John Law (3:24)

Thanks, Audrey, and welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, President Donald Trump said some countries have rejected his request to join a coalition to escort oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. The United Kingdom, Germany and Japan are among the countries that have said they will not participate. Separately, the Israeli military said it has begun a limited ground operation in Lebanon against Hezbollah. Number two, A federal judge temporarily blocked several vaccine policy decisions made by the Department of Health and Human Services Under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The judge found that the department's changes to childhood vaccine recommendations were likely carried out improperly and that Kennedy appointed new members to a vaccine advisory panel without observing proper federal procedures. Number three, Cuba reported a nationwide blackout after its energy grid collapsed on Monday, the third such incident in the past four months. The government said the Trump administration's energy blockade has imperiled its grid. Number four, President Trump announced that White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles has been diagnosed with breast cancer, saying the disease is in the early stage and her prognosis is excellent. Wiles will continue in her role while she receives treatment. And number five, Thousands of union workers at the world's largest meatpacking company went on strike in Colorado. The union claims the company committed unfair labor practices and offered insufficient pay increases.

Audrey Moorhead (4:58)

The Supreme Court says that President Trump's broad tariffs are illegal. So, number one, does that mean we, you and I, the average consumer gets a refund? And what exactly does that mean for President prices?

John Law (5:09)

Over the past week, the Trump administration has begun providing initial updates on its plan to reimburse $166 billion in tariffs collected over the past year that the Supreme Court invalidated in February. Approximately 330,000 importers are expected to be eligible for refunds, which must be paid with interest for context. On February 20, the Supreme Court voted 6, 3 to strike down President Trump's Liberation Day tariffs and other duties issued under the International Emergency Economic the ruling did not address whether the US Government must pay back tariff revenue it has collected. On March 4, Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. court of International Trade ruled that companies are entitled to repayment on the IEEPA tariffs and instructed Customs and Border Protection to immediately begin processing refunds. Following the Supreme Court's ruling, thousands of US Businesses filed lawsuits seeking reimbursement, but the Trump administration warned that the request could take over 4.4 million hours to manually process. On March 6, CBP told the judge that it could not immediately comply with his order, and Eaton temporarily suspended it to give them time to prepare a refund system. On Thursday, Brandon Lord, executive director of CBP's trade policy and Programs department, said the agency will begin testing new software designed to process refund requests in bulk in the upcoming weeks. Eaton called this update satisfactory progress, but said the administration must provide another update. This week, in addition to the lawsuits filed by businesses, consumers have filed class action suits asking companies that receive refunds to pass those returns on to customers who paid elevated prices while the tariffs were in place. On Wednesday, one such lawsuit was filed against Costco in federal court. This court seeks to prevent Costco, the third largest retailer in the world, from double recovery, it reads. Costco has made no commitment to return any portion of anticipated tariff refunds to the consumers who bore those costs. On March 5, the company said it will disperse any refunds it receives through lower prices for its members, adding that it did not pass on the full cost of the tariffs to its customers. Other companies, such as FedEx, said they will issue direct tariff refunds to customers if they are reimbursed. Today, we'll break down the latest on the refunds with views from the left and the right, and then Associate Editor Audrey Moorhead will give her take

Adam Grant (7:33)

foreign.

Isaac Saul (7:40)

We'll be right back after this quick break. Hey everyone, quick thought before we get started. If you listen to Tangle, it's probably because you're trying to escape the media echo chamber. But even when you read broadly, it's hard to see which stories are being emphasized and which ones are being ignored. This episode is brought to you by Ground News. Ground News is not a publisher. It's an app and website that gathers reporting on every news story from across the political spectrum and shows you each outlet's bias rating, factuality rating, and who owns it. It's more than just an aggregator. It gives you context on every perspective in one place so that you can make up your own mind. For example, a recent story about a bipartisan border deal collapsing was covered by 50 plus outlets. One left leaning headline read GOP sinks border deal under Trump pressure was while a right leaning one said Democrats block stronger border enforcement. Same event, very different framing. Ground News lets you compare that instantly and even flags blind spots stories disproportionately covered by one side. If you want unlimited access to these features, subscribe to the vantage plan for 40% off@groundnews.com tn that's groundnews.com tn promo code tn again groundnews.com tn code tn for 40% off if you care about seeing the full picture, I think you'll really value this tool.

