Tariff refunds: Indiana's big companies cash in, small ones left behind
Source: The Journal Gazette Business. Casualplayhub News adds summary, context, and editorial framing while linking back to the original report.
Jeff Clark, founder and CEO of 7PSolutions, runs a small GPS-supply business from a modest headquarters in Nashville, Indiana. His company, which started in 2010 by producing tiny GPS trackers for shipping containers, was nearly wiped out this spring. Federal tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in April 2025 cost the firm over $1 million. The only thing keeping it alive, Clark said, were two credit cards and a bank line of credit.
Then, in early July, a refund arrived: more than $65,000. The money came after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the tariffs unconstitutional in February. Customs and Border Protection opened an online portal in April for importers to file claims. Clark was overjoyed. "I was ecstatic," he said. "For a small company, even $1,000 can go a long way."
Nationally, the government has paid out roughly 60% of the refunds owed. Indiana companies alone paid over $3.3 billion in tariffs, ranking 14th in the nation, according to the grassroots coalition We Pay the Tariffs. The total hit to U.S. businesses reached an estimated $166 billion.
But the refund process is far from smooth for everyone. Ameer Salama, co-owner of Fishers-based Indiana Import, which supplies products to gas stations and convenience stores across the Midwest, is still waiting. His company applied for a refund but has heard nothing about approval. In the first few months after the tariffs took effect, Salama lost up to $200,000, and losses continued through last year. A refund would be a "big time" boost, he said. "Every time you get money back, it's good for business."
Krista Ricci, vice president of taxation and fiscal policy at the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, said she has not seen a clear pattern of approvals or denials among Indiana businesses. However, major corporations with Indiana operations have reported successes. Stellantis, which runs three automotive plants in Kokomo, received a $400 million refund. GM, with facilities in Fort Wayne and Marion, expects $500 million. Amazon, which operates dozens of facilities in the state, reported a $600 million refund.
Clark, who has spent decades in the import industry, understands why the system favors giants. Only importers qualify for direct refunds. Many smaller businesses must seek reimbursement through their delivery companies — FedEx, DHL, UPS. If they failed to keep detailed records of those imports, they lack the documentation needed to file a claim. Clark's own company is an importer on some items and kept meticulous records, allowing him to submit $150,000 in claims. Yet only about 45% have been approved so far, and the rest remain in limbo. When delivery companies deny a claim, there is no explanation or path to fix it.
"Big companies aren't having a problem," Clark said. "Most large corporations have import compliance people. It's the smaller companies that really don't have anybody in-house … that will struggle the most."
Even with the refund, his business faces an uncertain future. The Trump administration imposed a new round of tariffs on more than 80 countries last month. Twenty-five states filed a lawsuit Monday against the administration over these new tariffs, but Indiana is not among them. Clark said the higher prices from all the import taxes will continue to squeeze his margins and make it hard to stay profitable. "It's infuriating, and it's scary because, for me, everything rides on this business," he said.
For now, the $65,000 refund gives 7PSolutions enough oxygen to survive through the summer. But the broader question — whether smaller firms can ever get full relief from a system built for corporate giants — remains unanswered.
Article commentary
The tariff refund saga unfolding in Indiana reveals a stark divide in the American business landscape. Large corporations like Stellantis, GM, and Amazon are collecting hundreds of millions of dollars in refunds with relative ease, while smaller firms — the backbone of local economies — struggle to navigate a bureaucratic maze. This disparity is not accidental; it is a structural feature of a system that assumes importers have dedicated compliance teams, extensive record-keeping, and legal resources. For a small GPS-supply company like 7PSolutions, even a $65,000 refund is a lifeline, but it represents only a fraction of the $1 million in losses it incurred. The fact that only 45% of its claims have been approved underscores the capricious nature of the process. The policy implications are troubling. The Trump administration's tariffs were designed to protect domestic industries, but the refund mechanism — intended to correct a Supreme Court ruling — has inadvertently amplified inequality. Larger firms not only have the resources to file claims but also the leverage to negotiate with delivery companies that act as intermediaries. Smaller businesses, lacking that leverage, often face silent denials with no recourse. Krista Ricci's observation that no consistent pattern has emerged among Indiana companies suggests that the system lacks transparency and accountability. Moreover, the arrival of new tariffs on more than 80 countries adds a layer of uncertainty. The lawsuit by 25 states signals legal pushback, but Indiana's absence from that coalition may reflect political calculations or a wait-and-see approach. In the meantime, businesses like Clark's are caught in a whiplash of policy reversals. The Supreme Court's ruling against the original tariffs was a victory for rule of law, but the refund process shows that justice delayed is justice denied for many small enterprises. From an economic perspective, the refunds inject liquidity into the system, but they are a one-time correction. The ongoing tariffs continue to raise costs, squeeze margins, and discourage investment. For a company like 7PSolutions, which operates on thin margins, the cumulative effect of higher import taxes could be fatal. The broader risk is that the tariff regime, even with refunds, will accelerate the concentration of market power among large corporations, which can absorb shocks and lobby for favorable treatment. Small businesses, which already face challenges in access to capital and compliance, may be pushed out of the import market altogether. Ultimately, the tariff refund experience highlights a deeper issue: the U.S. trade policy apparatus often fails to account for the realities of small and medium-sized enterprises. Without streamlined processes, clear guidance, and dedicated support for non-specialist importers, the system will continue to favor the giants. The question policymakers must answer is whether they want a trade policy that benefits a few or one that fosters a diverse, resilient economy. Until then, stories like Jeff Clark's — part relief, part anxiety — will remain all too common.