Trump Tariff Refunds: A CIO Playbook for Capturing Cash
The Supreme Court voided Trump-era tariffs, enabling corporate refund claims, but unclear processes, eligibility rules, fragmented data and long timelines complicate recovery.
The Trump Administration caused concerns in the U.S. and around the world with its imposition of tariffs in 2025. There was particular impact on the tech landscape as well.
U.S. companies that paid Trump-era tariffs now have a legal basis to seek refunds. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026 that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded presidential authority, triggering a wave of corporate refund lawsuits. Major filers include FedEx, Costco and Hasbro, joined by around 2,000 others that have filed suits at the U.S. Court of International Trade.
While organizations are moving to get reimbursed, the recovery path is far from straightforward.
The ruling provided no specific guidelines on refunds, according to Rathna Sharad, CEO and co-founder of international AI customs and logistics provider FlavorCloud.
"In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a point of noting this, and he referred to comments during the oral arguments that the refund process may be a mess," he said.
The refunds could face further delays depending on how courts rule and how U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) proceeds with issuing payments, Sharad said.
Why tariff refunds are back on the table
The Supreme Court ruling invalidated certain Trump tariffs but left the mechanics of recovery undefined.
There is no automatic mechanism and the decision did not establish a centralized refund process or clear timeline. On March 4, 2026, Judge Richard Eaton of the Court of International Trade ordered CBP to begin unwinding IEEPA duties. That ruling is subject to government appeal, and companies must still pursue claims individually.
"The companies best positioned to recover tariff refunds are importers of record that directly paid the IEEPA tariffs on their entries," said James Pai, managing director of customs and international trade services at BDO. "Recent court orders make this explicit, with Judge Richard Eaton ruling that 'all importers of record whose entries were subject to IEEPA duties are entitled to the benefit' of the Supreme Court ruling striking down the tariffs."
The companies best positioned to recover tariff refunds are importers of record that directly paid the IEEPA tariffs on their entries.
James PaiManaging director, BDO
Liquidation status is the deciding factor. The administration has acknowledged that processing refunds could take years. In customs law, "liquidation" is the point at which CBP finalizes the calculation of duties owed on an import entry. For executives treating this as a near-term windfall, the liquidation mechanics alone should recalibrate expectations.
"Judge Eaton's rulings emphasize the importance of the liquidation stage in determining whether adjustments can still be made," Pai said.
Financial Exposure: Who Paid and How Much
Trump Administration supply chain tariffs hit a broad range of U.S. enterprise importers. The dollar exposure reflects that breadth.
There's a large amount of money at stake. The Penn Wharton Budget Model puts total IEEPA tariff collections from $175 billion to $179 billion. In September 2025, FedEx projected a $1 billion hit to adjusted operating profit for fiscal year 2026 from U.S. trade policy. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that U.S. businesses and consumers bore between 86% and 94% of total tariff costs throughout 2025.
Case examples illustrate the stakes. FedEx filed suit seeking a full refund and committed publicly to passing any refunds back to shippers and consumers who bore the charges. Costco filed before the Supreme Court ruling in December 2025. Hasbro joined in early March 2026, alongside L'Oréal, Dyson and thousands of others.
Eligibility reality check: Who can actually claim
Many enterprises do not yet know whether they are legally positioned for tariff recovery. The starting point is straightforward: only the importer of record has standing. Everything else flows from there.
Who qualifies and who doesn't. The core eligibility standard is direct, but several common arrangements disqualify companies that assume they have a valid claim.
Those that are not eligible include downstream distributors, retailers and end customers who merely absorbed the pass-through cost. Companies with goods already fully liquidated beyond the statutory protest period, unless the court orders retroactive adjustments for those entries, may not be eligible, said Pai.
"Finally, companies who never acted as importer of record, such as those relying on foreign suppliers or third-party importers, also likely fall outside the scope of eligibility, as refund rights attach only to the legal importer who filed the customs entry," he said.
Express courier imports. One of the most common blind spots involves companies that shipped via major carriers.
"Companies that imported using one of the express couriers — FedEx, UPS, DHL — will likely not receive any refunds because the couriers paid the tariffs directly to CBP, and the refunds will go back to the courier," said Tom Gould, chief strategy and compliance officer at Gaia Dynamics. "In these transactions, the express courier is listed as the importer of record on the customs declaration, and the refunds will go to the importer of record."
DDP and LDP shipments. The same problem applies to goods purchased under delivered duty paid (DDP) or landed duty paid (LDP) terms — arrangements where the foreign seller takes responsibility for paying customs duties as part of the deal. Because the seller pays duties directly to CBP, the seller is the importer of record and any refund flows back to them.
"For DDP or LDP shipments the seller acts as the importer of record and pays the tariffs," Gould said. "The refunds will go to the seller, not the US buyer."
