American consumers hoping for tariff refunds could be disappointed.
The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act in February. Trump used a different law to impose a 10% global tariff on U.S. imports, with exceptions, after the high court’s ruling.
Importers paid those taxes to the federal government, and more than 900 have already filed lawsuits to get that money back. Consumers aren’t entitled to a direct refund, though at least one company has said it will issue refunds.
Trump used tariffs to underpin key promises he made since re-taking the White House in 2025, including a proposed $2,000 tariff rebate check for everyone but the wealthy. He has also said tariffs could cover the cost of increased military spending, replace income taxes and pay down the federal government’s $38.7 trillion in debt. Tax watchdogs have said Trump’s tariffs won’t bring in enough money to cover the cost of those plans.
Trump has not spoken about the $2,000 rebate checks since the Supreme Court’s Feb. 20 decision, but his campaign said he’s still considering it.
A campaign email sent Feb. 27 read: “I’m looking into these checks very seriously. … I haven’t made the commitment yet, but I may make the commitment.”
The White House did not respond to questions on Monday from The Center Square about Trump’s tariff rebate plans in the wake of the 6-3 Supreme Court decision.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported it assessed $253.3 billion in tariffs, taxes, and fees since Jan. 20, 2025. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling would generate up to $175 billion in refunds.
FedEx, one of the large companies that has already filed a lawsuit seeking tariff refunds, said it would give that money back to the people who paid it.
“Our intent is straightforward: if refunds are issued to FedEx, we will issue refunds to the shippers and consumers who originally bore those charges,” the company said in a post on its website. “When that will happen and the exact process for requesting and issuing refunds will depend in part on future guidance from the government and the court.”
Some Democrats have already called for refunds. U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, introduced the Payback Act, which would require the Treasury Department to develop a transparent consumer refund formula and send out payments.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent wasn’t as optimistic about American consumers getting money back.
“I got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” he told the Economic Club of Dallas last month.

A coalition of retired military officers and former national security officials is urging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to halt an expansion of its medical equipment bidding program, warning it could create national security risks.
In a letter to CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, the group raised concerns about plans to expand the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies Competitive Bidding Program to include more advanced medical devices, including continuous glucose monitors and insulin pumps.
“We are writing to share our strong concerns about the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ proposal to expand the Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics, and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program to include a range of highly specialized medical products,” the officials wrote.
The letter notes that many of the products are no longer simple tools.
“Digitally connected devices such as CGMs and insulin pumps transmit real-time health data to providers, caregivers, and cloud-based platforms,” they wrote.
The coalition warned that placing these products in a cost-based bidding system could let foreign manufacturers, including companies with ties to the Chinese Communist Party, enter the Medicare supply chain. Since the program awards contracts largely on price, they argued that foreign firms benefiting from state subsidies could undercut American companies.
“This is more than a matter of economics or procurement policy. It is a question of strategic vulnerability,” the letter states.
The group noted potential risks for military personnel, veterans, and government employees who rely on federal health systems.
“There is also the question of patient data,” the officials wrote. “Many of the products in question are capable of collecting, storing, and transmitting detailed biometric information.”
They argued that when companies manufacture and service devices outside the United States, it becomes harder to ensure sensitive health data remains protected domestically and does not fall into the hands of American adversaries.
The coalition also warned that forcing domestic firms to compete solely on price could also reduce investment in research and development and weaken American leadership in medical technology.
They urged CMS to “disallow foreign entities access to millions of Medicare patients’ health information by excluding them from competing for DMEPOS contracts” and to “pause the proposed expansion of the competitive bidding program and conduct a full national security and economic impact assessment before proceeding.”
CMS has said it uses the competitive bidding program to lower costs and protect Medicare trust funds. The next round of contracts will take effect on or before Jan. 1, 2028.

