Trump’s Two-Way Tariff Rip-Off: Consumers Pay More, Corporations Get Paid Back

Trump’s tariff policies have created a new corporate cash grab. For the past year, companies have used tariffs as cover to raise prices on American consumers. Now, many of those same corporations are lining up to get those same tariff costs refunded under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Corporate earnings calls reveal that many companies are discussing both tariff refund opportunities and additional price increases. The result is a two-way rip-off: where large corporations stand to pocket both the higher prices and the refunds while consumers and small businesses are left paying the price.

Billions in tariff refunds are already flowing back to corporations – with $22 billion refunded and nearly $90 billion under review. Among major retailers, Walmart, Target, and Nike are expected to receive the largest tariff refunds at $10.2 billion, $2.2 billion, and $1 billion, respectively. Small businesses, however, have struggled with technical barriers and delays accessing the U.S. Customs and Border Protection portal.

According to polling from Groundwork Collaborative and Data for Progress, Americans want tariff refunds returned to consumers, not corporations with nearly three-fourths (72%) of voters saying they do not trust businesses to lower prices if corporations receive refunds. A new Navigator Research report found that nearly two-thirds (62%) of voters in battleground districts said refunds should go to consumers, a view shared by majorities of Republicans (51%) and independents (63%). Earnings calls prove that those fears are well-founded, as corporations double-dipping to increase profits while consumers struggle to keep up with rising prices.

Companies are seeking tariff refunds while maintaining price increases. Earnings calls from the first quarter of 2026 suggest that tariff refunds could boost corporate profits without providing any relief to consumers.

• “We expect a full year branded price increase of low single digits […] Finally, we have submitted refund claims through the […] portal for $15.6 million of IEEPA tariff paid last year.” – Corey Baker, CFO, Vita Coco
• “The biggest place where we’ve taken price increases… has been targeted price increases for both our spring 26 and fall 26 product lines in the U.S., and those have been a high single-digit percent increase.” – Jim Swanson, EVP and CFO, Columbia Sports and “As of the date they were terminated, we had paid a total of approximately $80 million in IEEPA tariffs, approximately $55 million of which has been recognized through cost of sales.” – Tim Boyle, Chairman and CEO, Columbia Sports
• “We recorded a refund for the $65 million of IEEPA tariffs we paid in fiscal 2026 … In the spring of this year, around February, we took price increases in both full price and outlet channels, and that was to offset some of the tariffs that were impacting the company.” – John Idol, CEO, Capri Holdings, which owns consumer brands like Michael Kors and Jimmy Choo
• “We booked $13 million in expected refunds… Later in the year as a result of higher tariff rates, we did some selective price increases.” – Vojin Todorovic, CFO, Build-A-Bear
• “We think we can overcome [tariff headwinds] in our gross margin… there’s a lot of upside if we did bake in the IEEPA rates.” – K. Grassmyer, CFO of Oxford Industries, parent company of Tommy Bahama and Lilly Pulitzer

Corporations are turning tariff chaos into margin upside. Rather than lowering prices, many companies appear poised to maintain price increases and keep their tariff refunds.

• Walmart CFO John Rainey framed refunds as an earnings benefit: “It would be recognized in earnings from an accounting perspective. So that is a P&L [profit and loss] benefit if and when we should get that refund.”
• E.l.f Beauty expects tariff refunds to improve profitability enough to outweigh other cost increases. CEO Tarang Amin expects a gross margin spike as “the tariff refunds are going to more than offset that [cost increases] from a gross margin standpoint.”
• Under Armour told investors an IEEPA tariff refund would add ~150 basis points to gross margins in the first quarter of FY2027. Beyond the refund, the company said margin gains would also come from “pricing actions” and reduced discounting.
• Energizer’s CEO Mark LaVigne told investors tariff refunds were driving up the company’s gross margins: “We’re getting about 75% of that coming into the P&L in the second quarter, which is $48 million or so.”
• Newell Brands, the parent company of Sharipe, Coleman, Rubbermaid, and Yankee Candle, said it paid roughly $120 million in IEEPA tariffs in 2025 but had not yet booked a refund. Executives said that where tariff relief falls short, the company would use “targeted net pricing actions” to fill the balance.
• Advance Auto Parts CFO Ryan Grimsland said he would not expect market prices to roll back if tariff refunds make their way through the supply chain: “Prices tend to stick here… I wouldn’t expect that prices would roll back necessarily. But what it might do is stabilize them.”

Lawsuits challenge whether corporations can profit twice from tariffs.

• Consumers are pushing back on corporate ‘double-dipping’: proposed class actions against Amazon, FedEx, Lululemon, and Fabletics challenge corporate ability to recover tariff payments twice – once from consumers through higher prices and again from the federal government through refunds.
• A class action against Nike alleges the company raised prices on apparel to offset tariff costs while making no legally binding commitment to return overcharges to consumers if it receives refunds.
• Similar lawsuits against Costco and IKEA challenge how consumers who paid higher tariff prices have no direct path to recover refunds themselves.

Download a PDF of this fact sheet.