{"id":2022,"date":"2026-08-08T10:47:41","date_gmt":"2026-08-08T10:47:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/?p=2022"},"modified":"2026-08-08T10:47:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T10:47:41","slug":"cbp-surpasses-100-billion-in-tariff-refunds-but-legal-battle-threatens-final-payouts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/?p=2022","title":{"rendered":"CBP Surpasses $100 Billion in Tariff Refunds, But Legal Battle Threatens Final Payouts"},"content":{"rendered":"

WASHINGTON D.C. \u2013 August 7, 2026<\/strong> \u2013 In a significant but legally complicated development, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced the disbursement of over $100 billion in refunds for tariffs levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This milestone, reached as of July 31, 2026, marks substantial progress in returning the estimated $166 billion collected during the Trump administration’s expansive trade actions. However, a critical portion of these refunds, amounting to approximately $11.4 billion for "finally liquidated entries," remains ensnared in a contentious legal dispute initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ), casting a shadow over the full resolution of the tariff saga.<\/p>\n

The massive undertaking of refunding these tariffs, which were ultimately invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling in February 2025, has seen CBP process a staggering volume of claims through its dedicated Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal. While $128.68 billion has been accepted via CAPE, the remaining gap to the total $166 billion, particularly the disputed $11.4 billion, highlights the intricate challenges of unwinding complex trade policies. The delay in launching a capability to process finally liquidated entries, initially anticipated by the end of July, underscores the profound impact of the ongoing legal tussle between the DOJ and the Court of International Trade (CIT).<\/p>\n

Main Facts: A Landmark Payout Amidst Lingering Legal Tensions<\/h3>\n

The announcement by Brandon Lord, a CBP official, in a Tuesday filing with the Court of International Trade, confirmed that the agency has successfully paid out $100 billion in IEEPA tariff refunds. This substantial sum represents a major victory for importers who bore the brunt of the tariffs, many of whom have been eagerly awaiting the return of these funds to bolster their balance sheets and recalibrate their supply chain strategies.<\/p>\n

The journey to this point has been arduous, beginning with the imposition of tariffs under the IEEPA by the previous administration, purportedly to address perceived national security threats and unfair trade practices. These measures, which affected a wide array of imported goods, significantly increased costs for American businesses and consumers. The subsequent legal challenges culminated in a landmark Supreme Court decision that deemed the application of IEEPA in this context unlawful, thereby mandating the refund of all collected duties.<\/p>\n

CBP responded by launching its CAPE portal in April 2026, a specialized system designed to streamline the complex refund process. Since its inception, the portal has become the central conduit for businesses seeking redress. The agency has also been steadily expanding CAPE\u2019s functionalities, most recently implementing an update on June 29, 2026, that allows for the processing of entries awaiting reconciliation of final tariff calculations. This expansion has already seen 2.2 million submissions, indicating the broad reach and critical necessity of the system.<\/p>\n

Despite this operational progress, the issue of "finally liquidated entries" remains a significant hurdle. These entries represent a class of transactions where the final assessment of duties has been concluded, often making their re-evaluation and refund more complex from an administrative and legal standpoint. The Department of Justice’s appeal, filed in June, directly challenges the CIT’s earlier order to include all entries for tariff refunds, arguing that the court lacks the jurisdiction to direct CBP on how to handle these specific cases. This legal standoff not only delays the processing of a substantial portion of the refunds but also injects an element of uncertainty into the entire unwinding process.<\/p>\n

The impact of these refunds is already evident across various industries. Major corporations like Amazon, which recently reported receiving $600 million in reimbursements, are leveraging these funds in diverse ways. While some, such as Amazon and Costco, have indicated they will pass on a portion of these savings to customers, others like Walmart, BJ’s Wholesale Club, and E.l.f. Beauty are utilizing the capital to reduce prices, aiming to gain a competitive edge and offer relief to consumers facing inflationary pressures. Furthermore, a novel trend has emerged where companies like American Eagle Outfitters and The Children’s Place are selling their rights to future tariff refunds for immediate liquidity, underscoring the pressing financial needs of some businesses.<\/p>\n

Chronology: A Winding Path from Tariffs to Refunds<\/h3>\n

The narrative of the IEEPA tariff refunds is a complex tapestry woven through executive action, legal challenge, and administrative response. Understanding its timeline is crucial to appreciating the current state of affairs.<\/p>\n

