Introduction
Readers flagged this article due to ongoing public confusion about the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump and Costco’s recent lawsuit for tariff refunds. The article raises important questions about U.S. trade policy, presidential powers, and what businesses can do when faced with potentially unlawful tariffs. This analysis will clarify whether Trump’s tariffs were ever illegal and address key claims for anyone seeking trustworthy answers.
Historical Context
Tariffs—the taxes imposed on imported goods—have played a vital role in shaping U.S. economic policy. In 2018, President Trump started a series of wide-ranging tariffs on various global imports, initially citing national security and later using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) for even broader measures. These actions drew lawsuits from American importers and legal scrutiny over whether the president could unilaterally set such tariffs without congressional approval. The legal battles have extended into the Supreme Court, with significant implications for the separation of powers and the future of American trade practices.
Fact-Check of Specific Claims
Claim #1: Trump’s tariffs were illegally imposed under the IEEPA.
The core question from readers is whether former President Trump’s tariffs were ever illegal. According to recent court rulings, there is strong legal precedent indicating that most of Trump’s tariffs, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), were not authorized by the law. In August 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the IEEPA did not give the president authority to impose tariffs—a power that belongs to Congress. The Supreme Court heard arguments on the case, with justices expressing skepticism that the IEEPA permits broad tariff actions, but has not yet issued a final decision. Until the Supreme Court rules, the tariffs remain in effect, but lower court decisions have already determined they were not legal under current statutes (source, source).
Claim #2: Costco risks losing tariff refunds even if the Supreme Court eventually rules the tariffs were illegal.
Costco’s lawsuit highlights a genuine risk: even if the Supreme Court agrees that Trump’s tariffs were illegal, Costco and other importers may not recover money already paid unless the court or Congress intervenes. U.S. Customs and Border Protection denied Costco’s request to extend the deadline for recalculating tariff payments—a process known as liquidation. If those entries are finalized before a Supreme Court ruling, companies may lose eligibility for refunds, regardless of the legality of the tariffs. This issue is not unique to Costco; dozens of other companies are also pursuing legal action to preserve refund rights (source).
Claim #3: Dozens of companies, not just Costco, have filed similar lawsuits
The article accurately describes that Costco’s lawsuit is part of a much wider trend. Multiple companies—including EssilorLuxottica, Bumble Bee Foods, Revlon, Kawasaki Motors, and Yokohama Tire—have filed suits to protect their rights to tariff refunds in the event the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs. These lawsuits stem from concerns over the legal uncertainty created by the conflicting interpretations of presidential power under the IEEPA. The cases have become a major test of how trade responsibilities are divided between Congress and the president (source).
Claim #4: The Trump administration warned about economic fallout from possible tariff refunds if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs were unauthorized.
This claim is well-supported. Officials from the Trump administration have consistently argued that the economic impact of refunding hundreds of millions of dollars in collected tariffs could be significant. The administration, in its statements and Supreme Court briefs, emphasized the potential consequences for government revenue and business planning if the lower court ruling is upheld and mass refunds are ordered (source).
Conclusion
The reporting in the referenced article is accurate and provides a fair account of the ongoing legal scrutiny over President Trump’s tariffs. The key claims are well-supported by legal documents, company filings, and up-to-date reporting from reputable sources such as Reuters and the Washington Post. While the Supreme Court has yet to issue a definitive ruling, multiple courts have found that the tariffs exceeded presidential authority under the IEEPA. Costco, along with numerous U.S. importers, is acting to secure possible refunds should the final verdict invalidate the tariffs. The article presents the facts in a manner consistent with the outcomes of current litigation, avoiding misleading statements or significant bias.
Take Action Now
Want to know the facts behind every headline? Download the DBUNK App to submit your own fact-check requests for free, stay informed, and help stop the spread of misinformation.
Link to Original Article
