Ron Wyden

WASHINGTON — A trio of Senate Democrats is calling for the government to start refunding roughly $175 billion in tariff revenues that the Supreme Court ruled were collected because of an illegal set of orders by President Trump.

Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are unveiling a bill on Monday that would require U.S. Customs and Border Protection to issue refunds over the course of 180 days and pay interest on the refunded amount.

The measure would prioritize refunds to small businesses and encourages importers, wholesalers and large companies to pass the refunds on to their customers.

“Trump’s illegal tax scheme has already done lasting damage to American families, small businesses and manufacturers who have been hammered by wave after wave of new Trump tariffs,” said Wyden, stressing that the “crucial first step” to fixing the problem begins with “putting money back in the pockets of small businesses and manufacturers as soon as possible.”

The bill is unlikely to become law, but it reveals how Democrats are starting to apply public pressure on a Trump administration that has shown little interest in trying to return tariff revenues after the Supreme Court announced its 6-3 ruling on Friday.

Because of the ruling, going into November’s midterm elections for control of Congress, Democrats have begun telling the public that Trump illegally raised taxes and now refuses to repay the money back to the American people.

Shaheen said that repairing any of the damage caused by the tariffs in the form of higher prices starts with “President Trump refunding the illegally collected tariff taxes that Americans were forced to pay.” Markey stressed that small business tend to have ”little to no resources” and a “refund process can be extremely difficult and time consuming” for companies.

The Trump administration has asserted that its hands are tied, because any refunds should be the responsibility of further litigation in court.

That message could put Republicans on the defensive as they try to explain why the government isn’t proactively seeking to return the money. GOP lawmakers had planned to try to preserve their House and Senate majorities by running on the income tax cuts that Trump signed into law last year, saying that tax refunds this year would help families.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNN on Sunday that it’s “bad framing” to raise the question of refunds because the Supreme Court ruling did not address the issue. The administration’s position is that any refunds will be decided by lawsuits winding their way through the legal system, rather than by a president who has repeatedly stressed to voters that he has the ability to act with speed and resolve.

“It is not up to the administration — it is up to the lower court,” Bessent said, stressing that rather than offer any guidance he would “wait” for a court opinion on refunds.

Trump has defended his use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose broad tariffs on almost every U.S. trading partner, saying that his ability to levy taxes on imports had helped to end military conflicts, bring in new federal revenues and apply pressure for negotiating trade frameworks.

The University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model released estimates that the refunds would total $175 billion. That’s the equivalent of an average of $1,300 per U.S. household. But determining how to structure reimbursements would be tricky, as the costs of the tariffs flowed through the economy in the form of customers paying the taxes directly as well as importers passing along the cost either indirectly or absorbing them.

The president has previously claimed that refunds would drive up U.S. government debt and hurt the economy. On Friday, he told reporters at a briefing that the refund process could be finished after he leaves the White House.

“I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” Trump said, later amending his timeline by saying: “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”

Boak writes for the Associated Press.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — Amazon-owned Ring announced it is ending its partnership with Flock Safety, a company whose artificial intelligence-powered technology came into question after a Ring Super Bowl ad touting new surveillance features.

In a blog post published Thursday, Ring said the two companies “made the joint decision to cancel the planned integration” they initially announced in October.

“Following a comprehensive review, we determined the planned Flock Safety integration would require significantly more time and resources than anticipated,” the Ring post read.

Ring’s surveillance camera capabilities came under fire Sunday after the company aired a 30-second commercial highlighting its new Search Party feature.

The feature allows users to upload images of their missing pets to the Ring Neighbors app, which would then use AI to trawl footage in the cloud to find the missing pet. If a missing pet is spotted in the footage, the information would be sent to the owner of the camera that picked up the footage and give them the option to notify the missing pet’s owners.

Ring said the Search Party feature is automatically enabled on all outdoor cameras enrolled in a Ring subscription. But critics questioned whether the AI technology could be combined with Ring’s new facial recognition technology, Familiar Faces, and provide law enforcement surveillance on humans.

Of additional concern, Flock Safety’s technology allows customers to grant local and federal government agencies access to the data picked up by the cameras. Among the organizations that could have access to this data are Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service and the Navy.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill., in November called on the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Flock Security for allowing government access to the data without “meaningful privacy protections.”

“At the urging of concerned constituents, I conducted further oversight and have determined that Flock cannot live up to its commitment to protect the privacy and security of Oregonians,” Wyden wrote in a letter to the FTC. “Abuse of Flock cameras is inevitable, and Flock has made it clear it takes no responsibility to prevent or detect that.”

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Ma., who has previously criticized Ring’s connections to law enforcement, posted his thoughts on the Super Bowl ad on X.

“This definitely isn’t about dogs — it’s about mass surveillance,” he wrote.

Emma Daniels, a spokeswoman for Ring, told The Verge, that the Search Party feature works only with dogs and is “not capable of processing human biometrics.”

“These are not tools for mass surveillance,” she added. “We build the right guardrails, and we’re super transparent about them.”

In a January blog post, Flock Safety maintained that it doesn’t work directly with ICE or other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. The company said every piece of data collected by its technology is owned by the customers.

“Decisions about whether, when, and how data is shared are made by the customer that owns the data, not by Flock,” the post read. “There is no hidden back-door access in Flock technology.

“If a local agency chooses not to collaborate with any federal entity, including ICE, Flock has no ability to override that decision.”