2018-2020: The Genesis of the Tariffs<\/strong>
\nThe story begins with the Trump administration’s aggressive use of trade policy, particularly the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Unlike Section 301 tariffs (often targeting unfair trade practices) or Section 232 tariffs (related to national security on specific goods like steel and aluminum), the IEEPA tariffs were broadly applied, often justified under the guise of national emergencies related to trade imbalances or specific foreign policy objectives. While the original article doesn’t specify the exact targets or rationale for these particular<\/em> IEEPA tariffs, their imposition sparked immediate outcry from American businesses, who argued they were arbitrary, harmful to U.S. competitiveness, and often lacked clear legal grounding. Importers were forced to pay these additional duties, leading to increased operational costs, supply chain disruptions, and higher prices for consumers.<\/p>\n

Late 2020 – Early 2024: Mounting Legal Challenges<\/strong>
\nAs the financial burden mounted, a wave of lawsuits began to challenge the legality of the IEEPA tariffs. Businesses, trade associations, and legal experts argued that the executive branch had overstepped its authority and that the use of IEEPA was an inappropriate instrument for broad trade policy. These cases slowly made their way through the judicial system, with many converging in the Court of International Trade (CIT), which is specialized in import and export law. The legal arguments centered on the scope of presidential power under IEEPA and whether the imposed tariffs genuinely addressed a national emergency as defined by the statute.<\/p>\n

\"CBP<\/figure>\n

February 2025: The Supreme Court’s Decisive Ruling<\/strong>
\nThe culmination of these legal battles arrived in February 2025, when the Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision that invalidated the IEEPA tariffs. The ruling found that the Trump administration’s application of IEEPA in this context was beyond the statutory authority granted to the President, effectively declaring the tariffs unlawful. This decision was a monumental victory for importers and a clear directive for the U.S. government: the collected tariff revenue, amounting to an estimated $166 billion, had to be returned. The ruling immediately triggered the complex process of designing and implementing a refund mechanism.<\/p>\n

April 2026: CBP Launches CAPE Portal<\/strong>
\nFollowing the Supreme Court’s order, CBP embarked on the challenging task of creating a system capable of processing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individual refund claims. After more than a year of development and preparation, CBP officially launched its Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE) portal in April 2026. This dedicated online platform was designed to be the primary interface for importers to submit their refund claims, aiming to standardize the process and expedite payouts. Its initial launch, however, had a limited scope, focusing on entries that were more straightforward to process.<\/p>\n

June 2026: DOJ’s Appeal and the "Finally Liquidated Entries" Standoff<\/strong>
\nJust two months after the CAPE launch, a new legal wrinkle emerged that complicated the refund process. In June 2026, the Department of Justice filed an appeal challenging a previous Court of International Trade order. The CIT had directed CBP to expand the scope of refunds to include all<\/em> entries, specifically encompassing those deemed "finally liquidated." The DOJ’s appeal argues that the CIT overstepped its jurisdictional bounds by dictating how CBP should administer these particular entries, suggesting that the agency should have discretion over their processing. This legal challenge immediately created uncertainty for approximately $11.4 billion in refunds tied to these specific entries.<\/p>\n

June 29, 2026: CAPE Expansion for Reconciliation<\/strong>
\nDespite the looming legal battle, CBP continued to enhance the CAPE portal’s capabilities. On June 29, 2026, the agency went live with an important update, allowing CAPE to handle entries for shipments awaiting reconciliation of final tariff calculations. This feature was crucial for resolving cases where the initial tariff assessment might have been provisional or subject to later adjustments. The rapid uptake of this new functionality is evident in the 2.2 million submissions filed since its launch, indicating a significant segment of the importing community benefiting from this expansion.<\/p>\n

End of July 2026: Missed Deadline for Finally Liquidated Entries<\/strong>
\nCBP had previously indicated that a separate functionality within CAPE, specifically designed to handle "finally liquidated entries," could launch by the end of July 2026. However, this deadline passed without the promised update. The delay is directly attributable to the DOJ’s ongoing appeal, as CBP is hesitant to implement a feature that might be affected or even rendered moot by the court’s final decision on jurisdiction. This administrative pause means that a substantial portion of the total refunds remains inaccessible to businesses, pending legal resolution.<\/p>\n

July 31, 2026: $100 Billion Milestone Achieved<\/strong>
\nAmidst these operational and legal complexities, CBP reached a significant milestone: as of July 31, 2026, the agency confirmed it had paid out $100 billion in IEEPA tariff refunds. This achievement, while commendable, highlights the ongoing effort required to disburse the remaining funds and underscores the scale of the original tariff collection.<\/p>\n

Supporting Data: Economic Ripples and Corporate Adaptations<\/h3>\n

The $100 billion disbursed in IEEPA tariff refunds represents more than just a figure; it signifies a massive injection of capital back into the American economy, influencing corporate strategies, consumer pricing, and financial markets.<\/p>\n