Progressive Insurance Announcer (9:04)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance Fiscally responsible financial geniuses. Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

John Law (9:33)

All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. Many on the left blame conservatives on the court for creating a chaotic reimbursement process. Some argue consumers should receive refunds, too. Others say businesses are unlikely to pass on refunds to their customers. In balls and strikes, Steve Kennedy argued the Supreme Court's conservatives created the tariff refunds messages. The resolution of the legal challenge to President Donald Trump's IEEPA tariffs should have been straightforward. After the executive branch imposes sweeping tariffs without lawful authority, someone sues. And the courts, in light of the enormous political and economic stakes, temporarily prevent the tariffs from taking effect as litigation slogs on. Eventually, the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the merits and finds that Trump lacks the power to institute the tariffs, Kennedy said. But thanks to the court's earlier decision in Trump v. Casa, which effectively prohibited universal injunctions, federal judges did not enjoin the tariffs. Instead, importers had to pay the tariffs for nine months to the tune of $130 billion. Just as Brett Kavanaugh lamented that the refund process is likely to be a mess, he is right. But the time to prevent this mess was at the injunction phase, Kennedy said. For years, when lower courts blocked sweeping federal policies using injunctive relief, conservatives would complain of overreach so long as a Republican was president. Now, when the absence of that relief allows the implementation of unlawful policies, they pivot to the reliance interests those policies create. The longer and more harshly the government acts, the more disruptive it would become to stop it, encouraging increasing lawlessness. In Ms. Now, Ray Brescia said Americans deserve relief from the costs of Trump's illegal tariffs. Congress can help. Trump is treating this $175 billion like a bad debt on one of his failed real estate ventures. You can take him to court, but he'll fight having to pay a penny tooth and nail. What makes this fight different, however, is now he has the full weight and power of the Justice Department behind him doing his bidding at public expense, brescia wrote. But the administration shouldn't have the last word on the subject, and Congress shouldn't sit idly by while the administration treats this money like its own, forcing businesses and taxpayers to go through the trouble and the expense of having to claw back what is rightfully theirs. Instead of relying on the administration to reimburse Americans fairly and expeditiously, Congress can create an independent fund capitalized by the billions taken in as illegal tariffs, brescia said. Congress does this sort of thing with some frequency, as in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, for those exposed to the toxic chemicals at the Camp Lejeune military base and and those harmed in the Deepwater Horizon disaster through the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund. While such interventions typically follow a national disaster, here the disaster for the economy was the president's illegal tariffs. In the Los Angeles Times, Michael Hiltzig wrote, waiting for your tariff refund check? Forget about it. Asked about the prospects that Americans would be receiving refunds of the illegal tariffs paid since Trump imposed them in April, Treasury Secretary Bessant replied with a condescending smirk. I get a feeling the American people won't see it, hiltzig wrote. By not specifying a refund process, the Supreme Court decision left a vacuum that Bessant tried to fill in his comments. He explained why refunds will be nothing but a dream for the average American, and those comments were chilling. The government is poised to challenge importers applications for reimbursement, generating litigation that can be dragged out for weeks, months, years. What consumers don't know is how much of the tariffs have been passed down to them. Some sellers decided to eat some or all of the tariffs to keep consumer prices steady. Some may have stocked up on tariff eligible products ahead of the formal imposition of the levies, hiltzig wrote. Will retailers seek out customers who paid higher prices on products that were tariff to hand them refunds? None has said that such an eventuality is in the cards, though it might not be surprising to see some businesses use the end of tariffs as a marketing device. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right supports a timely refund process, and many contend the government has the power to send the refund checks quickly if it wants to. Some say the scope of the reimbursement should be limited to importers. Others worry about the high cost to taxpayers if payments are delayed. The Washington Post editorial board argued the stolen money needs to be returned. Just as Brett M. Kavanaugh warned in his dissent that refunding tariffs would be messy. That's true. Returning an estimated $175 billion, by some estimates to thousands of businesses will be tricky, but that's a flimsy rationalization for defending an abuse of power by the executive branch, the board wrote. The government already said it would last year when this case was being argued in lower courts. Attorneys for the Trump administration warned that they would need to refund the money if the tariffs got struck down. The government already has refund procedures for wrongly collected tariffs. Mistakes happen for legal tariffs all the time, and getting the money back is an administrative process that doesn't require lawsuits, the board said. The IRS refunded $461.2 billion to one 17.6 million individual income taxpayers in fiscal year 2024. By comparison, Customs and Border Protection's task is small. If CBP needs to hire some contractors for a few months to handle the one time surge in refunds, that's a small price to pay. In the Chicago Tribune, Sarah Albrecht said, refund the tariffs the right way, not with political math. Some businesses absorbed the tariffs, at least initially, cutting into margins to avoid sudden price hikes. Others passed along some or all of the cost. Some raised prices beyond the tariff itself because working capital costs rose. Tariffs must be paid before goods are sold, tightening cash flow and often requiring short term borrowing, Albrecht said. There is no single pass through rate. One retailer might have absorbed most of the cost to preserve customer loyalty. Another may have increased prices and still lost sales volume. Tariff refunds should follow the legal payment trail. They should be returned to the importer of record, whether that is a small business directly or a customs broker or a carrier clearing goods on its behalf. Those intermediaries can then reconcile accounts with their customers under the contracts that govern those transactions, Albrecht said. Some may choose to pass refunds directly to customers. Others may offer promotions, sales or price rollbacks. Some may reinvest in hiring or restore delayed raises. Others may do nothing at all because their overall costs, including financing fees and lost volume, exceeded what they were ever able to pass along. In Cato, Scott Lincecomb, Alfredo Carrillo Obregon and Chad Smithson wrote the government can't refund Trump's illegal tariffs as easily as it collected them. Unfortunately, the company's fight may just be getting started. If so, the drawn out process will likely deny many American firms the money that the government owes them and will likely cost taxpayers billions of additional dollars in interest, the author said. Customs and Border Protection said that it can't stop charging IEEPA tariffs on imports for which duty liability has not yet been finalized, that is liquidated. In other words, importers of the 20.1 million entries that remain unliquidated as of March 4 may still be charged IEEPA tariffs. The implementation challenges that CBP says it now faces are predictable technical and logistical issues that the agency should have considered months ago, especially since the government lost the IEEPA tariff case in every court that heard it, the authors wrote. The agency's predicament is a problem of the government's own making, and we seriously doubt that American importers or taxpayers would be granted the leniency that the agency is now requesting from the court. Alright, let's head over to Audrey for her take.

