**🚨 BREAKING: More than 1,500 companies have filed lawsuits seeking over $150 billion in tariff refunds tied to Trump-era trade policies**

Washington D.C. – February 17, 2026

In what legal and trade experts are already calling the largest coordinated corporate challenge to U.S. tariff policy in modern history, more than 1,500 American companies and industry associations have filed lawsuits in federal courts across the country demanding the refund of over $150 billion in duties collected under Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs imposed during Donald Trump’s first term (2018–2020).

The filings, which began surging in late January 2026 and accelerated sharply after the Supreme Court’s February 10 ruling in *Trump v. United States* narrowed the scope of presidential trade-action immunity, represent an unprecedented backlash against the so-called “Trump tariffs” on steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels, and approximately $380 billion worth of Chinese goods. Companies ranging from small Midwest manufacturers to Fortune 500 giants argue that the tariffs were unlawfully applied, lacked sufficient national-security justification, or violated procedural requirements under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Trade Act of 1974.

Leading the charge are some of the biggest names in American industry:

– Ford, General Motors and Stellantis are seeking roughly $18 billion in combined refunds for steel and aluminum duties paid on vehicle and parts imports.
– Apple, Dell, HP and other tech giants are demanding more than $32 billion related to Section 301 tariffs on Chinese components and finished goods.
– The American Petroleum Institute and several major refiners are claiming $14 billion in duties paid on imported steel used in pipelines and drilling equipment.
– Retailers including Walmart, Target and Home Depot, along with the National Retail Federation, have filed consolidated actions seeking $41 billion, arguing the tariffs functioned as a hidden sales tax passed directly to consumers.

The total claimed amount now exceeds $152 billion — more than double the $71 billion in duties actually collected by U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the 2018–2021 period. The discrepancy arises because many plaintiffs are seeking not only principal refunds but also compound interest (at rates between 5–8% annually), legal fees, and punitive damages for alleged bad-faith administration of the tariff programs.

The legal theories vary but converge on three main arguments:

1. **Ultra vires action** — the tariffs exceeded statutory authority because the national-security justification for Section 232 duties on steel and aluminum was pretextual.
2. **Procedural violations** — the USTR failed to provide adequate notice-and-comment periods or meaningful consideration of public input during the Section 301 China tariff process.
3. **Takings without just compensation** — several steel-consuming manufacturers argue the duties amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property.

The sheer scale of the litigation has overwhelmed federal district courts. Chief Justice John Roberts has already directed the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to consider consolidating the cases in a single venue — most likely the Court of International Trade in New York — to avoid conflicting rulings and duplicative discovery.

The Trump administration, speaking through spokespeople aligned with Acting President JD Vance, dismissed the lawsuits as “lawfare funded by China and corporate elites.” In a Truth Social post this morning, Trump himself wrote: “1,500 crybaby companies want their tariff money back? They got CHEAPER steel and aluminum because of me! Now they want refunds while China laughs? Sad! We will FIGHT every single lawsuit and WIN BIG!!!”

Yet behind the bravado, the political damage is mounting. Several Republican senators from manufacturing-heavy states — including Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — have quietly expressed concern that a wave of successful refunds could force the Treasury to issue massive payments at a time when the federal deficit already exceeds $36 trillion. “If these cases succeed,” one senior GOP aide told reporters on background, “it will be politically toxic to defend the tariffs in 2026 campaign ads while voters see their tax dollars being sent back to multinational corporations.”

On the Democratic side, Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) called the filings “a long-overdue reckoning.” “For years we warned that these tariffs were a tax on American consumers and businesses. Now the bill is coming due — and taxpayers will foot it.”

Markets reacted with volatility. The Dow fell 1,100 points in early trading before recovering slightly as investors weighed the likelihood of partial refunds versus prolonged litigation. Steel and aluminum producers saw sharp declines, while importers and retailers rallied on hopes of eventual restitution.

International trade partners are watching closely. Canada and the European Union — both hit hard by Section 232 duties — have signaled they may file amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs. China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a rare statement welcoming “any development that corrects past unilateral trade distortions.”

As the lawsuits move toward consolidation and discovery, one thing is already certain: the Trump-era tariffs, once hailed by supporters as a tool to bring manufacturing home, are now facing the largest financial reckoning in U.S. trade history. Whether the companies ultimately recover tens or hundreds of billions — or whether the cases drag on for a decade — the political and economic legacy of those duties will be debated for years to come.

For Donald Trump, the timing could not be worse. With impeachment articles advancing, property seizures ongoing, and his own post-presidency influence under siege, the prospect of corporate America successfully suing to undo one of his signature policies may prove to be the most painful reversal of all.