Magnitude and Impact:<\/strong>
\nThe total sum of IEEPA tariffs collected was estimated at $166 billion. With $128.68 billion accepted through the CAPE portal and $100 billion already paid out, there’s still a considerable amount in the pipeline. The gap between accepted and paid funds ($28.68 billion) suggests ongoing processing, internal verification, and administrative steps that continue to occur. The $11.4 billion tied up in "finally liquidated entries" represents a significant portion, roughly 6.9% of the total estimated tariffs, which, if released, could provide a substantial boost to the affected businesses.<\/p>\n

Corporate Strategies: Diverse Approaches to Found Capital:<\/strong>
\nThe return of these funds has prompted a variety of strategic responses from companies, reflecting their individual financial health, market positioning, and customer relationship priorities.<\/p>\n

    \n
  • \n

    Customer Refunds and Price Reductions:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \"CBP<\/figure>\n
      \n
    • Amazon:<\/strong> The e-commerce giant’s announcement of receiving $600 million underscores the sheer volume of goods it imports. Amazon has indicated it will issue refunds to some customers, though in a "limited set of circumstances." This cautious approach likely involves complex logistical and accounting challenges to trace specific tariff costs back to individual purchases. However, it signals an attempt to maintain customer loyalty and potentially mitigate any past pricing grievances.<\/li>\n
    • Costco:<\/strong> Similar to Amazon, the wholesale club model relies on high volume and competitive pricing. Returning a portion of tariff refunds to customers aligns with their value proposition and could reinforce their brand image as consumer-friendly.<\/li>\n
    • Walmart, BJ’s Wholesale Club, E.l.f. Beauty:<\/strong> These retailers and brands are opting to use the refunded capital to directly lower prices. Walmart, a retail behemoth, tying expected refunds to its price strategy demonstrates a commitment to maintaining affordability amidst ongoing cost pressures. BJ’s Wholesale Club’s strategy to cut prices directly leverages the refunds as a competitive tool. E.l.f. Beauty, expecting a substantial $585 million, can use this capital to make their products more accessible, potentially expanding market share in the competitive beauty industry. This approach directly benefits consumers and can stimulate demand, acting as a deflationary force in certain product categories.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n
    • \n

      Selling Rights for Immediate Liquidity:<\/strong><\/p>\n

        \n
      • American Eagle Outfitters and The Children’s Place:<\/strong> A more sophisticated financial strategy involves companies selling their rights to future tariff refunds. This process, often facilitated by specialized financial institutions or factoring companies, allows businesses to receive an immediate cash infusion, albeit at a discount to the full refund amount. For companies facing liquidity challenges, significant debt, or seeking capital for immediate investment opportunities, this can be an attractive option. It de-risks the uncertainty of when the refund will actually arrive and bypasses potential administrative delays. This trend highlights the varying financial health across industries and the creative ways businesses are managing their capital. These buyers typically assume the risk of collection from CBP in exchange for a fee, turning a future, uncertain receivable into immediate, usable cash for the original importer.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

        Broader Economic Implications:<\/strong>
        \nThe widespread distribution of these refunds is likely to have multifaceted economic effects:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • Boost to Corporate Earnings:<\/strong> For many companies, especially those in import-heavy sectors like retail and manufacturing, these refunds represent a non-operational income windfall that can significantly impact their quarterly or annual earnings.<\/li>\n
        • Investment and Growth:<\/strong> The returned capital can be reinvested in supply chain optimization, technology upgrades, expansion projects, or research and development, potentially fostering economic growth.<\/li>\n
        • Debt Reduction and Shareholder Returns:<\/strong> Some companies may opt to use the funds to pay down debt, improving their financial stability, or return capital to shareholders through dividends or share buybacks.<\/li>\n
        • Consumer Impact:<\/strong> Through direct price reductions or increased corporate investment, consumers stand to benefit from lower prices or improved product offerings.<\/li>\n
        • Supply Chain Resilience:<\/strong> The funds might also be used to diversify sourcing, reduce reliance on single regions, and build more resilient supply chains, a lesson learned from recent global disruptions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          The data illustrates that while the refund process is complex and fraught with legal challenges, its successful execution has a tangible and diverse impact on the economic landscape.<\/p>\n

          Official Responses: Navigating Legal and Administrative Quagmires<\/h3>\n

          The process of refunding $166 billion in tariffs involves multiple government agencies and legal bodies, each with distinct roles and perspectives. Their official responses and actions are critical to understanding the current state and future trajectory of the IEEPA tariff saga.<\/p>\n