Audrey Moorhead (17:35)

All right, thanks, John. Let's just get right into my take. The Supreme Court did not indicate what should be done with improperly collected revenue, as Justice Brett Kavanaugh noted in his dissent from the court's February decision invalidating the majority of President Trump's tariffs. I disagreed with a lot of Kavanaugh's historical arguments about presidential authority, but he was right about one the Supreme Court has created a giant mess. As soon as the Learning Resources decision came down, thousands of lawsuits from importers followed, as well as some consumer class action suits. Nearly all of these suits are being funneled through the Court of International Trade, or cit, which assigned one of its members, Judge Richard Eaton, as the sole arbiter of these tariff cases. Since the Supreme Court didn't indicate a framework through which the government should seek to provide relief, it was entirely possible that each importer would need to fight for a refund individually. But then, in one sweeping order in a nondescript tariff case notable only because it asked for emergency relief, Judge Eaton ordered the federal government to issue refunds to nearly all importers who were impacted by Trump's sweeping tariffs. During the hearing for that case, Judge Eaton told the federal government, I believe there will be no chaos associated with the provision of these refunds and that it will not result in a message, end quote. I don't know why Eaton was so optimistic. A lot of the pundits whose arguments John read earlier are tacitly optimistic too, focusing their discussion on whether consumers will receive refunds. But at this rate, some of the companies who pay duties to the government might be lucky to get refunds at all. President Trump himself seems set on dragging out the process, saying the administration will be in court for the next five years fighting the refunds. His stance indicates what the federal government's response to mandated refunds will delay and argue At a first glance, the federal government response looks like compliance. Following Judge Eaton's March 4th order, Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, released a four step plan for processing refunds called the Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries System, or CAEP system, which CBP says will be operational within 45 days. But when you look more closely, you can see the government's obstinance clear as day. For one, the CAPE system seems designed to place more burdens on the importers filing for refunds than on the government, meaning it will likely keep some importers from getting the refunds they're entitled to. Furthermore, the federal government has until May 6 to challenge Eaton's order in federal court, and I fully expect it to do so. In fact, depending on the legal basis for the challenge, I think it's possible, even likely, that the government will succeed at the federal Circuit Court, potentially setting up another battle at the Supreme Court. And finally, even if the refunds proceed, the process may take years to complete. That's part delay. As Scott Linkicomi, Alfredo Carrillo Abregan and Chad Smithson argued for the Cato Institute, CAPE requires importers to jump through various hoops that they're not necessarily equipped to jump through, and those hoops actually come from CBP Reinventing the wheel the agency has issued refunds for improperly collected tariffs before, as recently as 2018, using automated processes and procedures for handling larger refunds. It stands to reason that CBP should be able to use such pre existing systems for the court ordered IEEPA refunds, even if the sheer scale of those refunds meant they'd take longer. The fact that CAPE creates additional burdens on importers then signals that the federal government intends to keep as much of the illegally collected duties as possible. Now for part two of the federal government's strategy argue here, Judge Eaton's swift, broad rulings may have played right into the administration's hands. Eaton's order came down in the tariff case Atmospiltration Incorporated v. United States, which ended up on his desk because it asked for emergency relief to prevent CBP from finalizing import payments that included the improper tariffs. But Eaton held the first hearing in this tariff case even after the litigants tried to withdraw their emergency request, which is odd. Then, rather than issuing a decision specific to the Atmos filtration case, he demanded broad refunds to all importers. In that order, Eaton explicitly declared that the CIT is exempt from the prohibition on national injunctions the Supreme Court laid out in its 2024 decision TRUMP VI CASA, because the CIT was not established by the Judiciary act of 1789 but by a separate 1980 law. Since the CASA opinion focused on the authority granted to federal courts by the 1789 law, Eaton reasoned that the CIT wasn't necessarily included within it. Eaton further interpreted decisions from the Supreme Court to acknowledge the CIT's sole authority over matters of international trade. I don't think Eaton's argument holds water. The government is almost certain to appeal his decision, likely on the grounds that Eaton's order actually should be bound by cossa, under which the broad refunds would be improper. The government successfully made a similar appeal when The CIT blocked Trump's tariffs in the initial tariff case, 2025's VOS selections v. Trump. Even though the Federal Circuit Court agreed with the CIT that Trump's tariffs were illegal, it still voided the CIT's injunction against the tariffs because of CASA. With this precedent already drawing a line around the CIT's universal injection power, I seriously doubt that the same court will be convinced in the other direction by Eaton's reasoning here. Eaton's universal order was undoubtedly intended to provide redress to the US Importers who suffered financial losses from illegally imposed duties. And his quick, sweeping actions are also likely driven by urgencies surrounding the building costs of dragging out the process. The longer the government delays its refunds to importers, the more interest accrues on those refunds. The Cato Institute estimates that for every month refunds are delayed, the US government will have to pay an additional $700 million in interest. By that logic, Eaton's demands for a speedy universal resolution to the refund question is also a result of his vested interest in limiting costs on the US Taxpayer. In that sense, I'm glad Eaton takes his duty as an arbiter of justice seriously. But good intentions don't necessarily make good judicial practice and conferring additional authority upon oneself as a judge or attempting to sidestep apparent restraints on one's authority is almost certainly bad judicial practice. Good intentions pave the road towards judicial overreach, slowly amassing power in the hands of appointed judges rather than elected officials. That's one of the implicit points Justice Amy Coney Barrett made in her majority opinion in casa. It's the judge's job to act with the restraint appropriate to his role, even in the face of unrestrained, inappropriate action from the executive. Behind all these logistical issues is the fundamental culprit of much of our modern political woes. We only have the imperial executive and the imperial judiciary because we have an impotent Congress. The federal government issued tariffs using shaky legal authority and now is fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying the refunds the court has said it owes. The federal courts are similarly overstretching their authority in their attempts to curtail executive power, and in so doing, I fear they're also drawing out the process of giving plaintiffs actual relief. If Congress were willing to do its job and reassert its power of the purse, it could certainly create legislation mandating straightforward processes for refunds. Unfortunately, it seems increasingly clear that Congress is unwilling to do anything other than fight over funding the government itself, leaving the judicial and the executive branches to fight their own entrenched power struggle with US Companies and consumers caught in the no man's land between them Foreign.

