypted CSV file for transactions. This whole system is set up so quickly that there is no automated/encrypted system to safeguard my data. Yes, they took my money ill
Captialism = Theft
Score:
by
DewDude
( 537374 )
writes:
This new form of capitalism is great isn't it? The government makes a cash grab...it's deemed illegal...the companies that charged us get the refunds...and they get to keep it.
Seems like I just paid a bunch of money for nothing. Money was taken from me...that was deemed to have been illegally taken...and someone else is getting it back.
This was by design. This was to funnel our money to the corporations. They have figured out how to separate us from our money...in a way that we have to.
I mean it's inverse s
I'm sure it go back to the consumers
Score:
by
CEC-P
( 10248912 )
writes:
The customers will definitely see these refunds and the companies won't just keep it...just kidding, they're going to spend it on $2000 entry level laptops because of Sam Altman buying up all the RAM in the entire world.
Ongoing Extortion From FedEx
Score:
by
PleaseThink
( 8207110 )
writes:
on Tuesday April 21, 2026 @04:23PM (
#66105618
I ordered something online in Oct last year from Europe. It was delivered normally without issue. Two months ago I got an email from FedEx saying I needed to pay tariffs plus a FedEx processing fee. At first I figured it was spam and ignored it. I've never ordered something from FedEx nor done business with them. The email didn't have details, just a you owe us XYZ, pay here. A couple weeks ago I got a much more detailed invoice in the mail saying the same. I dig into it and it appears FedEx has been paying tariffs on people's behalf, delivering the package without mentioning it, then billing people afterwards. They threaten you with debt collections if you don't pay, but in reality they charge the shipper if you fail to pay? Attempting to pay online, it says the payment is in dispute and doesn't let you pay (you could pay prior to the tariffs being ruled illegal). Reviewing other online complaints, FedEx knew the invoice was in dispute before they sent me the email. Yet they still mailed me a physical bill. That bill has nothing on it about the payment being disputed. I'm sure tons of people are paying that physical bill and their fee.
The main point is FedEx knows these payments are illegal yet are still billing and collecting from people, more than the original tariff. Is FedEx going to reimbursement everyone who mails in a check? Interest included? Are they going to reimburse the fee too? Of course they aren't. There's no due date on the letter. If you mail it in 'late' and the shipper has already paid, will FedEx refund one of them? You'll never know that has happened unless you ask the shipper, someone you can't even always contact.
Since I was denied paying online I'm not going to mail in a check. Will they send me to collections like they threatened? Will they still bill the shipper who will likely ban me from ever purchasing from them again since I didn't pay FedEx? What's the timelines for any of that? No clue on any of it! I never asked them to do any of this on my behalf let alone agreed to pay their processing fee.
They're making $$$ off this billing scam. I never cared about what shipping company I used prior to this. Now I'll never pick FedEx if I have another choice.
Reply to This
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:The Biden admin
Score:
, Informative)
by
Sloppy
( 14984 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @04:19PM (
#66103822
Homepage
Journal
The President is the closest of all elected officials to the People
No, the president is elected by the states. Members of Congress are elected by the people.
Some have voiced an opinion that the president
should be
elected by the people, but so far, we have not yet amended the constitution to permit that.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Depending on which state you are in there is still an option out there that is actually closer then I thought actually:
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
[wikipedia.org]
One thing's for sure is the SC case if this happens will be wild.
Re:
Score:
by
ceoyoyo
( 59147 )
writes:
The president would still be elected by the states. A "compact" is an agreement by the states involved that they'll vote in a particular way. Some states already have laws that require them to vote the way their states' own popular vote indicates. Others don't.
A pedantic distinction? Not really. Agreements like that, or even most of the state-level laws, can be changed pretty much any time. It's a band-aid fix because the real fix is too hard to implement. And even the band-aid hasn't been successful even a
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Agreements like that, or even most of the state-level laws, can be changed pretty much any time.