          CBP’s Stance: Balancing Mandates and Constraints<\/strong>
          \nCBP, as the primary agency responsible for administering the refunds, finds itself in a challenging position. On one hand, it is mandated by the Supreme Court ruling to return the unlawfully collected tariffs. On the other, it operates under legal constraints and must adhere to the directives of the Department of Justice, which represents the U.S. government in legal matters.<\/p>\n

          Brandon Lord’s filings with the Court of International Trade serve as the official updates on CBP’s progress. These communications consistently highlight the agency’s efforts to implement the refund system, expand its capabilities, and meet the demands of the importing community. However, Lord’s reports also implicitly reveal the technical and administrative complexities involved in building a system like CAPE from the ground up, capable of handling millions of distinct entries. The agency has to ensure accuracy, prevent fraud, and maintain compliance with various customs regulations while simultaneously disbursing a massive amount of funds. The delay in implementing the "finally liquidated entries" functionality, despite an earlier projected timeline, is a clear indication that CBP is directly impacted by the DOJ’s legal maneuvering and cannot proceed until the jurisdictional dispute is resolved. They are essentially caught between a court order and their own legal counsel’s appeal.<\/p>\n

          DOJ’s Rationale: Defending Jurisdictional Boundaries<\/strong>
          \nThe Department of Justice’s decision to appeal the CIT’s order to include all entries, particularly the "finally liquidated" ones, is rooted in a fundamental legal argument regarding jurisdictional authority. The DOJ contends that the Court of International Trade lacks the power to dictate the specific administrative procedures CBP must follow in processing these refunds. Their argument likely hinges on the principle of separation of powers and the idea that the executive branch (CBP, under the Treasury Department) has inherent authority over the administration of customs laws, including the methodology for processing refunds.<\/p>\n

          By challenging the CIT’s order, the DOJ aims to:<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Preserve Executive Discretion:<\/strong> Prevent the judiciary from setting a precedent where courts can micromanage the operational details of executive agencies.<\/li>\n
          2. Control Fiscal Impact:<\/strong> Ensure that any large-scale disbursement of funds follows procedures deemed appropriate by the executive, potentially allowing for more rigorous vetting or phased payouts.<\/li>\n
          3. Define "Liquidated" Entries:<\/strong> Clarify the legal status of "finally liquidated entries" within the refund framework. From a customs perspective, once an entry is "finally liquidated," it means the duties have been conclusively determined, and the transaction is generally considered closed, making reopening it for refunds a point of contention for administrative law.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            The DOJ’s appeal, therefore, is not necessarily about preventing refunds, but about how<\/em> those refunds are administered and who has the ultimate authority over the process. This legal battle is crucial as it could set a precedent for future interactions between the judiciary and executive agencies regarding trade policy implementation.<\/p>\n

            Court of International Trade (CIT): Upholding Importer Rights<\/strong>
            \nThe Court of International Trade has consistently taken a stance sympathetic to importers, often ruling in favor of broad interpretations of refund eligibility. Its initial order to include all entries, including the "finally liquidated" ones, reflects a judicial philosophy aimed at ensuring full restitution for businesses harmed by unlawful tariffs. The CIT’s role is to ensure that customs laws are applied fairly and that importers have a clear path to redress. Its challenge to the DOJ’s appeal will likely focus on the court’s inherent jurisdiction to review agency actions and ensure compliance with higher court rulings, particularly the Supreme Court’s mandate for refunds.<\/p>\n

            \"CBP<\/figure>\n

            Industry Stakeholders and Experts: A Mix of Praise and Frustration<\/strong>
            \nIndustry advocacy groups, customs brokers, and trade lawyers have offered a mixed response to the ongoing situation.<\/p>\n

              \n
            • Praise for Progress:<\/strong> Many commend CBP for successfully disbursing $100 billion, acknowledging the immense logistical challenge. They view the CAPE portal as a necessary and generally effective mechanism.<\/li>\n
            • Frustration over Delays:<\/strong> However, there is palpable frustration regarding the stalled processing of "finally liquidated entries." Businesses dependent on these funds are experiencing continued financial uncertainty. Trade associations are actively lobbying for a swift resolution to the DOJ appeal, emphasizing the economic impact of the delays.<\/li>\n
            • Legal Scrutiny:<\/strong> Legal experts are closely watching the DOJ’s appeal, recognizing its potential to reshape the boundaries of judicial review over executive agency actions in trade matters. Many argue that the Supreme Court’s broad ruling implied a comprehensive refund, irrespective of the "liquidation" status of entries. They are advising clients on potential strategies, including further legal action, should the appeal result in an unfavorable outcome for importers.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              The diverse responses highlight the intricate balance between administrative efficiency, legal interpretation, and the pressing economic needs of the importing community.<\/p>\n

              Implications: Future Outlook and Broader Trade Context<\/h3>\n

              The ongoing saga of the IEEPA tariff refunds carries significant implications, not only for the immediate financial landscape of affected businesses but also for the future of U.S. trade policy and the mechanisms of judicial review.<\/p>\n

              Impact of the DOJ Appeal on "Finally Liquidated Entries":<\/strong>
              \nThe outcome of the Department of Justice’s appeal regarding "finally liquidated entries" will be pivotal for the $11.4 billion currently in limbo.<\/p>\n

                \n
              • If the DOJ Wins:<\/strong> Should the appellate court side with the DOJ, it could mean that CBP would not<\/em> be compelled to automatically process refunds for these entries through the CAPE portal in the same manner. This might necessitate a different, potentially more protracted, or even individual claims process, or in the worst case, some of these refunds might be significantly delayed or challenged further. This would be a significant blow to the businesses expecting these funds and would add another layer of complexity to an already convoluted process.<\/li>\n
              • If the DOJ Loses:<\/strong> A ruling against the DOJ would reaffirm the CIT’s authority and compel CBP to implement the functionality for "finally liquidated entries" expeditiously. This would unlock the remaining $11.4 billion, providing long-awaited relief to a segment of importers. It would also set a precedent for stronger judicial oversight over the executive branch’s administration of trade remedies.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                The uncertainty stemming from this appeal makes financial planning difficult for businesses that imported goods under these specific entry types. They cannot confidently account for these potential refunds in their current financial projections, impacting investment decisions, cash flow management, and pricing strategies.<\/p>\n

                Precedent for Future Tariff Challenges:<\/strong>
                \nThe IEEPA tariff refund case sets a crucial precedent for future challenges to trade measures. The article mentions ongoing lawsuits against President Trump’s expired Section 122 tariffs and recently implemented Section 301 forced labor levies. The success of importers in securing IEEPA refunds, even with the current hurdles, emboldens businesses to challenge trade policies they deem unlawful or excessive.<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • Section 122 Tariffs:<\/strong> These tariffs, also imposed by the Trump administration, often faced similar legal questions regarding presidential authority. The IEEPA case provides a roadmap for how such challenges can progress through the courts, potentially leading to similar refund mandates.<\/li>\n
                • Section 301 Forced Labor Levies:<\/strong> The current lawsuits against Section 301 tariffs related to forced labor are distinct in their legal basis but could draw procedural and jurisdictional parallels from the IEEPA case. Any future Supreme Court ruling on these tariffs, if they are deemed unlawful, would likely trigger another massive refund operation, for which the IEEPA experience serves as a critical learning curve for both the government and the importing community.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  This ongoing cycle of tariff imposition, legal challenge, and potential refunds highlights a broader trend: businesses are increasingly willing and able to challenge government trade actions through the judicial system, demanding accountability and adherence to established legal frameworks.<\/p>\n

                  The Evolving Role of Trade Policy and Modernization:<\/strong>
                  \nThe IEEPA refund process also sheds light on the evolving nature of international trade policy and the need for robust, adaptable administrative systems. The CAPE portal, while facing challenges, represents a significant technological advancement for CBP in managing complex trade data and financial transactions. Lessons learned from CAPE’s development and implementation, particularly concerning scalability, integration with existing customs systems, and handling diverse entry types, will be invaluable for future customs modernization efforts.<\/p>\n

                  The entire episode underscores the profound economic impact of trade policy decisions and the critical importance of legal clarity and efficient administrative mechanisms for both imposing and, if necessary, reversing such measures. As global supply chains remain dynamic and trade tensions persist, the ability of governments to implement and manage trade policies effectively, while also providing clear avenues for redress, will be paramount. The IEEPA tariff refund saga serves as a compelling case study, demonstrating both the triumphs of judicial oversight and the inherent complexities in unwinding sweeping economic policies. The ultimate resolution of the "finally liquidated entries" dispute will be a final, defining chapter in this unprecedented trade refund operation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                  WASHINGTON D.C. \u2013 August 7, 2026 \u2013 In a significant but legally complicated development, U.S. Customs and Border<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2021,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[926,838,113,1984,114,1388,2535,798,115,2534,118,2142],"class_list":["post-2022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-e-commerce-logistics","tag-battle","tag-billion","tag-ecommerce","tag-final","tag-fulfillment","tag-legal","tag-payouts","tag-refunds","tag-shipping","tag-surpasses","tag-tariff","tag-threatens"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2022\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2021"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/packmailer.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}