Isaac Saul (25:24)

We'll be right back after this quick break.

Fin AI Advertisement Announcer (25:30)

AI is transforming customer service. It's real and it works. And with fin, we've built the number one AI agent for customer service. We're seeing lots of cases where it's solving up to 90% of real queries for real businesses. This includes the real world, complex stuff like issuing a refund or canceling an order. And we also see it when FIN goes up against competitors. It's top of all the performance benchmarks, top of the G2 leaderboard, and if you're not happy, we'll refund you up to a million dollars. Which I think says it all. Check it out for yourself at fin.AI

Progressive Insurance Announcer (26:00)

this episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with the name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates price and coverage match limited by state law, not available in all states.

Audrey Moorhead (26:30)

That's it for my take. So now for today's reader question. Ryan from New York, NY asks my question is regarding the officer who was acquitted in the Uvalde School shooting. Could you discuss the specific charges and the reasoning for the dismissal? Were the initial charges an overreach? In January, Uvalde School District Officer Adrian Gonzalez was acquitted of all criminal charges for his actions during the 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers. Gonzalez was charged with 29 counts of child endangerment, one for each of the 19 children killed and 10 others who were injured but survived. The trial was the first legal action taken against authorities for the widely criticized delayed police response to the shooting. After a heavily armed 18 year old entered Robb Elementary, 376 armed guards responded to the scene. The combined force then waited over an hour before confronting the gunman. Uvalde police initially claimed that a school resource officer confronted the shooter before he entered the building, but that statement was later retracted. Once at the school, police officers waited for more than an hour before storming the building. One mother on the scene had been handcuffed for accosting the police to act, then convinced officers to remove her handcuffs, scaled a fence, entered the school on her own, and removed her own two children from the school. Adrian Gonzalez was the first to arrive at Robb elementary following reports of an active shooter. According to multiple accounts, he waited several minutes before entering the school and evacuating some of the children, never encountering the shooter. Prosecutors argued that Gonzalez negligently waited three and a half minutes to enter and failed to adhere to his active shooter training. The defense said that he assessed the situation for only two minutes before safely evacuating children and was being scapegoated for the failures of the entire department. The acquittal is a mixed bag. Charging Gonzalez with child endangerment certainly seems fair. Rifle shots were ringing out when he arrived at the scene, and he did not do what he was supposed to do in that situation and move towards gunfire without waiting for backup. If he had acted more decisively, more lives plausibly could have been saved. However, this particular legal response seemed disproportionate. Rather than charging the first individual on the scene with culpability for all the killed and injured children, the officers who subsequently arrived also should have faced consequences for their negligence. The Texas Tribune described the combined force that waited outside Robb elementary as, quote, larger than the garrison that defended the Alamo. Yet Gonzalez was the only officer individually charged with the crime. That said, Gonzalez's case is not the only legal action taken following the shooting. Uvalde School's police chief, Pete Arredondo, has been charged with child endangerment and three Border Patrol agents have been sued to compel their testimony in Arredondo's case. Additionally, families have filed civil lawsuits against the state. The social media company Meta, the maker of the rifle used in the shooting, and the maker of the video game Call of Duty, and the town of Uvalde itself has already settled with the families for $2 million. That's it for today's reader question, so now I'll head back to John to finish us out.