I mean that itself is a pedantic distinction, all that laws are are agreements. Sure a state law is easier to change than an amendment but this would still be law if it got the votes. It would still work and if it did it would definitely press the issue to where an amendment becomes far more feasible.
Re:
Score:
by
KILNA
( 536949 )
writes:
Bullshit. The electoral college in combination with term limits means the presidency is maybe the least democratically representative component of federal government.
Re:If your upper middle class
Score:
, Informative)
by
Drannex
( 6312714 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @04:20PM (
#66103824
Gas prices were still on average lower under Biden, and if you look at that graph, his taking of the office was an immediate relaxed insanity of the exponential increase left by trump. If anything, this just proves how effective he was at handling the global crisis, and the 'repair' of the work done from the damage of his predecessor.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
jacks smirking reven
( 909048 )
writes:
Notice they never want to say
fucking why
the gas prices were high in each of these two instances.
For anyone that doesn't remember
Score:
, Informative)
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
on Monday April 20, 2026 @07:44PM (
#66104166
It's because Russia invaded Ukraine and the Republican party wouldn't allow Biden to properly arm Ukraine in order to defend themselves even though it was very very much in US national interest to do so.
The Republican party is basically a franchise of the Russian government at this point. Some of it is because of direct bribes and some of it is because Trump actively protects Russian interests and some of it is because the Republicans know they get a shitload of indirect help through propaganda on social media from the Russian government.
It doesn't matter the specific reason why a specific Republican politician defends the interests of Russia over the interests of the United States.
The question you need to be asking yourself is do my interests align with Russia's so much that I'm willing to vote Republican when they are actively doing the bidding of the Russian government.
And I think if you answer that question honestly you're going to come up with a no.
With very few exceptions every single person who votes Republican knows they should have stopped years ago but they keep doing it. I think we called that the definition of insanity.
Reply to This
Parent
Share
Flag as Inappropriate
Re:
Score:
by
walterbyrd
( 182728 )
writes:
The US sent Ukraine about $100 billion, what does it take to be properly armed?
For a multi-year war
Score:
by
rsilvergun
( 571051 )
writes:
That's not really enough. Don't get me wrong it's the best hundred billion we ever spent. We basically kneecapped Russia and took something that could have been a competitor nation and turned them into a laughing stock. If we hadn't put a pedophile lunatic in charge of our country after that it would have been pretty good for us.
But what we needed to do was give them more weapons and give them faster so that they could push Russia back harder. We also needed to give them long-ranged missile systems that
Re:
Score:
by
DamnOregonian
( 963763 )
writes:
Yes, it has that figurative meaning but there's also an ACTUAL meaning to the words, no.
And you're wrong there as well, as the overwhelming majority of that tax is in fact wealth that nobody ever had- it was withheld before you were paid.
AmiMoJos statement was stupid and I'm explaining how **using an example in the PRECISE context that he/she did, the transfer of wealth to/from government**.
That is not how they used it. You just had a literacy failure moment. It happens.
What they actually said: This is perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in American history. Most of those companies will just pocket the refund and not pass any of it on to the consumer
Clearly referring from the consumer to the company.
I would assume your cunt routinely has no emotions, in reality.
Quite happy, to the contrary.
Do you feel
Related Links
Top of the:
day
week
month
393
comments
Americans Are Leaving the US in Record Numbers
381
comments
Scott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
359
comments
'America's Elite Universities Have Lost Their Way'
341
comments
A Hellish 'Hothouse Earth' Getting Closer, Scientists Say
339
comments
The US Is Flirting With Its First-Ever Population Decline
next
Deezer Says 44% of Songs Uploaded To Its Platform Daily Are AI-Generated
24
comments
previous
Palantir Posts Bond Villain Manifesto On X
136
comments
Slashdot Top Deals
Excessive login or logout messages are a sure sign of senility.
Close
Working...