Tariffs were supposed to make imports more expensive.
They did it.
But now something much more interesting is happening.
Tariffs are canceled, the state returns the money previously paid to the business, and prices for consumers remain significantly higher than before the start of the trade war.
And an uncomfortable question arises:
if the tariff payment is returned, why the price of the goods is not returned with it?
The answer shows how the cost of trade policy can move imperceptibly from the state to business and the end consumer.
First, the tariff turned into a higher price
When the US sharply increased import tariffs in 2025, companies got several options.
They could:
reduce own margin;
negotiate with suppliers;
replace imports;
or pass on the additional costs to the buyer.
In practice, a significant part of the tariff load really reached consumers.
The Federal Reserve found a statistically significant increase in the prices of goods most exposed to tariffs. She estimated that tariffs imposed before November 2025 increased the prices of core PCE goods by about3,1%by February 2026 and added about0.8 percentage pointsto core inflation in general.
Moreover, the increase in prices did not happen instantly.
It gradually spread along the chain:
tariff → prime cost → wholesale price → retail price → consumer.
And here begins the second part of the story.
The fare has disappeared. The price remains
Let's take a simplified example.
The company imported goods for $100.
After the introduction of the tariff, its costs increased to $120.
The price for the buyer rose from $130 to $150.
Then the fare was canceled.
The cost price approached $100 again.
But the price in the store does not have to automatically return to $130.
Why?
Because the market has already adapted to the new price.
If the buyer continues to buy the product for $150, the company has the opportunity to save part of the difference in its margin.
This does not mean that companies necessarily do this.
Butthere is no economic mechanism for automatic price refunds.
And now the state has begun to return tariffs
In February 2026, the US Supreme Court declared illegal large-scale tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on the basis of IEEPA.
After that, the process of returning funds to importers began.
And the amounts turned out to be huge.
As of August, more than 40 S&P 500 companies have already disclosed about$9.6 billion in tariff refunds, with approximately $2.1 billion already received in cash. Major recipients include Apple, Nike, FedEx, Amazon, and GM.
CBP had by this point processed about252 thousand applicationsfor returns and has worked with returns of approximately $128.7 billion.
That is, now there is a paradoxical situation:
the company first included the tariff in the economy of the product, and then received back the tariff payment itself.
The buyer does not receive an automatic refund of the difference between the old and new price.
Why was the consumer sidelined?
Because legally, it was not the buyer who paid the tariff.
It was paid byimporter.
And it is the importer who has the right to demand a refund from the state.
Economically, part of the cost could be shifted further along the chain — to the wholesaler, retailer and final buyer.
This is where the gap between:
who paid the state
and
who ultimately bore the economic burden.
Some companies do pass on refunds.
FedEx, for example, has started returning fare-related funds to customers. Amazon also announced its intention to compensate certain tariff costs to customers. Other companies use returns to lower their own costs or support margins.
Therefore, to say that"all refunds are taken by corporations", would be wrong.
But the opposite statement — that the consumer automatically received his money back — is also wrong.
This is where the profit effect comes in
If the company has already raised the price and then receives back part of the tariff expenses, its financial situation may improve.
That is why tariff refunds began to appear in the reports of large American companies as a noticeable profit factor.
For example, the WSJ reports that Apple's return is estimated at about$2.2 billion, Nike got about$986 million, FedEx — $800 million, Amazon — $640 million, and GM — about $500 million.
But that doesn't necessarily mean “net super-profit.”
Companies could incur other costs due to the trade war: logistics, change of suppliers, restructuring of supply chains, additional stocks and other costs.
Therefore, it is more correct to say:
returns can temporarily improve the margins and profits of individual companies.
And this is already evident in the US budget
For Washington, the story looks even stranger.
Tariffs were originally supposed to be a source of additional budget revenues.
But after the court decision, the state began to return a significant part of the collected funds.
In July 2026, the net result for customs duties turned out to be negative:$8.55 billion outflow, because returns exceeded current receipts. Reuters notes that tariff refunds were one of the factors of weak budget revenues this month.
It turns out an unusual chain:
state collects tariff → business raises prices → consumer pays more → tariff recognize illegal → state returns money to importer.
And the price of the goods may remain the same.
The most important question is: what will happen to the prices?
This is where the real economic intrigue begins.
If competition forces companies to pass on savings to buyers, prices may gradually decline.
If companies keep most of the savings, prices will remain high and profits will rise.
If companies partially reduce prices, we will get an intermediate option.
That is, the cancellation of the tariffdoes not in itself guarantee deflation.
The Federal Reserve has already noted that the tariff effect on consumer prices was formed gradually and by the beginning of 2026 had largely passed into prices.
And that means an important thing:
the tariff may disappear from the company's future expenses, but its past impact on the price level will remain.
Tariffs have become a consumption tax?
In an economic sense, there is a certain logic to this.
The tariff increases the cost of the imported goods.
If the company shifts this value further down the chain, the end user pays more.
The Fed's study on household spending showed that with an average increase in the tariff burden, prices rose by about1–2%and household spending decreased by about4%. The researchers also found a disproportionate burden on less well-off households.
Therefore, the tariff can really work asregressive tax mechanism: It strikes hardest at those who have fewer opportunities to change their consumption patterns.
But the story isn't over yet
Now the United States is actually moving into the second stage of the tariff experiment.
The first step was simple:
how much did the tariffs increase prices?
Now another question appears:
where will the economic effect go after the cancellation of tariffs?
In consumer prices?
To corporate profit?
In cost reduction?
Or a combination of all three?
This will determine the further impact of the tariff policy on inflation and the US stock market.
What does this mean for the market?
For an investor, tariff refunds are no longer just a story about trade policy.
They can affect companies' reporting, margin, and earnings expectations.
At the same time, reducing the tariff burden can reduce inflationary pressure on goods and create more space for the Fed's soft policy.
The result is a double effect:
for companies — potential cost reduction;
for the consumer — the possibility of reducing prices, but without a guarantee;
for the Fed — potentially less inflationary pressure;
for the budget — the loss of part of the expected tariff revenues.
Main conclusion
The tariff history of the United States turned out to be much more complicated than the slogan "foreigners will pay".
In reality, some of the costs were really transferred to the American consumer.
Now tariffs are canceled, and the state returns billions of dollars to importers.
Butcancellation of the import tax is not equal to an automatic refund of the price in the store.
And that is why the main question now is not:
“How much money will the US give back to the business?”
A:
"Where will these savings eventually go — back to the consumer or remain inside the corporate balance sheets?"
The answer to it will show how the American tariff war actually ended.
