SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
trade
Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin to Refund Billions of Dollars to Businesses That Paid Illegal Tariffs
One organizer called the ruling a "victory for small businesses who have paid billions in unlawful tariffs and deserve their money back."
Mar 05, 2026
US customs officials are due to report to the Court of International Trade in New York on Friday to detail their plans for issuing billions of dollars in refunds to American businesses that paid tariffs which were struck down by the US Supreme Court last month.
On Wednesday, Judge Richard Eaton at the federal trade court ruled that "all importers of record" are "entitled to benefit" from the Supreme Court ruling that found President Donald Trump had illegally invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on more than 300,000 US businesses that import goods, the vast majority of which were small businesses, as a central policy of his economic agenda.
The Supreme Court found Trump could not use the IEEPA to unilaterally set tariffs.
Eaton ruled in a case brought by Atmus Filtration, a company based in Nashville, Tennessee, which filed one of about 2,000 lawsuits at the trade court seeking refunds for the tariffs.
US Customs and Border Protection is likely to appeal the decision or “seek a stay to buy more time," former US trade official Ryan Majerus told NBC News, but Eaton did not appear convinced Wednesday when a Justice Department lawyer Claudia Burke, said in court that issuing refunds en masse would be time-consuming for the CBP and would necessitate the manual review of millions of entries.
"We live in the age of computers," said Eaton. "It must be possible for Customs Service to program its computers so it doesn't need a manual review.
Burke also told Eaton that the administration hadn't determined its position on refunding the tariffs, to which the judge replied: "Your position is clear. The Supreme Court told you what your position is."
Eaton noted that refunds are processed every day by CBP through a process called "liquidation" when goods are imported through the agency. CBP issues an accounting of what is owed by the importer, and the company has 180 days to formally contest its duties. The judge ordered customs officials to stop collecting tariffs on goods currently in the liquidation process and to recalculate duties for goods that were past the 180-day window, without the illegally imposed tariffs, resulting in a refund.
“Customs knows how to do this,” said Eaton. "They do it every day. They liquidate entries and make refunds."
Atmus Filtration estimated in court filings it had paid $11 million in illegal tariffs. The federal government collected $130 billion in tariffs under the IEEPA last year, and according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, could ultimately owe $175 billion in refunds to businesses.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said the Trump administration "must move quickly to reimburse the thousands of small businesses in Virginia and across the country that bore the brunt of President Trump’s harmful and illegal tariffs."
Dan Anthony, executive director of the We Pay the Tariffs coalition, called the ruling a "victory for small businesses who have paid billions in unlawful tariffs and deserve their money back."
"The court acted swiftly and correctly," said Anthony. "Now the ball is in the government's court and small businesses are concerned they will drag this out further. American small businesses have waited long enough. A full, fast, and automatic refund process is what these businesses are owed and anything less is unacceptable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No to War': Spanish Leader Sánchez Undeterred by Trump's Trade Threat
European leaders expressed solidarity with Spain after Trump threatened a trade embargo in retaliation for the prime minister saying the US could not use Spanish military bases to attack Iran.
Mar 04, 2026
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez on Wednesday appeared undaunted by President Donald Trump's threat to impose a full trade embargo on Spain in retaliation for its refusal to allow the US to use its military bases to wage war on Iran.
In a 10-minute televised address, Sánchez told the Spanish public that the country "will not be complicit in something that is bad for the world and contrary to our values and interests simply out of fear of reprisals from someone."
Despite Trump's threat, the Spanish government's position on the US and Israel's attacks on Iran, the prime minister said, can be summarized as "no to war."
The address came hours after Trump claimed the US military would use Spain's military bases to launch warplanes "if we want," despite Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares' earlier statement that the facilities could not be used "for anything that isn’t covered by the [United Nations] Charter.”
The US and Israel began attacking Iran early Saturday morning after Oman's foreign minister said American and Iranian officials had been making progress toward a deal on Iran's nuclear program.
Legal experts have said the unprovoked attacks are a clear violation of international law and the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force unless it is "authorized by the UN Security Council or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stunned observers this week when he claimed the US and Israel had waged war because of an "imminent threat"—one that was posed because the US believed Israel was planning to strike Iran, and Iran was expected to retaliate against that potential attack.
On Wednesday, Sánchez said the US and Israeli strikes against Iran, which have so far killed more than 1,000 people, according to Iranian officials, signify a "breakdown of international law."
He compared the bombings to the George W. Bush administration's invasion of Iraq, which led to eight years of war and killed over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, and warned against “repeating the mistakes of the past."
“Very often great wars start with a chain of events spiraling out of control due to miscalculations, technical failures, and unforeseen circumstances," said the prime minister, who has also been outspoken in his opposition to Israel's US-backed assault on Gaza and the Trump administration's invasion of Venezuela in January. "Therefore, we must learn from history and cannot play Russian roulette with the fate of millions."
Trump on Tuesday also expressed anger over Spain's refusal to cave to his demand that all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) member states commit to spending 5% of their gross domestic product on defense by 2035.
