What happened
Financial Times reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Retail Federation have urged the government to reimburse companies for billions of dollars in duties paid in connection with tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court found that President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by using that law to impose new tariffs on dozens of countries. The tariffs had been in effect since August 7, 2025.
Size of the claims — from confirmed sums to a potential $200 billion
According to U.S. Customs, the tariffs had generated $133.5 billion as of mid-December. Individual estimates vary: analysts at Budget Lab at Yale University calculated about $142 billion for 2025, while JPMorgan puts the upper estimate at roughly $200 billion.
Who actually paid
Research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy shows that only about 4% of the tariff burden was borne by foreign exporters. The rest — roughly 96% — fell on American importers and consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced margins.
Why refunds are unlikely to happen quickly
Legal procedures and administrative logistics will make repayments a protracted process. According to the FT, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that Americans are unlikely to see these funds anytime soon.
"This is crazy"
— Donald Trump, former president (quote via Financial Times)
"Payments will be made gradually and considered on a case-by-case basis."
— Analysts at Wells Fargo (via Financial Times)
Context and reasoning: why the court ruled this way
The court’s decision underscores the limits of presidential powers under IEEPA. The court effectively said that such broad trade restrictions require other tools or a clearer mandate from Congress. This helps shape further debates about the role of the executive branch in trade.
What this means for markets and for Ukraine
In short: large monetary claims and legal uncertainty undermine business confidence, may reduce export activity, and raise the cost of imports. For Ukraine this matters for several reasons: the supply of critical components and equipment for defense and reconstruction, energy and food supply chains, and the investment climate globally — all of which react to shifts in U.S. trade policy.
Ukrainian companies and state bodies should monitor further decisions by U.S. regulators and possible changes in supply logistics: in the short term this may mean price volatility and delivery-time fluctuations; in the longer term — a reallocation of trade flows.
Summary
The Supreme Court’s decision opens the door to large claims from businesses, but actual refunds are unlikely to happen quickly. The next steps lie with Congress, the administration, and judicial-administrative procedures. The key question is whether these legal victories for corporations will translate into practical outcomes felt by consumers and markets, including our supply chains.
