English News / 英文新聞閱讀
經濟 · Economics · · 732 words · B1-B2

US Government Refunds $100 Billion in Tariff Payments

After a major court ruling, the Trump administration returns money to businesses while new trade taxes face legal challenges.

🕒 生成時間: (台北時間)

⚠️ 本文由 AI 綜合多家報導生成,事實請以原始來源為準。

Summary · 摘要

The US government has refunded $100 billion to businesses following a Supreme Court decision that declared previous tariffs unlawful. These payments represent about 60% of the total money collected under the administration's earlier trade policies. While some companies are using these funds to lower prices for customers, other refunds remain stuck due to administrative issues. Meanwhile, the administration has introduced new tariffs on dozens of countries, citing concerns over forced labor. This move has already triggered a new lawsuit from a group of 25 US states.

美國政府在最高法院裁定先前的關稅違法後,已向企業退還一千億美元。這些款項約佔行政部門先前貿易政策下所徵收關稅總額的百分之六十。雖然部分企業正利用這些資金降低顧客的消費價格,但仍有部分退款因行政問題而卡住。與此同時,行政部門以強迫勞動問題為由,對數十個國家實施了新關稅。此舉已引發由二十五個美國州組成的聯盟提起新訴訟。

Ongoing story · 追蹤中的新聞

This article follows earlier coverage on the same developing story.

  • US Government Returns $100 Billion in Tariff Refunds · 2026年8月6日

    The Trump administration has returned $100 billion to businesses following a Supreme Court ruling that declared previous import taxes unlawful. These tariffs, which are taxes on goods brought into the country, were originally collected under emergency economic powers. While many companies have received their money back, billions of dollars in claims are still being processed. Meanwhile, the government has introduced a new set of tariffs targeting dozens of nations. This move has led to a fresh lawsuit from a group of 25 US states that oppose the new taxes.

閱讀模式 ·

The US government has officially paid back $100 billion in tariff refunds to businesses, according to reports from customs officials. Tariffs are taxes placed on foreign goods as they enter a country. These taxes are paid by domestic businesses and importers, not by foreign governments. When these costs rise, companies often pass the extra expense to shoppers through higher retail prices. This latest repayment represents about 60% of all tariff money collected by the government under the administration's previous trade policy, which was famously referred to as "Liberation Day" tariffs.

This massive payout follows a major decision by the US Supreme Court in February. The court ruled that the broad import taxes, which the White House had introduced using emergency economic powers, were unlawful. The administration had originally used a 1977 law to justify these measures, arguing that the president had the power to regulate trade during an emergency. However, the policy faced significant criticism from businesses that were forced to pay higher taxes on their shipments, leading to concerns about rising costs for everyday Americans.

According to BBC Business, a significant amount of money is still waiting to be returned. Nearly $29 billion in potential refunds is currently under review by trade authorities, while another $1.6 billion remains stuck because some companies have not yet provided their correct banking details to the government. As US Customs and Border Protection continues to process these claims, the total amount of money returned is expected to grow.

Some major corporations have already received large sums. Amazon, for example, received about $600 million in refunds during the second quarter. According to the company's finance chief, Brian Olsavsky, Amazon plans to use some of these funds to support lower store prices for their customers. However, because US customs law only allows the original importers to claim these refunds, it is entirely up to individual businesses to decide whether they will pass these savings on to the public.

Even as the government processes these refunds, the trade landscape remains unstable. After the Supreme Court ruling in February, the administration introduced a temporary 10% universal tariff. When that expired, it was replaced by a new series of tariffs on 60 trading partners. The Guardian reports that the administration is now applying these new levies on more than 80 countries, including the UK, Mexico, Canada, Australia, India, China, and the 27 member states of the European Union. Officials claim these new measures are necessary because these countries have failed to properly address the issue of forced labor in their production processes.

This new round of taxes has sparked immediate legal action. A coalition of 25 US states has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the new tariffs are simply a way to replace the taxes that the Supreme Court already declared illegal. The states claim that these new levies cover nearly all US imports and are being used as a pretext—a false reason—to avoid the court's earlier ruling. Letitia James, the New York attorney general, stated that the administration is "once again trying to illegally raise taxes on families and businesses."

These trade tensions come at a time when the federal budget is under pressure. While the government saw some improvement in its finances last year, the deficit—the amount by which government spending exceeds its income—has grown again. It reached $1.37 trillion in the first nine months of the fiscal year, which is a 2% increase compared to the same period in 2025. The administration continues to defend its use of tariffs, pitching them as a way to bring back domestic production, secure better trade deals, and eventually close the federal budget gap.

As the legal battle between the states and the White House unfolds, businesses remain caught in the middle. For now, companies are waiting to see if the courts will block these new measures as they did with the previous ones. With billions of dollars still in the balance and new trade barriers appearing, the future of US trade policy remains uncertain for both international partners and domestic shoppers.

選擇題練習 · Quiz

4

  1. 細節 Detail

    1.What is the primary reason that some of the $29 billion in potential tariff refunds remains unpaid?

  2. 推論 Inference

    2.Based on the text, what can be inferred about the relationship between tariff refunds and retail prices?

  3. 單字情境 Vocabulary

    3.In the sixth paragraph, what does the word 'pretext' mean as it is used in the context of the new tariffs?

  4. 主旨 Main Idea

    4.What is the central message of the article regarding US trade policy?

請回答全部 4 題後再提交

易誤解詞彙 · Words to watch

這些字字面意思和文中用法不同,或是不常見的詞性/片語。

pass verb
To transfer a cost or burden to someone else.
轉嫁(費用或負擔)。
💡 常見作「通過」或「經過」,這裡指將成本轉嫁給消費者。文中:companies often pass the extra expense to shoppers through higher retail prices.
stuck adjective
Unable to move or progress.
卡住的、動彈不得的。
💡 常見作「黏住」,這裡形容資金因手續問題無法發放。文中:while another $1.6 billion remains stuck because some companies have not yet provided their correct banking details to the government.
pitching verb (present participle)
To promote or attempt to persuade someone to accept an idea or product.
推銷、極力宣傳(某個想法)。
💡 常見作「投球」,這裡指政府極力向大眾宣傳關稅政策的好處。文中:The administration continues to defend its use of tariffs, pitching them as a way to bring back domestic production, secure better trade deals, and eventually close the federal budget gap.
in the balance idiom
In a state of uncertainty; not yet decided.
懸而未決、處於不確定狀態。
💡 字面意思容易誤解為「在天平上」,這裡指結果尚未確定。文中:With billions of dollars still in the balance and new trade barriers appearing, the future of US trade policy remains uncertain for both international partners and domestic shoppers.

原始來源 · Sources

本文內容由 AI 從以下來源綜合改寫。事實請以原始來源為準。

Generated by: gemini/gemini-3.1-flash-lite