US Clears US$100 Billion in Tariff Refunds

US Customs and Border Protection has disbursed roughly US$100 billion of the US$166 billion in tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, invalidated by the Supreme Court in February 2026. The refunds cover the 25% duty applied to Mexican goods outside USMCA rules of origin from March 2025, though payments flow to importers of record,  typically US buyers, leaving Mexican exporters dependent on contractual pass-through clauses. A Section 301 forced-labor tariff of 10% has since replaced the measure, with USMCA-compliant shipments exempt.

The United States has now processed close to US$100 billion in reimbursements tied to the tariffs Donald Trump unveiled on April 2, 2025,  which the country's Supreme Court invalidated in February for exceeding presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The figure was disclosed by Brandon Lord, Executive Director of the Trade Programs Directorate within the Office of Trade at US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in a declaration submitted to the US Court of International Trade. Lord reported that as of July 31, the agency had accepted claims worth approximately US$128.68 billion. Of that pool, roughly US$100 billion had been returned, a sum covering both the duties themselves and the interest accrued on them.

Set against the estimated US$166 billion the administration collected improperly through the additional levies announced in April 2025, the disbursed total leaves a substantial balance outstanding. CBP opened the first phase of its electronic claims platform on April 20, following the Supreme Court's Feb. 20 determination that the White House had overstepped its powers in invoking IEEPA as a basis for the duties.

Mexico's Position in the Refund Pool

Coverage of the ruling has centered on the reciprocal tariffs announced in April 2025, but the decision reached further. Mexican goods falling outside USMCA rules of origin had carried a 25% duty since March 2025, and that measure fell in the same judgment. MBN reported when the first refund payments landed in US accounts in May that suppliers in automotive, electrical equipment and consumer goods sat among the most exposed export categories.

The distinction that matters commercially is who collects. Reimbursements go to the importer of record, which in most cross-border arrangements is the US purchaser rather than the Mexican manufacturer. Whether producers see any of that money depends on the tariff pass-through language written into contracts during 2025, a review most exporters have yet to complete.

Reaching disbursement required litigation. The Supreme Court left the mechanics of repayment to lower courts, and Washington initially declined to release funds even as it prepared a substitute tariff framework. By July, monthly reimbursements had reached roughly US$49 billion, pushing cumulative repayment past 40% of the obligation and opening a visible hole in federal revenue.

Each Authority Struck Down Has Been Replaced

The judicial defeat has not slowed Washington's use of trade measures as leverage. After February's ruling, the administration imposed a temporary global surcharge of 10% with a 150-day life span, a measure that itself drew an adverse ruling from the trade court in May.

At the end of July, that surcharge gave way to a new instrument. Washington announced duties covering 60 countries, framing them as a sanction against economies that have not prohibited goods manufactured with forced labor. Jurisdictions with adequate legislation in place face the lower band of 10%; those judged to have insufficient prohibitions carry 12.5%.

Mexico landed in the lower tier. The country was grouped with Canada, the European Union, Ecuador, Indonesia and Pakistan as jurisdictions holding bans on the statute books without effective enforcement, while 46 other economies received the 12.5% rate. Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard has argued that the shift leaves Mexican exporters no worse off in practice, since the identical 10% already applied under the expiring surcharge.

The more consequential detail is the carve-out. Shipments meeting USMCA rules of origin, more than 80% of Mexican exports to the US market, are excluded, as are products already subject to sectoral duties on steel, aluminum and automobiles. Mexico had sought a full exemption alongside Peru, Guatemala and Ecuador at hearings in July, arguing the mechanism was never conceived for treaty partners.

What the Refunds Do Not Resolve

The legal footing of the new tariffs differs materially from what preceded them. The forced-labor duties rest on Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, a provision that survived February's ruling intact and has anchored US duties on Chinese goods since 2018. That makes it a harder target than IEEPA proved to be, and a second Section 301 proceeding examining manufacturing overcapacity still names Mexico among the economies under review.

Meanwhile the underlying cost has not moved. US collections on Mexican goods reached roughly US$23 billion, and with the USMCA joint review proceeding in parallel, compliance with rules of origin has become the single determinant of exposure. The refunds settle a constitutional question about who may impose tariffs. They do not lower the bill.