This piece builds on my earlier Substack analysis in "The House That Alzheimer Built" examining the economic reality of Trump's tariff policies.
The Promise vs. the Reality
Donald Trump promised tariffs would bring jobs back, punish China, and prove that Washington could fight for the American worker. In reality, tariffs became a hidden consumer tax, imposed without debate, collected at the ports, and passed to shoppers in higher prices.
While the exact timing and mechanisms vary by industry and product, the economic reality is straightforward: consumers ultimately bear the full cost of tariffs through higher prices. Economic studies, including research from the National Bureau of Economic Research, consistently show consumers absorb virtually the entire tariff burden. Businesses don't absorb these costs long-term—they maintain margins by passing them through.
Through July 2025, Treasury has recorded about $135.7 billion in gross customs duties, with independent estimates suggesting IEEPA-based tariffs specifically have generated around $72 billion to date. Even with the administration pushing for expedited Supreme Court review, a decision may not come until spring 2026, meaning collections will continue growing well beyond current levels.
The calculations below are based on documented collections, but if litigation extends further, totals could double — simply adjust these numbers accordingly to see the potential final costs.
Independent modeling by Yale's Budget Lab pegs the 2025 tariff burden at around $2,400 per household through higher prices.
And the jobs? They never came back nor will they in any meaningful way. Despite protection, the steel sector saw no sustained rebound: 2024 raw output fell roughly 2% year-over-year, with 2025 data showing only modest fluctuations—nowhere near a structural recovery.
The Court Calls the Bluff
On August 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Trump unlawfully relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. The statute was written for war and terrorism, not for long-running trade fights. There was no emergency — and there never was.
The court stayed its ruling until October 14, 2025, to allow time for Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court will now decide whether to take the case on an expedited basis. If it upholds the ruling, Trump's tariffs vanish. If it reverses, it sets a precedent that presidents can declare any economic dispute an "emergency" and tax imports at will, bypassing Congress. That's not jurisprudence. That's just one man rule.
The Refund Tsunami
Here's the kicker: businesses paid tariffs at Customs, but consumers paid the costs through higher prices. If the tariffs are voided, refunds flow back not to households, but to importers — large retailers, automakers, electronics firms, and other companies that paid duties at entry.
Large importers would receive the bulk of refunds because they paid the duties at the border. Consumers, who bore the burden through higher retail prices, don't get refunds.
Refunds create complex tax scenarios, but the core windfall remains: businesses recover money for costs they already passed to consumers.
Consumers Lose Three Times
Consumers lose three times in this game:
First loss: They covered the tariffs in higher prices at checkout.
Second loss: Refunds don't come back to them, but to businesses that already recouped their costs.
Third loss: They never got the promised jobs that were supposed to justify their sacrifice in the first place.
Meanwhile, the Treasury deficit swells. Refunds aren't recycled into public spending — they drain federal coffers. It's a reverse Robin Hood: steal from households, give to corporations, and stick taxpayers with the fiscal crater.
A Souvenir for the Fleeced
At this point, maybe consumers deserve at least a token — literally. A "Trump Tariff Memecoin Token." Or perhaps a choice of t-shirts: "Kick me. I voted for Donald" or "I told you."