Costco and trump
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Costco has filed suit in the U.S. Court of International Trade to preserve its ability to recover tariffs it paid after President Donald Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping import duties, arguing the administration exceeded its authority and that without a court order the company could lose refund rights even if the Supreme Court later strikes the tariffs down [1] [2]. The move places the retail giant squarely against the administration’s legal posture and highlights broader commercial anxiety about the messy logistics of unwinding unprecedented executive tariffs [3] [4].
1. Costco’s legal claim: protect refunds, not a political referendum
Costco’s complaint asks the trade court to declare the IEEPA-based tariffs invalid, stop Customs from collecting duties on its shipments going forward, and order refunds of tariffs the company already paid, stressing that the statute cited by the White House does not expressly authorize tariffs [2] [3]. Multiple outlets emphasize that the suit is driven by a statutory and procedural concern — importers’ liquidation deadlines could foreclose refunds even if the Supreme Court ultimately finds the tariffs unlawful — a point businesses like Costco and trade lawyers have repeatedly raised [1] [5] [6].
2. Why Costco acted now: deadlines, consolidation and size matters
The filing was urgent because import entries are liquidated on statutory timetables; Costco argued a December deadline could extinguish its refund claims, prompting the firm to get a judgment in place before the Supreme Court issues its decision [1] [6]. The Court of International Trade has since moved to consolidate Costco’s case with suits from roughly 19 other companies, elevating the challenge from boutique litigation to a coordinated corporate response [7] [5].
3. The administration’s counterargument and the refund “mess”
The White House and its defenders have leaned into the practical chaos of undoing broad tariffs, warning of enormous economic consequences if the levies are invalidated and asking how refunds would be calculated if foreign producers had lowered prices or supply chains changed [8] [4]. Treasury and Justice officials have flagged the scale — roughly $130 billion in tariffs collected under the IEEPA as of a recent filing — to argue that permitting wholesale rewind could spawn complex, costly litigation and administrative headaches [4].
4. Politics, reputations and corporate calculus
Observers note Costco is one of the largest retailers to take this stand publicly, a choice buffered by its strong customer loyalty and a corporate track record of occasionally bucking political pressure, which may make it less fearful of backlash from the administration or partisan consumers [9] [10]. Critics on the right accused media of mischaracterizing the suit as an effort to “overturn” tariffs, while others say the company is simply litigating to protect its pocketbook — both views are present in coverage and advocacy commentary [11] [10].
5. What’s at stake beyond Costco: legal and economic ripple effects
If Costco and other consolidated plaintiffs secure preemptive relief, they could set a template for who is eligible for refunds and how Customs must handle liquidations; if they fail, many importers risk losing claims simply because of administrative deadlines, even if the Supreme Court later rules the tariffs unlawful [1] [4]. The dispute therefore isn’t just about one retailer’s balance sheet: it is a test of separation-of-powers limits on emergency executive authority, the administrative capacity to unwind mass tariff collection, and whether companies can reliably plan supply chains amid shifting trade policy [2] [3].
6. The fault lines to watch as the Supreme Court decision approaches
Watch for the Supreme Court’s ruling on IEEPA scope — the high court has already signaled skepticism about equating emergency powers with tariff authority — and for subsequent lower-court actions on liquidation deadlines and refund mechanisms, which may decide whether Costco’s preemptive litigation was prudent or merely the opening salvo in lengthy fights over billions collected [3] [10]. Reporting to date supplies robust documentation of Costco’s claims and the administration’s defenses, but the precise mechanics of refunds and who ultimately bears economic consequences remain matters the courts will have to map out [4] [5].