When it comes down to a choice between staying in President Donald Trump’s good graces or getting back millions of dollars owed to them, companies are taking the cash.
But many are doing their best to avoid Trump’s eye as they do it.
The president is still stewing over the February Supreme Court defeat that knocked down many of the tariffs he imposed on countries around the world, and forced his administration to start giving back the $166 billion it collected from importers. On K Street, rumors have spread that the White House is keeping a blacklist of companies that have pursued refunds by suing the administration. Asked about those fears, Trump told CNBC last month, “they’ve got to know me very well.”
If companies don’t apply for refunds, he added, “I’ll remember them.”
That hasn’t stopped more than 26,000 companies from signing up for the refund portal that U.S. Customs and Border Protection scrambled to set up this spring, and is expected to begin issuing payments this week. That includes a number of big-name companies that have previously kept their heads down in the legal fights over Trump’s tariffs, including Apple, Ethan Allen and Mattel, according to their quarterly financial earning calls and disclosures.
The bet: that using the portal — which is not public — and burying their refund totals in the fine print of SEC filings is far less likely to attract Trump’s ire than headline-grabbing lawsuits. But there are downsides to avoiding the courts, making them more likely to miss out on refunds if delays or disputes arise. And it’s a sign that, even as companies are eager to recoup millions and in some cases, billions, of dollars in tariff payments, they are still wary of a president known for nursing grudges — and not afraid to use his power to enact retribution.
Nat Halvorson, a partner in Baker McKenzie’s International Trade practice who recently left the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, said that fear is giving companies pause, even as most are ultimately deciding to seek the refunds they are owed.
“What is it worth to you to go after the money, when it comes with an incalculable risk?” he said.
The White House did not respond to a request to comment.
But over the course of his two terms in the White House, Trump has never shied from using his bully pulpit, often in the form of social media, to push companies to do his bidding or punish those who do not. Trump criticized Walmart last spring, after the company said it would raise prices due to tariffs and, after his administration attacked Amazon over a reported plan to display tariff costs to consumers, the e-commerce giant quickly walked back the plans. The administration, moreover, has shown it is willing to use all sorts of federal levers to go after private entities that have crossed it, from investigating universities to withholding federal contracts from tech companies and law firms, making clear the threat is not just rhetorical.
Story Continues
Trade policy is particularly close to the president’s heart. “The president’s signature economic policy is tariffs… I think people perceive it as personal to the president,” said one lobbyist who works with companies on trade issues, granted anonymity to speak candidly.
That didn’t deter more than 1,500 companies from suing the administration in the U.S. Court of International Trade after the Supreme Court held oral arguments last fall in a combined set of lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump’s country-specific tariffs. Anticipating that those duties, which were based on a 1974 emergency powers law, would be struck down, major retailers including Costco and J. Crew Group went to the federal trade court to argue that their tariffs should be refunded, even if they had surpassed certain traditional customs deadlines. So did Diageo Americas, which owns alcohol brands like Tanqueray and Guiness.
Others filed similar suits after the Supreme Court ruled against the tariffs, including Busy Baby, a Minnesota based company that expressed uncertainty about whether the Trump administration would issue refunds in its suit.
Costco’s lawsuit drew national headlines. To avoid similar attention, some businesses eschewed filing suits at the trade court, passing up on legal action that could serve as a potential backstop to preserve their rights to a refund.
Caterpillar, Inc. was one of them. And the world’s largest construction equipment manufacturer has been cagey about whether or how much it stands to receive in refunds, after reporting a $2 billion in tariff losses in 2026.
“We are not currently including any [tariff] refunds as the result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” Kyle Epley, the incoming CFO of the company, told shareholders on its first quarter earnings call.
Apple did not sue at the CIT either, although CEO Tim Cook confirmed during the company’s April earnings call that it is “following established processes” to seek refunds. The tech giant plans “to reinvest any amount we receive back into U.S. innovation and advanced manufacturing. These would be new investments and would be in addition to our prior commitments in the U.S,” Cook added.
The CBP refund portal, however, is so far only handling the most straightforward refund applications — and some applicants are being told that there are errors in their filings. That has pushed some companies to continue to file lawsuits in the hope of preserving their rights to a future pay-out.
“Companies that are continuing to file [lawsuits] now are often companies that like to just know that all of their interests are being protected,” said Kelsey Christensen, a trade attorney at Clark Hill. “They don’t want to have to think about it months down the line.”
There’s another benefit for executives to keep their pursuit of tariff refunds under the radar. Becoming known as the company that got a windfall in refunds could open them up to class action lawsuits from consumers looking to push back on price increases — like the one Costco members filed in March.
“No one wants to be the headline company,” Halvorson said. “Being in the spotlight as the company that got their refunds is probably the nightmare of most CEOs.”