U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical during arguments on Monday over a law that disarms habitual drug users.
The case, U.S. v. Hemani, challenged a law that prohibits a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm. The case centers on a Texas man who was charged with a felony when FBI agents found a pistol, marijuana and cocaine in his home after obtaining a search warrant, a petition to the court read.
The Trump administration petitioned the high court to hear the case after a lower court struck down the law barring people who use drugs such as marijuana from possessing firearms.
Lawyers for the U.S. government argued founding era laws against drunkards compel a similar standard to prohibit habitual drug users from possessing firearms. Sarah Harris, deputy solicitor general for the Department of Justice, said early 20th century drug use laws could be read similarly to founding era drunkard laws.
“Drugs are similar in the sense that there is a similar tradition by use of the intoxicants on a habitual basis,” Harris said.
Justices on the court appeared skeptical of Harris’ claim. Justice Neil Gorsuch argued that founding era laws against drunkards categorized the term drunkard very differently than what it is understood as in the modern era. He also questioned how the Trump administration defined a habitual user.
“The government has not been able to define what a user is,” Gorsuch said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared to agree with Gorsuch and further questioned the frequency of drug use in determining whether someone should be barred from possessing a firearm.
“Someone who only drinks or takes an intoxicant once every other day and is not doing so while he is using a firearm is irrelevant,” Jackson said. “The dangerous people at the founding were well beyond just one item every other day.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett also agreed and posed a hypothetical question where an individual used a prescription drug that did not belong to them. She asked whether this law would disarm that individual.
Harris indicated that an individual could be disarmed if they regularly engage in using another person’s prescription. She also mentioned marijuana – the drug primarily at issue in the case – was under consideration by the government to be rescheduled to be included for research purposes, which would lessen the seriousness of this case.
Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, a policy that deems the substance as having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Heroin is also considered a schedule I drug.
“The government has not made any final decisions for what to do with marijuana,” Harris said.
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Harris’ reliance on the legal status of marijuana in making a determination in the case.
“You seem to rely quite a bit on the illegality of marijuana,” Thomas said.
Lawyers for Hemani further refuted the idea that drunkard standards could equate to the use of a controlled substance. Erin Murphy, a lawyer for Hemani, said drunkard laws had to be based on specific public displays of drunkenness before rights were taken away.
“The habitual drunkard tradition,” Murphy said, “cannot support disarming someone based on the fact he consumes a few times a week a controlled substance.”
Jackson questioned whether the law against drug users from possessing firearms meaningfully contributed to less overall violence.
“Congress’ purpose here to prevent dangerous people from having guns is not furthered by including this kind of person under this statute,” Jackson said.
The court is expected to decide the drug use gun possession case by July.

A new survey found that a plurality of United States voters oppose the bombing of Iran.
With Operation Epic Fury underway, Napolitan News Service conducted the survey to gauge Americans’ sentiments of President Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran and found that 47% of 1,000 voters opposed the bombings while 40% supported it.
Scott Rasmussen, founder of Napolitan Institute, briefly explained the results of the survey.
“This is a foreign policy issue, something that most voters don’t pay attention to a whole lot. One of the really interesting tidbits in the survey is that Donald Trump’s job approval didn’t budge,” Rasmussen said. “That gives us a hint that probably what we’re going to find in the survey is less about Iran and more about the perceptions of the president.”
Although 47% opposed bombing Iran, 48% agreed Iran is a national security threat to the United States, while 50% believe the attack on Iran will lead to a wider war with China and Russia.
Upon learning Saudi Arabia and other gulf nations support the attacks on Iran, voters’ opinions of the bombing changed to 50% approval and 38% opposition.
“This is not saying, ‘Oh, if we just educate people and get the messaging and the talking points right now, we’ll build support.’ It’s just that people have very little information to go on, and they’re looking for any kind of clues to guide their response,” Rasmussen said.
With the majority of voters believing the attack will result in a quick victory, 55% of voters believe the attack will wipe out the Iranian regime. Specifically regarding political parties, two thirds of Republicans (66%) at least somewhat favor the attack, while 71% of Democrats oppose it.
“The downside, the danger for the president, for Republicans, and for the military forces, is that if this does begin to drag on, there will be disillusionment and support will erode,” Rasmussen said. “But here’s the reality: if it’s successful, this is going to be looked at as a great victory that will benefit – that will have support among the American people.”
Also, 46% of voters believe the attack on Iran will be good for America, while 45% believe the attack will be bad.

