Publications and Certifications

Tariff Refunds and the Consumer Justice Gap: The Tariff Refund Illusion, Distributional Injustice, and the Limits of Importer-Centric Trade Remedy Law

Authors

• Alieu Stephen KafoeMarymount University, USA

• Bernadette Mualumatweh FohMarymount University, USA

Abstract

On February 20, 2026, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 24-1287 & 25-250, 607 U.S. ___ (2026), that tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded statutory authorization. The ruling immediately sparked a debate over refunds for an estimated $133.5 billion in assessed duties and up to $175 billion in total exposure. This commentary argues that this debate is fundamentally misframed: it conflates legal obligation, which remitted duties, with economic burden, which absorbed the cost. Drawing on tax incidence theory, distributional economics, sociological frameworks of structural inequality, and supply-chain analysis, this commentary establishes that between 86 and 96 percent of the IEEPA tariff burden was borne by U.S. firms and consumers, with tariff-attributable household costs estimated at $1,500-$1,800 in nominal 2025 dollars. The commentary further demonstrates that tariffs operate as a regressive fiscal instrument, disproportionately burdening low-income households, communities of color, and small businesses, and that the emerging refund architecture replicates this asymmetry by channeling restitution exclusively to importers and large businesses. This systematic disjunction between legal and equitable restitution is theorized as the consumer justice gap. The commentary concludes with a policy framework that encompasses conditional refund statutes, income-adjusted consumer tax credits, and Federal Trade Commission oversight, all designed to align restitution with economic harm.

Geopolitical Escalation as a Systemic Business Shock: Energy Markets, Supply-Chain Fragility, and Migration Spillovers in the Global Economy

Authors

• Alieu Stephen KafoeDBA Candidate, Doctor of Business Administration Program, Marymount University, USA

• Bernadette Mualumatweh FohEdD Student, Department of Education, Marymount University, USA

Abstract

Escalating military confrontation in the Gulf and adjacent maritime corridors has re-emerged as a defining source of systemic risk to the global economy. While geopolitical analyses typically emphasize security and diplomacy, scholarly attention has been less directed to how regional conflict propagates through global business systems. This commentary examines how Gulf escalation transmits macroeconomic instability and population movements through three interdependent channels: global energy markets, international supply-chain networks, and migration systems. Drawing on recent peer-reviewed research (2021-2026), multilateral institutional analyses, and contemporaneous conflict documentation, the paper synthesizes insights from international business, supply-chain operations, and political economy. The 2023-2025 Red Sea crisis serves as the primary empirical foundation, documenting approximately a 70% reduction in Bab-el-Mandeb transit volumes, freight rate increases of up to 400% on key corridors, projected global inflation increments of up to 0.23 percentage points for 2025, a 90% decrease in Red Sea container shipping between December 2023 and February 2024, and a deepening humanitarian crisis affecting Yemen’s 4.8 million internally displaced persons. These documented patterns demonstrate how localized asymmetric conflict generates system-wide economic disruption. The kinetic escalation on February 28, 2026, involving Iran, the United States, and Israel provides real-time validation of the framework’s predictive claims, thereby simultaneously activating the energy, supply-chain, and migration channels theorized herein. The commentary advances four testable theoretical propositions and a research agenda that connect geopolitical risk to energy price formation, supply-chain network fragility, migration-linked labor market outcomes, and the nonlinear, interactive effects across all three channels. It advances international business scholarship by conceptualizing geopolitical escalation as a multichannel, systemic-level shock transmitted through interdependent markets, and by integrating migration and labor mobility as central business-relevant outcomes. Actionable implications are developed for multinational enterprises, international financial institutions, and policymakers seeking to construct a risk-smart global trade architecture.

Federal-State Conflict in Medicaid Governance: A Policy Analysis of the Trump Administration's 2026 Minnesota Medicaid Funding Withholding Actions and Implications for State Health Systems

Authors

• Alieu Stephen KafoeDBA Candidate, Doctor of Business Administration Program, Marymount University, USA

• Bernadette Mualumatweh FohEdD Student, Department of Education, Marymount University, USA

Abstract

Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income Americans, covered an estimated 80 to 85 million individuals nationally as of early 2026, following the post-pandemic enrollment unwinding, and remains one of the largest intergovernmental fiscal partnerships in U.S. history. The Trump Administration’s 2026 series of escalating funding withholding and deferral actions against Minnesota’s Medicaid program, with a cumulative potential annual exposure exceeding $2.26 billion as of March 2026 represents, according to Minnesota’s filed federal complaint, an unusually large and highly contested use of federal Medicaid payment deferral authority described by the state as without precedent in categorical scope . This qualitative policy analysis examines the chronology, legal basis, empirical justification, and projected consequences for the health system and population health of these actions. Drawing on primary government sources, federal court filings, peer-reviewed health policy literature, and federal agency data, this paper argues that the administration’s funding withholding approach diverges from established cooperative federalism norms and the administrative law framework governing Medicaid compliance enforcement, creates disproportionate harm to clinically vulnerable beneficiary populations, and generates serious fiscal instability for a state whose 2025 Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) finding of 2.2% was substantially below the national rolling rate of 6.12%, though CMS cautions that state-specific PERM rates are not directly comparable across states due to methodological variation. Critically, the most prominent fraud case cited by the administration, Feeding Our Future, involved a federal child nutrition program, not Medicaid healthcare or insurance, raising serious questions about the analytic basis for applying Medicaid funding penalties in response to fraud in a programmatically distinct federal initiative. Integrating the health policy, organizational, and constitutional law literatures, the paper advances ten actionable policy recommendations that address fraud governance, intergovernmental fiscal relations, and the structural protection of Medicaid beneficiaries against deployment of conditional spending authority under contested legal circumstances.

Certifications