John Law (29:44)

Thanks Audrey. Here's your under the Radar story for today folks. This week the US Postal Service is expected to notify Congress that it is on track to run out of money in less than a year and request emergency actions to stabilize its finances. Postmaster General David Steiner will reportedly ask a House Oversight subcommittee to approve higher stamp prices, additional loans and revised investment strategies. According to Steiner, the agency could move to end six day a week deliveries, close branches in remote locations or raise first class mail stamp prices without urgent measures. The Government Accountability Office is also expected to advise lawmakers that addressing the Postal Service's business model is critical to avoid billions in new annual expenses for retiree healthcare, likely in 2031. Reuters has this story and there's a link in today's episode description and last but not least, our have a nice day story. Exactly three weeks after the U.S. men's Olympic Hockey Team defeated Canada in the gold medal game, the U.S. men's Paralympic squad repeated the feat, beating Canada 62 in Milan, Italy on Sunday. This time, however, the United States was the juggernaut, claiming its third straight Paralympic gold medal and becoming the first hockey team, Olympic or Paralympic to win five back to back titles, including non Paralympic competitions. This team is so special. We love each other, us Defenseman Jack Wallace said. It was unbelievable. I love these guys so much. NBC Olympics has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. Alright everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com where you can sign up for a newsletter membership, podcast membership or a bundled membership that gets you a discount on both. We'll be right back here tomorrow for Isaac, Audrey and the rest of the crew. This is John Law signing off. Have a great day y'.

Audrey Moorhead (31:31)

All.

John Law (31:32)

Peace.

Isaac Saul (31:33)

Our Executive Editor and founder is me, Isaac Saul and our Executive Producer is John Walsh. Today's episode was edited and engineered by Dewey Thomas. Our Editorial staff is led by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman with Senior Editor Will Kaback and Associate Editors Audrey Moorhead, Lindsey Knuth and Bailey Saul. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. To learn more about Tangle and to sign up for a membership, please visit our website@retangle.com.

Progressive Insurance Announcer (32:12)

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Shifting a little money here, a little there, and hoping it all works out well? With the name your price tool from Progressive, you can be a better budgeter and potentially lower your insurance bill too. You tell Progressive what you want to pay for car insurance and they'll help you find options within your budget. Try it today@progressive.com, progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. Not available in all states.

Adam Grant (32:41)

Hey, this is Adam Grant, host of ted's podcast Rethinking with Adam Grant. Let me share with you why smart finance leaders turn to Bill. They know that clarity isn't just helpful, it's strategic. As the intelligent finance platform, Bill uses AI to automate the busy work for nearly half a million businesses so they can focus on intentional growth, eliminate the friction and start scaling with the proven choice. Visit bill.compenven to talk with an expert about automating your business finances and get a $250 gift card as a thank you. That's bill.com proven terms and conditions apply. See Offer page for details. With its two juicy beef patties, three slices of melted cheese and tangy Big Arch sauce, the Big Arch is what happens when you start making a McDonald's burger and never stop. The Big Arch the most McDonald's McDonald's burger yet for a limited time.