A national debate over Title IX enforcement continues as the Trump administration investigates schools and universities that allow transgender students to compete in women’s sports.
Critics argue federal officials are neglecting other core protections under the law.
The Trump administration maintains that allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports violates the law’s protections for women and girls. In February 2025, President Donald Trump signed the Keep Men Out of Women’s Sports executive order.
Title IX, the 1972 federal statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs, has become a focal point in disputes over athletics and student safety.
In an exclusive interview with The Center Square, Caius Willingham, senior policy analyst at Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE), said the shift in enforcement priorities undermines the broader purpose of the statute.
“It is inexcusable for the Trump administration to investigate trans athletes when they’re failing to live up to their responsibility under the federal law to enforce other provisions of Title IX,” Willingham told The Center Square.
Willingham argues that policies restricting transgender participation in sports and access to facilities harm both transgender and cisgender individuals by increasing scrutiny, harassment and invasive investigations.
Willingham said there’s “no scientific consensus that transgender women athletes have an advantage in sports that would justify any claim that they are somehow outcompeting cisgender athletes.”
Describing the national debate as “a moral panic fueled by misinformation and hate mongering,” Willingham added that it presents a false choice between the safety of trans people and the comfort of cisgender people.
Federal officials and conservative advocacy organizations argue the opposite. U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said recent federal policy changes are necessary for protecting women and girls.
“We have seen the consequences of the Biden administration’s advocacy of a radical transgender agenda,” McMahon said. “Institutions stripped women and girls of their access to fair competition and dignified private facilities. They forced women into unfair and humiliating situations that have led to sexual assault, harassment, and in some cases, permanent injury. To say the least, the last four years have been hell for these girls.”
McMahon said the administration is working with organizations, including Alliance Defending Freedom and Do No Harm, to restore what McMahon called an understanding of sex grounded in biological distinctions.
At a recent congressional session on legislation concerning women’s sports, U.S. Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., criticized the inclusion of gender identity within Title IX interpretations.
“Cisgender is a made-up word. That means nothing. Do not call me cisgender. I am a woman,” Hageman said.
Advocates for stricter enforcement say allowing transgender athletes to compete in girls’ sports discriminates against female students.
A decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on related Title IX questions is pending, and education officials across the country are awaiting further guidance on how federal law will be interpreted.

Dozens have now been indicted on federal charges related to a protest that disrupted a Jan. 18 church service in St. Paul.
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi announced another round of arrests following the release of an indictment charging 30 additional people.
“YOU CANNOT ATTACK A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. If you do so, you cannot hide from us — we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you,” Bondi said in a statement on social media. “This Department of Justice STANDS for Christians and all Americans of faith.”
This comes following widespread calls for arrests in the wake of the protest, which quickly captured attention far beyond Minnesota. The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the protest, which was organized in part by members of Black Lives Matter Minnesota.
Video posted by the group shows protesters chanting “ICE out” and “justice for Renee Good” during the Sunday morning service at Cities Church. Another video circulating on social media shows Kelly calling congregants “pretend Christians” and “comfortable white people.”
Caleb Phillips, a congregant at the church, told The Center Square in an exclusive interview that the protestors were seated throughout the congregation before the service began.
“The entire congregation came alive. Individuals who are planted from front to back throughout the entire place stood up,” Phillips said. “It felt like we were surrounded, because they were all throughout the congregation.”
Reports allege the protesters discovered one of the church’s pastors works for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, calling the protest a “clandestine mission.”
The church protest came in the wake of the Jan. 7 killing of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good during an encounter with ICE officers conducting enhanced immigration enforcement.
Journalist Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor who was inside the church covering the protest, is one of the most high-profile arrests made in conjunction with the protest. At the time, he defended the protestors.
“I imagine it’s uncomfortable and traumatic for the people here,” Lemon said during a livestream of the protest at service. “But, that’s what protesting is about.”
Lemon joined others who were indicted by a federal grand jury in Minnesota in January on two counts:
• conspiracy against right of religious freedom at a place of worship
• and injure, intimidate, and interfere with exercise of the right of religious freedom at a place of worship
Those charges stem from the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act of 1994, which prohibits obstruction or threats at abortion clinics and places of worship.
When Bondi made the announcement on Friday, 25 of the 30 had already been arrested, while more were expected to come throughout the day. That brings the total to 39 people who have been arrested for their part in the protest.
True North Legal Director of Litigation Doug Wardlow, the firm representing Cities Church, released a statement applauding the arrests.
“The indictment . . . sends a clear message: houses of worship are off limits for those who would use chaos and intimidation to advance a political agenda,” Wardlow said. “Cities Church is grateful for the Department of Justice’s continued commitment to enforcing federal law to protect churches and other places of worship. The Department’s aggressive prosecution of this case affirms a foundational principle: in the United States, the sanctuary remains a sanctuary.”