But other members of the European Union, which collectively negotiates trade with the US, were quick to express solidarity with Spain.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who met with Trump at the White House on Tuesday, told the president that European countries would not agree to a trade agreement with the US that didn't include Spain, while French President Emmanuel Macron spoke to Sánchez to convey his "solidarity." European Council President António Costa also said he has spoken to the Spanish prime minister and reaffirmed the EU's "firm commitment to the principles of international law and the rules-based order everywhere in the world."
Despite Europe's strong stance against Trump's threats, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday doubled down on the president's rhetoric, appearing on CNBC to accuse Spain of "not meeting their NATO requirement" and of putting "American lives at risk" by not allowing the US to use its bases.
Stéphane Séjourné, the EU's internal market commissioner, was not deterred by Bessent's comments, warning that "any threat against member state is by definition a threat against the EU."
He noted that European countries already joined together this year to defend Greenland from Trump's claim that he would take over the autonomous territory, part of the Danish kingdom, by force.
"If you threaten one particular country... well, we’ve seen that about Greenland," said Séjourné. "I think we saw that there was a lot of unity.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Don't Let the EU-Mercosur Agreement Be a Loss for Animal Welfare
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards.
Mar 01, 2026
Gestation crates are metal cages, typically no bigger than 7 feet by 2 feet, used to contain female pigs—known as sows—for most of their breeding lives. The crates are so small that their inhabitants cannot walk or even turn around. Natural behaviors such as rummaging, fetching food, nesting, and grazing are all denied to them.
Without question they are among the cruelest fixtures in the meat industry. Many countries in the Western world, including the European Union, have either banned or significantly restricted their use. The European Commission plans to phase them out entirely by 2027. A recent landmark piece of legislation, however, threatens to undo this critical progress.
The EU-Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) Agreement, signed to great fanfare on January 17, 2026, has been heralded as both historic and ambitious. Less discussed, however, is what the agreement could mean for animal welfare protections in both hemispheres.
The EU may be home to some of the highest animal welfare standards of any government in the world, but the same cannot be said for Mercosur, where millions of sows are still confined to gestation crates for long periods of time.
Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
Sinergia Animal, the international animal protection organisation whose Brazilian operations I lead, publishes a yearly report called Pigs in Focus, which ranks major Brazilian producers on their animal welfare standards. Despite being the country’s fourth-largest pork processor and a major dairy company, Frimesa has still not committed to ban crates for sows. Farrowing cages and battery cages for chickens remain widespread too. We have been negotiating with them for years, and despite their competitors making meaningful progress, they are still dragging their heels on making even basic improvements.
The problem does not stop with Frimesa. Minerva Foods, one of the leading meat producers in South America and a major supplier of pork products globally, continues to cause immense suffering. Ear notching, teeth clipping, and tail docking, as well as the routine misuse of antimicrobials, are all common. Again, while commitments to phase out these techniques have been made, our research exposes the use of excessively long deadlines that serve to prolong animal suffering.
These are not exceptional, isolated cases. They represent a wider system across Mercosur countries—one that may end up supplying significantly more of the meat consumed in the EU.
This raises serious questions about the EU’s commitment to animal welfare standards, which is why the European Parliament’s decision in late January to request a legal opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the agreement’s conformity with the EU treaties, thereby halting the ratification process, is a welcome one.
The review could take up to two years, which gives EU policymakers more than enough time to revisit the issue of animal welfare and mitigate against the new incentive structures now in place for Mercosur producers.
It would, however, be a mistake to assume that greater attention should be paid to animal welfare protections alone. After all, lower standards mean higher yields. In Argentina and Uruguay, 89% and 88% of eggs come from hens kept in battery or enriched cages. In Brazil the figure is 95%. In the EU, by comparison, 38% of hens are still kept in cages—something seen as too high but will nonetheless put European producers at a significant competitive disadvantage.
An increase in demand for meat will also magnify pressure on vital ecosystems. As demand for land and animal feed goes up, so too will the rate of deforestation. The resultant loss of habitat will accelerate biodiversity decline, threatening ecosystems that are a key natural defense against climate change.
These developments cannot be divorced from the geopolitics of the climate crisis. With the US having reneged on its international climate commitments, the pressure is on the EU to at least partially fill the leadership void. So far they are failing, with initiatives such as the Deforestation Regulation and electric vehicle mandate either abandoned or reduced in ambition. Unless safeguards are put in place, this trade agreement risks reversing the EU's progress on deforestation altogether.
So what can the EU do? At a minimum, Brussels must demand that meat produced under unacceptably low standards is not imported to the EU. However, equally important is that Mercosur countries are still able to benefit economically from the agreement by retaining access to the EU market. This means pushing for Mercosur countries to eliminate battery cages and sow stalls, ban mutilations without pain relief, enrich spaces, and meaningfully improve handling standards.
The EU talks a good game, but rhetoric alone is not enough. The ratification delay is a golden opportunity for reflection and to strengthen standards. Political leaders have been right to label the agreement as historic, but unless robust protections are put in place, it may well be remembered for all the wrong reasons.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular