Trump Collected $133 Billion From Tariffs. Who Gets That Money Now?

Trump Collected $133 Billion From Tariffs. Who Gets That Money Now?

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 6-3 ruling, struck down a sweeping set of import taxes that President Donald Trump imposed using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), declaring the law does not grant the president the authority to tax imports — a power reserved exclusively for Congress. That verdict triggered an immediate and explosive question: What happens to the $133 billion the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency had already collected?​

The Scale of the Tariff Machine

To understand the magnitude of what is at stake, you have to look at how rapidly this tariff economy was built. The federal government raised $195 billion in customs duties across all of fiscal year 2025 — more than 250% of what it collected in all of fiscal year 2024. The IEEPA tariffs alone generated roughly $133.5 billion in revenue as of mid-December 2025, accounting for approximately 67% of all tariff collections in fiscal year 2025. Including other non-IEEPA duties, total collections reached around $202 billion during that same period — more than double the prior year.

Breaking it down by source paints a clearer picture: approximately $81.7 billion came from the general 10% levy applied to nearly all imports, $37.8 billion was collected specifically from China and Hong Kong (where tariff rates peaked at 125%, with an additional 20% fentanyl-related surcharge, before being negotiated down to 10%), and smaller but significant amounts flowed in from Mexico, Canada, Japan, India, and Brazil.​

Where Did the Money Go Initially?

All tariff revenue, like all government revenue, flows directly into the U.S. Treasury’s general fund — what the Treasury Department itself calls “America’s checkbook.” This fund is used to pay all government expenses, from federal salaries to defense contracts to debt obligations. The tariff windfall was never earmarked for a specific program. Instead, it served one quiet but critical function: reducing how much the government needed to borrow.​

Despite the eye-popping numbers, tariff revenue from January to September 2025 still represented only 3.5% of projected total federal revenue for the fiscal year of $5.2 trillion. The budget deficit for FY 2025 still totaled $1.8 trillion — roughly 6% of GDP — even after accounting for approximately $200 billion in one-time student loan savings. The tariffs were a boost, not a cure.

Trump’s Promises vs. Reality

Trump had repeatedly floated two ideas for the tariff windfall: paying down the national debt, and issuing “tariff rebate checks” directly to American citizens. He told supporters at various points that millions of Americans would receive “a little rebate” due to the substantial revenue influx. Neither proposal was ever formally enacted. The money accumulated in the Treasury without a dedicated distribution mechanism — and now, with the Supreme Court ruling in place, the legal and political battlefield has shifted entirely.

The Supreme Court Blows It All Up

The court’s ruling came down on the basis that IEEPA — the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act — was never designed to give a president the power to unilaterally impose taxes on imports. The majority held that taxing imports is a legislative function assigned to Congress by the Constitution, and Trump’s broad use of the emergency law exceeded that authority. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a preview of the chaos ahead, warned during a November 2025 hearing that the refund process was likely to be a “mess.”

The Penn-Wharton Budget Model projects that refunds could ultimately reach as high as $175 billion, though it remains deeply uncertain who would actually receive those funds. The Cato Institute noted that an adverse Supreme Court ruling would require the federal government to eventually refund most IEEPA duties collected, significantly reducing the tariff-related funds available to fund any of Trump’s other fiscal initiatives.

Who Is Actually in Line for the Money?

Here is where the story gets complicated for everyday consumers. When tariffs are imposed, it is typically the importing business — a retailer, a manufacturer, a distributor — that physically pays the duty to U.S. Customs. Those businesses then passed on much of that added cost to consumers through higher prices on goods ranging from electronics and clothing to food and household products. However, because the consumer never paid the duty directly to the government, they have no standing in customs court to claim a refund. The refund would flow back to the entity that wrote the original check to customs — the importer.​

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already voiced public doubts about the likelihood of ordinary Americans receiving direct compensation. For consumers who absorbed higher prices on goods over the past year, there is currently no legal or administrative mechanism for individual reimbursement. The money would go to the companies, not the households.

Corporations Racing to the Front of the Line

Companies were not waiting for legal certainty before acting. Firms like Costco, Revlon, and Bumble Bee Foods had already filed lawsuits requesting refunds even before the Supreme Court issued its final ruling — strategically positioning themselves at the front of the queue should the tariffs be annulled. Hundreds of additional lawsuits are expected to follow. Trade lawyers warn that manufacturers may also initiate secondary litigation, suing suppliers who inflated raw material prices to offset the tariff costs, seeking a portion of any refunds those suppliers receive.​

Joyce Adetutu, a trade lawyer at the Texas-based firm Vinson & Elkins, put it bluntly: the process is “going to be a bumpy ride for a while.” She also noted that while it would be “really difficult not to have some sort of refund option,” the government could make the process exceptionally burdensome for importers, pushing as much administrative responsibility as possible back onto the businesses themselves.​

The Political Firestorm

Democratic governors moved quickly to capitalize on the ruling. Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sent Trump a formal invoice demanding more than $8.6 billion in refunds for families in his state, calculating a $1,700 refund for each household and threatening further action if not complied with. California Governor Gavin Newsom called the tariffs “an illegal cash grab” and demanded that “every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately — with interest.” Both are widely considered potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, and the tariff refund issue has already become a campaign-ready rallying point.​

Trump, for his part, acknowledged during a post-ruling press conference that the refund process could drag on for years. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he told reporters, adding, “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”​

The Long-Term Budget Impact

The fiscal ripple effects of this ruling are staggering. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) estimated that, prior to the ruling, existing Trump tariffs were projected to raise approximately $3 trillion through fiscal year 2035, net of offsetting effects on income and payroll taxes. If the Supreme Court’s ruling is upheld and broadly applied, that projected net new revenue drops by about $2.2 trillion — from $3 trillion down to roughly $900 billion over the same decade. Projected tariff revenue itself would decline by $3 trillion, only partially offset by higher income and payroll tax revenue from a somewhat different economic environment.​

The Road Ahead: A Refund Architecture That Doesn’t Exist Yet

The mechanism for processing refunds simply does not exist at the necessary scale. U.S. Customs and Border Protection has an existing procedure for refunding duties when importers can demonstrate an error occurred, but it was never designed for a $133–175 billion repayment scenario. Trade lawyer Dave Townsend of Dorsey & Whitney noted that CBP may seek to enhance its existing system to accommodate IEEPA-specific refund claims. One proposal being discussed among legal experts is a dedicated online portal where importers could submit claims — a kind of mass refund infrastructure built from scratch.​

The collaboration between CBP, the specialized Court of International Trade in New York, and various lower courts will be central to determining the actual refund process and timeline. What is clear is that neither the Supreme Court ruling nor the Trump administration has yet specified the mechanics of how this will work — leaving businesses, lawyers, and consumers in a prolonged state of legal and financial uncertainty that, by Trump’s own estimation, could last half a decade.