STLPR0%

He recorded his quest for tariff refunds. It shows why billions may never get repaid 13%

By Alina Selyukh0%

5/3/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Slippery Slope, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 527 faulty-reasoning hits from 891 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.5% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,142 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

The news on his phone left Richard Brown so stunned he stumbled past the exit of the bagel shop where he was grabbing breakfast. 
Then, he couldn't find his car in the parking lot. 
On that February day, the Supreme Court had struck down most of President Trump's tariffs, which business owners like Brown had been paying for almost a year. 
The thoughts came to him in a jumble: How would U.S. 
Customs refund the duties it had illegally collected? 
When might Brown get his money back? 
As he trudged toward the answers to those questions, Brown kept an audio diary that he shared with NPR. 
And his experience illustrates something that's raising alarm bells among trade experts: the prospect that thousands of U.S. businesses may never get back the billions of tariff dollars the U.S. government promised to refund. 
Immediately after losing the court case, Trump and other U.S. officials began saying that refunds were so complex that they could take years. 
Companies like Costco and Revlon had pre-emptively filed lawsuits to stake their claims. 
Many business owners began talking to their lawyers and customs brokers for advice. 
Brown doesn't have those people. 
His company, Proof Culture, is just him in Ohio and his friend Erron Combs in Virginia. 
Sometimes Brown's father helps out. 
They're sneakerheads selling to other sneakerheads. 
"I don't want to be a customs broker when I grow up," Brown says, laughing. 
Proof Culture started out making custom sneakers, then shifted to sales: laces, cedar shoe trees, storage boxes, crease protectors. 
They got into importing  first from China and now also Mexico  just three years ago in what Brown calls his "express master class of importing, tariff edition." 
They estimate the government owes them up to $25,000 in tariff refunds. 
It's not life-changing money for the business, Brown says, but it's about 10% of Proof Culture's revenue last year  a sum that could buy a lot of shoelaces and advertising. 
Like many small importers, they'd stitched together their supply chain: shipping by sea and by air, through FedEx and Amazon, relying on freight-forwarding companies through their Chinese suppliers. 
Proof Culture paid the bills, got the goods and focused on selling; they rarely handled customs forms. 
But to get a tariff refund, that had to change. 
The Trump administration quickly began to roll out new tariffs to replace the court-rejected ones, using new legal justifications. 
Brown's new shipments arrived with ever-changing customs fees. 
He spent weeks digitizing stacks of old purchase orders and building an AI tool to help track his shipping invoices. 
He left futile voicemails with his Chinese freight-forwarders for missing paperwork. 
In early March, U.S. 
Customs said it would build an online system for refund claims, no lawsuits necessary. 
This relieved Brown's worry about suing for refunds, but also meant he had to learn a customs portal he'd never used before. 
Brown listened to trade groups' webinars and kept thinking just how easy it was to pay the tariffs, in the first place. 
And now, it was like filing taxes: The government had all his data, but it was his responsibility to do the math and show the proof. 
Brown had plenty of other things to do: There was the actual tax season, family plans and emergencies, plus lots of shoe gear to sell to pay the bills. 
About a week before the tariff-refund process launched, U.S. 
Customs gave a reassuring update in court: The agency's new portal for refund claims was nearly ready and set to process the vast majority of shipments for which refunds were due. 
But this estimate hinged on the fact that all those shipments had been handled by a small group of prolific importers  companies that quickly got ready to file their claims. 
More than two-thirds of importers were not ready  many of them small importers like Brown. 
They told NPR about technical errors, struggling to even log into the portal or being stuck on hold for hours with U.S. 
Customs, getting no answer. 
When the refund portal opened on April 20, businesses that applied did so in minutes. 
Brown was not among them. 
And he's still not ready. 
The next day, trade experts at the libertarian Cato Institute wrote that the refund process, not being automated or instant, risked shortchanging thousands of American companies: 
"Intentionally or not," their analysis said, "the federal government will likely keep tens of billions of dollars it should have returned to importers months ago  and that it promised US courts it would return if they invalidated the tariffs at issue." 
In the latest court update, about a week into the refund process, U.S. 
Customs said it had rejected more than a third of filed claims for technical or data errors, though importers can refile. 
As of April 26, the agency said it had accepted claims covering about a fifth of the shipments for which it owes refunds. 
"It's money, and every dime matters for a small business," Brown says about the refund. 
He and Combs are still plugging away, gearing up to file their claim, though Brown often wonders if the effort is worth it. 
"I can't chase every fire," he says, "and right now, I feel like a firefighter." 
Copyright 2026 NPR 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Alina Selyukh: 6.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect5.5%This article: 4.2%Alina Selyukh: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 3.5%Alina Selyukh: 6.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 12.6%Alina Selyukh: 4.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 6.3%Alina Selyukh: 5.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.9%Alina Selyukh: 8.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority2.9%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.7%Alina Selyukh: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope4.7%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Alina Selyukh: 6.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 4.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Alina Selyukh: 5.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.7%Alina Selyukh: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.7%This article: 3.8%Alina Selyukh: 4.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice3.8%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 2.1%Alina Selyukh: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alina Selyukh: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

891 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers24%attributed speech681writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Brown • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Brown • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Customs • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Customs • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCato Institute • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Customs • 21 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Customs • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Brown • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Brown • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNPR • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cato Institute

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words20% of attributed speech33% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cato Institute: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Cato Institute: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Cato Institute: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.