WASHINGTON, Feb 23 - Twenty-two Democratic senators on Monday introduced legislation that would obligate the administration to return all tariff receipts, with interest, that the U.S. Supreme Court found unlawful under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
The draft bill would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that collects duties at ports of entry, a 180-day deadline to refund the full amount of revenues generated by those IEEPA-based tariffs. The proposal also directs CBP to give priority to small businesses when processing claims.
The Supreme Court’s ruling last Friday invalidated broad tariffs imposed under IEEPA but did not set out a framework for whether, or how, the federal government should repay the money it collected. Instead, the court remanded the question to a lower trade court to determine the appropriate next steps.
Under the legislation introduced by the 22 Democrats, CBP would be required to reimburse all unlawfully imposed IEEPA tariffs and to add interest to those amounts - a requirement that would apply even in cases where import duties had already been finalized, or "liquidated," by CBP.
The group of co-sponsors includes Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the top Democrats on several Senate committees: Ron Wyden of Oregon, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, who lead their party on the Finance, Small Business and Foreign Relations panels, respectively.
"Senate Democrats will continue fighting to rein in Donald Trump’s price-hiking trade and economic policies," Wyden said in a statement. "A crucial first step is helping people who need it most, by putting money back into the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible."
A spokesperson for Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to comment on whether the chamber’s leadership would take up the Democrats’ bill. Given the bill's recent introduction and the committee process it faces, any decision on consideration would likely come after committee review.
In the Republican-controlled House, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated the chamber would refrain from addressing the question of returning tariff revenue and signaled deference to the White House. "The White House is going to sort that out, and we have to give them the time and space to do it. This is an unprecedented event, of course, so there’s no playbook to follow," Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told reporters. "I think they’ve (the White House) got good arguments on their side, and we’ll see how it shakes out. That’s not something that really involves the House at this point."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the proposed legislation. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNN that the administration will follow whatever determination lower courts make on the refunds. "We will follow what they decide, but it can take weeks or months until we hear from them," Bessent said.
CBP is scheduled to stop collecting the IEEPA tariffs at 12:01 a.m. EST (0501 GMT) on Tuesday.
Analysts have flagged the potential scale of repayments. An estimate by Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists, based on a ground-up forecasting model, put more than $175 billion in IEEPA tariff collections at risk of being subject to refunds. The model indicated that IEEPA-based tariffs were producing more than $500 million per day in gross revenue.
Context and implications
The bill sets specific timelines and prioritization rules for CBP to follow if courts determine refunds are owed. It confronts the practical question left open by the Supreme Court ruling: how to address funds already collected and, in some cases, finalized through CBP liquidation processes. The proposal also focuses on small businesses as a prioritized class of claimants, reflecting concerns about the distributional effects of tariff collections on smaller importers.
Because the Supreme Court remanded the matter to a lower trade court, the legislative measure would move ahead of, and potentially in parallel with, ongoing judicial determinations. The bill’s progress in the Senate would depend on committee review and any subsequent floor consideration.