On November 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court convened to hear arguments on the legality of tariffs imposed during President Donald Trump’s administration. While the justices offered no timeline for a final decision, the stakes could not be higher—not just for policymakers in Washington, but for businesses and everyday Americans grappling with the ever-present question of affordability. As the legal drama unfolds, a cascade of lawsuits and political maneuvering is sending shockwaves through the nation’s economy and political landscape.
Costco, the retail giant known for its bulk bargains, made headlines on November 28 by filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade. Their goal? To secure clarity on whether businesses like theirs will be eligible for refunds if the Supreme Court ultimately rules Trump’s tariffs unlawful. According to Bloomberg, Costco’s move is just the latest in a growing trend, as major corporations rush to beat a looming December 15 deadline—a date after which, due to a little-known customs rule called “liquidation,” tariff payments could become permanently locked and non-refundable.
Costco’s lawsuit doesn’t specify the exact financial toll the tariffs have taken, but the company’s urgency is clear. Customs and Border Protection, the retailer claims, refused to extend the deadline for finalizing tariff calculations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This, Costco argues, could jeopardize their ability to secure full refunds, even if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs in the future. As reported by Bloomberg, “Costco says it needs fast court action because Customs and Border Protection refused to extend the deadline for finalizing tariff calculations under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.”
Costco’s approach is far from isolated. Other major firms, including Revlon and Kawasaki Motors, have also filed lawsuits in recent weeks, each seeking to protect their financial interests amid growing legal uncertainty. The reason, as Mario Nawfal noted on X and cited by Bloomberg, is simple: “This isn’t about whether tariffs are good or bad, but about a legal ‘time bomb’ where the government might be forced to refund hundreds of billions in tariffs already collected.” Nawfal warns that if Costco receives even a small measure of legal relief, “every retailer and importer could start suing, creating a huge wave of cases.”
Why the sudden legal scramble? The answer lies in the mechanics of U.S. customs law. The “liquidation” process finalizes tariff calculations, and once complete, it can permanently block any possibility of refunds. With the December 15 deadline fast approaching, companies are taking unprecedented action—filing refund lawsuits before the Supreme Court has even rendered its decision. As Nawfal observes, “this situation is unprecedented, because companies never file refund lawsuits before a Supreme Court ruling — but now they fear losing refund rights.”
Tariffs have been a cornerstone of Trump’s economic strategy, generating tens of billions of dollars in revenue each month. In fact, Trump has floated the idea of replacing the federal income tax with tariffs—a move that would fundamentally reshape how the U.S. government funds itself. But this legal uncertainty has put the entire framework at risk. If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the government could be forced to refund hundreds of billions of dollars that have already been spent, potentially triggering a budget crisis, roiling bond markets, and sending interest rates soaring. Nawfal cautions, “If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the government may have to refund all past tariffs—money that has already been spent—creating a gigantic budget crisis.”
Costco, for its part, has been pulling out all the stops to mitigate the impact of tariffs. According to CFO Gary Millerchip, “We’re doing everything we can… whether that’s working with the suppliers to find efficiencies to offset the impact of tariffs, or whether it’s sourcing with them often to different countries.” The company has explored shipping items to non-U.S. markets, buying inventory early, consolidating suppliers, and changing merchandise when costs become prohibitive. But as the legal uncertainty drags on, these efforts may not be enough to shield Costco from potential financial fallout.
Meanwhile, the larger economic context is anything but simple. On December 2, Bloomberg reported on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) latest forecasts, highlighting the global economy’s surprising resilience in the face of tariffs—including those implemented under Trump. Economic forecasting itself has become a high-wire act, buffeted by the aftershocks of Brexit, the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, inflation shocks, and even the rise of artificial intelligence. Yet, as Bloomberg notes, the world economy has managed to weather these storms better than many experts predicted.
Still, not everyone is convinced that Trump’s economic approach is grounded in strategy. A letter published on December 2 in Cleveland.com lambasted the former president’s policies as impulsive and lacking in coherent planning. The writer argued, “There are no ‘policies,’ only whims and tantrums,” expressing a deeply negative view of Trump’s economic stewardship and questioning the very existence of a grand design behind his administration’s moves.
Amid the legal and political tumult, the concept of “affordability” has taken center stage in American political discourse. As G. Elliott Morris explained in a December 2 analysis for Strength In Numbers, both Democrats and Republicans have seized on the issue, making it a defining theme of 2025. Democrats began emphasizing affordability after Zohran Mamdani’s primary win for New York City mayor in June, and Republicans—including Trump—have since adopted similar messaging to address voters’ economic anxieties.
Affordability, as Morris’s data show, isn’t just about the price of groceries or rent. It encompasses concerns about economic mobility, healthcare, education, housing, and taxes—essentially, the entire spectrum of what it means to get by in America today. The term has become “the new ‘inflation’—a handy buzzword that captures a general economic malaise that is much broader than the narrow concept meant by the single word.”
Yet, President Trump’s own messaging on the topic has been anything but consistent. On December 2, during a cabinet meeting, he dismissed affordability concerns as a “con job” created by Democrats, declaring, “They just say the word. It doesn’t mean anything to anybody. They just say it—affordability. I inherited the worst inflation in history. There was no affordability. Nobody could afford anything.” This marked a sharp departure from his remarks just days earlier, when he called himself the “affordability president” and touted his efforts to lower prices. According to The New York Times, this rhetorical pivot comes as the Trump administration rolls out new affordability policies in response to Democratic victories in recent state and local elections.
Complicating matters further is the fate of Trump’s proposed U.S. sovereign wealth fund (SWF), authorized by executive order around February 3, 2025. As reported by the South China Morning Post on December 3, the fund’s future is shrouded in uncertainty, with key questions lingering about how it will be funded, structured, and managed. The ongoing Supreme Court lawsuit over tariffs—and the recent budget battles on Capitol Hill—have cast doubt on whether the SWF will ever become a reality, let alone serve as a bulwark for U.S. economic and strategic leadership.
With the Supreme Court’s decision still pending, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. The outcome could reshape America’s economic landscape, from the balance sheets of major corporations to the wallets of ordinary citizens. As the December 15 customs deadline looms, companies are racing against time, and policymakers are scrambling to adapt their messaging and strategies. The next chapter in this high-stakes saga will be written not just in courtrooms and boardrooms, but in the daily lives of Americans navigating a world where affordability—and uncertainty—are suddenly everywhere.
