Illinois’ Pritzker demands $9B in tariff refunds from Trump after Supreme Court ruling
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Wednesday sent President Donald Trump an invoice seeking nearly $9 billion in tariff refunds for Illinois families, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the administration exceeded its authority in using emergency powers to impose broad trade duties that lifted prices at home.
- Advertisement -
“Cut the check,” Pritzker urged in a letter to the White House, accusing the tariff program of “wreaking havoc on farmers,” straining alliances abroad and sending grocery bills “through the roof.” He warned further legal action could follow if compensation is not forthcoming.
The 6-3 decision struck down core parts of Trump’s emergency tariff architecture, reshaping a central pillar of his trade approach. Trump responded that he will move to impose a 10% global tariff for 150 days to replace some of the emergency duties invalidated by the court.
Pritzker’s demand was quickly echoed on the West Coast. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said the tariff revenue “came from U.S. voters’ pockets and should be refunded.” In a blistering statement, Newsom called the duties “an illegal cash grab that drove up prices and hurt working families” and said, “Every dollar unlawfully taken must be refunded immediately, with interest.” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul criticized the tariffs as “an unlawful backdoor tax” on families, farmers and small businesses, though she stopped short of demanding refunds.
The refund push thrusts campaign-style populism into a legally complex, economically fraught fight. Announced last April, the tariffs have raised more than $130 billion from importers, according to administration figures, with a significant share of those costs passed on to consumers through higher prices on everything from groceries to building materials.
Who would get paid — and how — is unclear. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has expressed skepticism that ordinary Americans will see direct compensation. The Penn-Wharton Budget Model has estimated that total refunds could reach $175 billion, but the court’s ruling did not prescribe a repayment mechanism or specify beneficiaries.
In a dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the decision “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” Trump himself acknowledged any refund process could take years, a stark shift from his repeated promises last year that millions of Americans would get “a little rebate” because “we have so much money coming in.”
Pritzker’s invoice, which he said represents Illinois families’ share of the tariff burden, adds an aggressive, state-level bid to force relief now. Newsom’s broadside adds political pressure from the nation’s largest state. Both Democrats are widely seen as potential 2028 presidential contenders, a subtext not lost in their rhetoric.
The governors’ demands underscore the domestic fallout of a trade strategy that reshaped supply chains and escalated tensions with allies. Farmers absorbed volatile export markets; manufacturers paid more for inputs; and households confronted higher prices at checkout. Hochul pointed to construction and housing costs in citing the tariffs’ reach into “everything from groceries to building materials.”
For the White House and Treasury, the next steps are murky. The court’s rebuke raises thorny questions over whether importers — who remitted the duties — would be the primary recipients of any refunds, and whether savings would trickle down to consumers who ultimately bore much of the cost. Pritzker and Newsom argue the money should flow back to households directly. Bessent’s cool reception, along with Trump’s plan for a new across-the-board tariff, signals the fight over repayment — and the direction of U.S. trade policy — is far from settled.
What is clear is the scale and stakes: tens of billions of dollars at issue, a divided legal landscape over executive trade authority, and a fresh round of political and economic uncertainty as the administration tries to replace tools the Supreme Court has now stripped away.
By Abdiwahab Ahmed
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.
