Here's a question for corporate boards everywhere: when the government owes you money it took illegally, do you ask for it back? Or do you leave it on the table to stay in the president's good graces?

That's the impossible position Donald Trump just put American companies in. On Tuesday, he told CNBC that he will "remember" companies that don't seek refunds for the tariffs he imposed that the Supreme Court later ruled were illegal. Let that sink in: the highest court in the land said these tariffs were unlawful, U.S. Customs and Border Protection opened a portal for companies to reclaim their money, and the president is now essentially asking them not to do it.

"Brilliant if they don't do that," Trump said on Squawk Box. "If they don't do that, I'll remember them."

The total pot? More than $160 billion. That's not a rounding error. That's real money that came out of corporate coffers and, ultimately, consumers' wallets through higher prices.

And here's the kicker: some major companies are actually complying. Apple and Amazon reportedly have not filed for refunds, potentially because they're worried about "offending" Trump. Meanwhile, companies that were crushed by the trade war – like Levi Strauss, which expects to recoup around $80 million – are moving ahead with claims because, well, they actually need the money.

This puts shareholders in an absurd situation. If you own stock in a company that's choosing not to claim a legitimate refund, you have to ask: is management making decisions based on fiduciary duty or political calculation? Because those are two very different things.

Let's be clear about what happened here. Trump unilaterally imposed tariffs using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law designed for genuine national security crises. The Supreme Court ruled he overstepped. That's not a political opinion – that's the judicial branch doing its job. Companies paid these tariffs under legal duress, and they're entitled to get that money back.

For major retailers, we're talking about material amounts. Apparel companies, electronics importers, anyone bringing in goods from overseas paid billions in tariffs that were later deemed illegal. Harmit Singh, CFO of Levi Strauss, didn't mince words: the company expects $80 million back. That's a significant chunk of annual profit for a mid-sized company.

But if you're Apple, sitting on a fortress balance sheet and doing business in a dozen regulatory jurisdictions where the president's goodwill might matter? The calculation gets murkier. Do you claim your refund and risk being on the wrong side of a tweet – or worse, a policy decision that could cost you more down the line?

Here's what bothers me: investors deserve transparency. If a company decides not to pursue a refund for political reasons, shareholders should know that. It should be disclosed. Because leaving $160 billion on the table isn't a minor accounting choice – it's a strategic decision with real financial consequences.

And if companies are making that choice because they're afraid of retaliation, that's a problem that goes way beyond finance. It suggests that doing business in America now involves a loyalty test, where following the law takes a backseat to staying in the administration's good graces.

For regular investors, the takeaway is simple: pay attention to which companies file and which don't. If your holdings include companies that are forgoing legitimate refunds without clear disclosure, you should ask why. Is this a calculated strategic decision, or is management just hoping nobody notices they left your money on the table?

Because if they can't explain it simply, they're probably hiding something.