NextFin News - President Donald Trump's tariff campaign has entered its second year as a game of legal whack-a-mole: every time the courts knock one tariff down, the White House re-erects it under a different statute, at rising cost and with shrinking effect. On July 24, the administration imposed new duties of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners covering roughly 99% of US imports — the third legal incarnation of a policy the Supreme Court already ruled unlawful in February.
The pattern is no longer just chaotic. It is self-defeating. The Treasury has refunded $81bn in duties collected illegally this fiscal year while simultaneously collecting new ones on much of the same goods — a churn that moves money from importers to the government and back again, with American consumers and companies paying for the privilege in between.
The Situation: A Legal Relay Race With No Finish Line
The timeline reads like a legal relay race. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The decision invalidated the "reciprocal" tariffs covering most of America's trading partners, along with the fentanyl- and immigration-related duties on China, Canada, and Mexico. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that IEEPA's grant of power to "regulate ... importation" does not embrace the power to tax it. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring, put it more bluntly: "In essence, the court today concludes that the president checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs."
Within hours, the administration pivoted. On February 20 it issued Proclamation 11012 under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a 10% global tariff effective February 24. The next day, the rate was raised to 15% — the statutory maximum. Section 122 was designed for balance-of-payments emergencies: it permits tariffs of up to 15% for no more than 150 days, and any extension requires an act of Congress. It had never been used before.
That clock ran out on July 24. The same day the temporary tariff expired, the White House announced new duties of 10% and 12.5% on 60 trading partners — the European Union, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, the United Kingdom and Canada among them — justified this time by trading partners' failure to curb imports made with forced labor. Countries with forced-labor import bans, including Canada, the EU, India and the UK, received the lower 10% rate; China, Japan, South Korea and dozens of others were assigned 12.5%. US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer defended the measures on enforcement grounds:
The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century, and rigorously enforces it; it's well past time for our trading partners to do the same.
— Jamieson Greer, US Trade Representative
On the same day, the administration also ordered 50% tariffs on many Canadian products — alcohol, automobiles and dairy — citing Ottawa's "discriminatory treatment" of American goods. Those duties rely on an untested legal provision and take effect in a month.
The fiscal cost of this legal improvisation is now visible in the Treasury's own books. In the fiscal year that began in October 2025, the US refunded $81bn in tariff duties as of mid-July, compared with $5bn in the same period a year earlier. May alone saw nearly $22bn in refunds; June, nearly $50bn. In July, another $33.4bn went out, pushing total refunds past $100bn. Industry estimates put the ultimate refund tab as high as $175bn.
The Legal Architecture Keeps Mutating — and Each New Form Is Weaker
The administration's approach is not a strategy; it is a search for statutory cover. The Supreme Court did not say tariffs are unconstitutional. It said IEEPA — a sanctions statute — does not authorize them. The natural response would have been to ask Congress for durable trade authority. Instead, the White House reached for Section 122, a provision so obscure that the Court of International Trade, in a 2-1 decision on May 7, declared Proclamation 11012 invalid as contrary to law. The court granted relief only to the named plaintiffs — 24 states and two private importers — and declined a universal injunction; the government appealed and the Federal Circuit stayed the ruling. Collection continued pending further rulings.
The July 24 tariffs are the third attempt: a forced-labor enforcement rationale grafted onto pre-existing trade statutes. The logic is transparent — find a statute whose text can be stretched to fit a pre-determined policy. But each stretch narrows the legal base. Section 122 is time-limited and Congress-dependent. The forced-labor rationale invites its own challenges: trading partners that have already enacted import bans can argue they are compliant, and the 50% Canada duties rest on a provision nobody has ever tested in court.
The result is a tariff regime whose durability is measured in court dates rather than years. Businesses cannot plan around a wall that may be rebuilt, relocated, or refunded at any moment.
The Economics Are Getting Worse, Not Better
The first-order effect of a tariff is a tax on imports. The second-order effect is that imports shrink — and with them, the tax base. That feedback loop is now visible in the revenue data. Customs duties were the federal government's fastest-growing revenue source through 2025, with fiscal-year 2025 collections of nearly $195bn — roughly 150% more than in 2024, according to the Treasury's monthly statements. But the growth curve has bent. December 2025 brought in $27.89bn, down almost $3bn from November. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that after refunds, net tariff receipts from October 2025 through June 2026 were $163bn — 2.9% of projected fiscal-year 2026 federal revenue of $5.6tn.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has insisted that combining Section 122, Section 232, and Section 301 tariffs "will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026." That is a revealing benchmark. The administration's goal is no longer to expand revenue or reshape trade; it is to hold the line on collections while the legal foundation beneath them is replaced plank by plank. A trade policy whose success metric is "revenue unchanged despite the Supreme Court striking it down" is a policy managing decline.
Meanwhile, the cost falls on the real economy. A February analysis from the New York Federal Reserve found that US consumers and companies bore nearly 90% of tariff costs. A May study by Federal Reserve researchers concluded there is "full pass-through" of tariff costs to consumers, adding almost a full percentage point to inflation. The Yale Budget Lab's original April 2025 projection was that the tariff regime would raise consumer prices by 2.3% and cost the average household $3,800 a year; a year later, the Lab's own retrospective put the realized price effect between 0.5% and 1%. In its April 2026 update, it estimated the current regime leaves the average household between $650 and $780 worse off if the Section 122 tariffs expire as scheduled, or between $1,130 and $1,340 if they are made permanent, and trims long-run real GDP by about 0.1%. The Tax Foundation estimates the tariffs will generate $110bn in revenue in 2026 and $1.5tn over the decade on a conventional score — before negative growth effects trim that to about $1.1tn, with the 2026 burden averaging $700 per household.
