Executive Summary
- Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to confirm if the U.S. will refund $134 billion in tariffs.
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Friday against President Trump’s use of IEEPA for broad tariffs.
- Bessent argued the refund decision rests with lower courts, not the administration.
- The White House intends to continue trade actions using Section 232 and Section 301 authorities.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent declined to commit to refunding billions of dollars in collected tariffs during a televised interview on Sunday, following a landmark Supreme Court decision that invalidated significant portions of President Trump’s trade agenda. Speaking on CNN’s "State of the Union," Bessent sidestepped inquiries regarding the potential return of approximately $134 billion in revenue generated by levies that the high court ruled exceeded executive authority.
The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision on Friday striking down President Trump’s expanded use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on a broad range of international imports. The court found that the 1970s-era law, intended for national emergencies involving "unusual and extraordinary" threats, did not grant the President the sweeping power to regulate imports in the manner exercised by the current administration.
When pressed by host Dana Bash on whether the administration would honor previous federal assurances to refund tariffs if they were found unlawful, Bessent characterized the line of questioning as "bad framing." He argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling was a "narrow reading" of the President’s authority and noted that the case had been remanded to lower courts for further adjudication. "Refunds are not up to the administration, it is up to the lower court," Bessent stated, adding that a final resolution could take "weeks or months."
Despite the judicial setback regarding IEEPA, Bessent emphasized that the White House remains committed to its economic strategy of reshoring American manufacturing and correcting trade imbalances. He pointed to alternative statutory authorities that remain in effect, specifically Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs, which allow for trade measures based on national security and unfair trade practices, respectively.
Economic and Legal Implications
The Treasury Secretary’s refusal to clarify the status of tariff refunds introduces significant uncertainty for U.S. businesses and importers who have absorbed the costs of these levies. While the Supreme Court’s decision curbs the executive branch’s use of emergency powers for broad economic policy, the administration’s pivot to alternative statutes suggests a continued adherence to protectionist trade measures. This dynamic sets the stage for prolonged legal battles in lower courts over the financial liability of the federal government, potentially impacting fiscal planning and market stability in the coming quarters.