Operation Epic Fury is “just the beginning” of American combat operations in Iran, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and General Dan Caine told reporters Monday.
Hegseth and Caine said the joint coordinated U.S.-Israeli strikes, which killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, resulted from months of planning with President Donald Trump and will continue “on his terms.”
“This is not a single overnight operation,” Caine said. “Our military objectives are clear: our mission is to protect and defend ourselves, and together with our regional partners prevent Iran from the ability to project power outside of its borders and be ready for follow-on actions as appropriate.”
Hegseth gave no timeframe for how long American military action will continue in Iran, adding that while no American troops are currently on the ground, “we are not going to go into the exercise of what we will or will not do.”
“We’ll go as far as we need to go to advance American interests. But we’re not dumb about it – you don’t have to roll 200,000 people in there and stay for 20 years,” Hegseth said. “We’ve proven that we can achieve objectives that advance American interests without being foolish about it.”
He also defended the controversial strikes, which key members of Congress received advance notice of but did not vote to authorize.
Iran’s “nuclear ambitions,” Hegseth argued, “had to be addressed” because “Iran has the ability to project power against us and our allies in ways that we can’t tolerate” even without nuclear weapons.
“They were building up this conventional arsenal in order to ensure that no one would ever block them from their ability to get nuclear weapons,” Hegseth said. “So we’re very clear-eyed about the nature of this Iranian threat […] radical Islamists can’t have a nuclear bomb that they wield against the world.”
He added that American casualties, including the three U.S. service members killed in action by Iranian counterstrikes, “only stiffen our resolve to ensure that we do this properly.”
“We fight to win,” Hegseth said. “We fight to achieve the objectives the President of the United States has laid out, and we will do so unapologetically.”

Attorneys for the federal government said refunding tariffs to the U.S. businesses that paid them could take time and urged a court not to rush, a move opponents said would cost taxpayers even more.
A group of small businesses, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, had asked a federal appeals court for quick action on refunds after the Supreme Court voided President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The high court said Congress alone has the power to issue tariffs under the law.
Attorneys for the federal government urged the court to move deliberately.
“Plaintiffs claim speed is of the essence because they suffer harm from being ‘forced to operate’ without refunds in the interim,” attorneys for Brett Shumate, the assistant attorney general, wrote in response. “But a compensable monetary loss is a classic harm that can be remedied by payment of money with appropriate interest, and a plaintiff’s bare desire to be paid immediately is not a basis to demand this Court comply with his every whim.”
The government, instead, asked for a 90-day delay “to allow the political branches an opportunity to consider options.”
Rather, the federal attorneys indicated that the “coming process will take time,” citing another case in which much less money was involved, and refunds took seven years.
Shumate’s team noted that Trump’s IEEPA tariffs “have been replaced by vigorous new tariffs.” Trump’s most recent global tariffs are more limited in scope and only remain in place for 150 days without action from Congress.
“Complexity in the future counsels appropriately careful process, not breakneck speed,” the federal attorneys wrote.
Cato Institute scholars Scott Lincicome, Nathan Miller and Alfredo Carrillo Obregon said the delays could cost taxpayers billions in interest.
“These delays would leave American taxpayers on the hook for billions in interest that the government would owe importers on top of the tariff refunds,” they wrote.
The group estimated that each month of delay will add $700 million in interest costs for U.S. taxpayers, “or around $23 million per day.”
A slew of business groups asked the Trump administration to move swiftly with the refund process after the Supreme Court ruled the tariffs were invalid.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model projected that reversing the tariffs would generate up to $175 billion in refunds.