Downstream retailers and distributors. Retailers and distributors that absorbed higher prices but were not the importer of record have no direct path to government refunds.
"Under customs law, the importer of record is the proper claimant," said Jerry Levine, co-general counsel at Leah. "Downstream parties will need to pursue contractual or unjust enrichment claims against the importer, not against the government."
Charging customers for tariff costs does not disqualify you from claiming. Importers who passed costs downstream still have standing to claim refunds, but their position is complicated.
Importers who clearly and separately line-itemed tariff surcharges on customer invoices are still the proper claimants for government refunds, according to Levine.
"But they face a two-front war: the government arguing the refund is a windfall, and customers arguing they're entitled to a share," he said. "The more transparent the pass-through, the harder the fight."
Why CIOs are suddenly in the critical path
Tariff recovery is widely treated as a legal and finance issue. The data problem underneath it is a trade compliance and IT problem that lands in the CIO's office.
The data is fragmented. Most companies don't have a clean, centralized record of what they imported, when and at what duty rate.
"The most common gaps we see relate to data quality, disconnected systems and incomplete historical import records," Pai said. "Data tends to be fragmented across ERP, procurement, logistics and broker systems, making it challenging to match entries, tariff classifications and duties paid."
Overseas data adds another obstacle. Foreign privacy laws can block access to import records stored outside the U.S., which is a complication that often surfaces too late.
"Regulatory barriers such as data privacy laws can prevent quick and unfettered access to data and documents that reside in foreign locations," Pai said. "It's a challenge that is easy to overlook until it becomes a bottleneck."
IEEPA duties are not cleanly separated in most entry records. There's a structural problem inside the entries themselves, said Levine. CBP's director acknowledged in court filings that importers frequently combined IEEPA duties and regular duties on the same Entry Summary line rather than breaking out duties by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification.
Electronic payment enrollment is a hard prerequisite and most companies have not done it. CBP requires importers to have Automated Clearing House (ACH) bank transfer details registered in the ACE portal before any refund can be issued. Since February 2026, all Treasury payments must be electronic, with no paper checks.
Actions CIOs should take now
The path to claims readiness runs in three stages.
Immediate
ACH enrollment. Start here, as no refund can be processed without it. Levine said the setup takes minimal effort and should be the first call made. "Get ACH enrollment done immediately, this is a hard prerequisite and it takes minimal effort," he said
Build a master entry dataset. Pull every import entry with IEEPA exposure back to at least February 2025, covering entry numbers, HTS classifications, duty amounts by type, country of origin, declared value and liquidation status, drawn from ACE, customs broker systems and internal ERP data.
Mid-term
Centralized data repository. The core mid-term task is getting fragmented import data into one place. "What IT leaders should do right now is work toward a centralized import-data repository that unifies ACE downloads, broker files and ERP data, while automating reconciliation between internal systems and ACE entry records to validate CBP's recalculations," Pai said.
Match and reconcile. Match duties that were paid against goods received, flag missing documentation and review contracts to establish who bore tariff costs before any claim is filed.
Strategic
Prepare for the long cycle. The companies best positioned for recovery are those that invest in global trade management capabilities and treat this as an ongoing data discipline, not a one-time project.
"The companies that will move fastest are those whose IT teams can harmonize import data and documentation into a clean, defensible package as soon as CBP finalizes the refund process," Pai said.
Risk factors executives must watch
The refund opportunity is real, but four risks are being underestimated across organizations currently preparing claims.
Filing a claim can trigger enforcement. Submitting a refund declaration triggers a CBP audit.
"If CBP discovers classification errors, valuation discrepancies or country-of-origin problems during that validation, you haven't just lost your refund -- you've handed CBP an enforcement action," Levine said.
The timeline is longer than most models assume. The administration has acknowledged refunds could take years to process.
"Both government systems and internal company data environments will be stress-tested in ways most organizations are not currently prepared for," Pai said. "Executives should not assume that refund recovery will be quick, automatic or straightforward."
Consumer class action exposure can exceed the refund value. Companies that passed tariff costs through to customers as a line-itemed surcharge face potential downstream litigation if they collect a government refund. But executives who forgo refunds face the opposite problem.
"You're caught between pursuing a refund that funds a lawsuit against you and not pursuing a refund that funds a different lawsuit against you," Levine said.
New tariffs could offset refunds entirely. The Trump administration replaced IEEPA tariffs with a 10% levy under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, effective February 24, 2026. Some companies could recover duties under one authority while paying equivalent rates under another.
"Also important is that the entire global supply chain should understand that there is no precedent for these refunds and that Trump is very likely going to use non IEEPA levers to keep tariffs in place," Sharad said.
Sean Michael Kerner is an IT consultant, technology enthusiast and tinkerer. He has pulled Token Ring, configured NetWare and been known to compile his own Linux kernel. He consults with industry and media organizations on technology issues.