The St. Louis Fed measured that over the June-August 2025 period, tariffs explained roughly 0.5 percentage points of headline PCE annualized inflation and 0.4 points of core PCE. Over the 12 months ending August 2025, tariffs accounted for 10.9% of headline PCE annual inflation. These are not abstract numbers. They are the reason the Federal Reserve faces a stickier inflation path and a narrower room to cut rates.
Who Benefits, Who Pays, and Why the Refunds Do Not Make Anyone Whole
The refund wave is often framed as a correction — the government giving money back. It is more accurately a transfer with friction. Importers who paid the duties get refunds, often with interest, but only after months of delay and administrative cost. Companies that already passed the tariff surcharge through to customers face a different problem: the refund goes to the importer of record, not to the consumer who ultimately paid. Disputes over who owns a refund — the importer or its customer — are expected to drag on for months or years.
The winners in this arrangement are narrow: lawyers, customs brokers, and Treasury's accounting staff. The losers are broad: any business that priced products, signed contracts, or made investment decisions assuming a stable tariff regime. A company that absorbed a 15% duty to keep market share does not get compensated for the margin it lost in the interim. A consumer who paid a higher price for an appliance does not receive a check.
There is also a second-order damage that no refund reverses: supply chains were reconfigured, orders were cancelled, and sourcing decisions were made under a policy that turned out to be unlawful. Those decisions do not unwind when the money comes back.
The Counter-Thesis: Maybe Chaos Is the Point
The strongest case for the administration is that unpredictability is itself a negotiating weapon. If trading partners cannot tell whether the next tariff will survive in court, the argument goes, they have an incentive to cut deals quickly on American terms. The roughly 20 bilateral "trade deals" the administration signed over the past year are offered as evidence that the pressure works.
There is some truth to this. Uncertainty can extract short-term concessions from partners who value access to the US market more than legal consistency. But the weapon degrades with each use. After the February ruling, partners learned that American tariff threats are legally fragile and temporally limited. The July 24 tariffs, announced the same day the previous ones expired, signal that even "deals" are provisional. A negotiating strategy that requires constantly breaking its own instruments teaches the other side to wait for the next court date rather than settle.
The fiscal arithmetic also undercuts the leverage story. A government that must refund $81bn — and potentially $175bn — while borrowing to cover a deficit is not extracting tribute; it is running a costly revolving door. Secretary Bessent's own target of "virtually unchanged" revenue concedes that the policy's net fiscal contribution is flat while its legal and administrative costs rise.
Cyclical or Structural? A Structural Commitment on Cyclical Legs
This is the crux. The political commitment to tariffs is structural: it will not revert on its own. Both parties now compete on trade toughness, and the administration has shown it will use any available authority to keep duties in place. The tariff wall is a permanent feature of the landscape.
But the legal forms it takes are cyclical and mean-reverting. Each statutory workaround — IEEPA, then Section 122, then forced-labor enforcement — rises quickly, faces litigation, and either collapses or is replaced. The pattern has repeated three times in six months. The structure is durable; the scaffolding is not.
Getting this distinction right matters for the conclusion. If the whole regime were cyclical, businesses could wait it out. If it were structurally stable, they could price it in. The reality is worse: it is a structural policy with cyclical legal cover, which means the uncertainty itself is the enduring condition.
Conclusion: What to Watch, and What Would Prove This Wrong
The mechanism, cashed out, points to three concrete consequences. First, inflation stays stickier than it otherwise would: the Federal Reserve researchers' full pass-through finding means every new tariff round re-ignites the price level, narrowing the central bank's ability to ease. Second, the import base keeps shrinking, so each successive tariff raises less revenue than the last unless rates climb — which invites more litigation and more substitution. Third, the legal risk premium on any US trade-dependent investment rises permanently: companies will discount projects whose returns depend on a tariff regime that a single court ruling can void.
The short-term outlook is more volatility. The 50% Canada duties take effect in a month under an untested provision; the Court of International Trade's Section 122 case is on appeal; and the administration has signaled further duties over forced labor and excess industrial capacity. Markets should expect announcements timed to expire, and expirations replaced by announcements.
The medium-term outlook depends on Congress. Section 122-style improvisation cannot last forever. Either Congress codifies a tariff framework — handing the administration the durable authority it has so far avoided requesting — or the policy remains a litigation carousel. The tell is whether the White House asks for legislation. So far, it has not.
The downside case is a full-blown trade conflict: if the EU, China, or Canada retaliate in kind against the July 24 duties, the inflation impulse compounds and the revenue math deteriorates faster. The upside case is a wave of compliance: if major partners adopt forced-labor import bans, the 10% tier becomes the new floor and the 12.5% tier narrows, stabilizing the regime at a lower effective rate.
The base case is muddle-through: tariffs stay, the legal battles continue, revenue holds roughly flat, and consumers keep paying.
What would prove this judgment wrong? Watch the revenue data. If monthly customs-duty collections rise sustainably above the pre-February 2026 trend while import volumes hold steady — three consecutive months of collections above $32bn without a matching refund spike — then the regime has found a stable legal footing and the self-defeating dynamic breaks. Until then, the administration is rebuilding the same wall on scaffolding it knows will be kicked out from under it.
The tariffs are not failing because they lack legal ingenuity. They are failing because a trade policy that must be reinvented every 150 days is not a trade policy — it is a legal settlement with no final judgment.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
