“If there is a payout, it’s just going to be the ultimate corporate welfare,” Bessent said on Fox News Friday hours after the high court’s ruling – which left unanswered the question of what happens with money already collected.
Bessent said litigation over refunds could turn into a months- or years-long process, and “could be a mess.” Earlier Friday, when asked about potential refunds at an Economic Club of Dallas event, the treasury chief said he had “a feeling the American people won’t see it.”
Companies could be the ones to benefit, he indicated on Fox News. Bessent cited a scenario where a Chinese supplier cut its price for an American importer, with the importer then paying the tariff but keeping the product’s final price tag unchanged. Giving the importer a refund would then be a net new benefit for that firm.
Bessent said the amount of revenue affected by the Supreme Court’s decision would be closer to US$130 billion than estimates of up to US$175 billion. The court ruled Friday that President Donald Trump could not impose tariffs using a law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump said he would re-impose most of the tariffs using other authorities. Bessent in a speech earlier Friday said that revenue collected from tariffs will be “virtually unchanged” in 2026 despite the ruling, thanks to the administration’s backup plan.
The other mechanisms include authorities granted by Congress known as Section 122, 232 and 301 authorities. Bessent said on Fox News that those methods are “less direct and slightly more convoluted.”
“Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority, combined with potentially enhanced Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026,” he said in prepared remarks to the Economic Club of Dallas.
The treasury chief also called on US trading partners that have already reached agreements with the Trump administration based on the IEEPA tariffs to abide by them.
“I think that everyone is going to honour their deal,” he said on Fox News. He also said the Supreme Court had reaffirmed that the president has the right to “a complete embargo,” so that poses a “draconian alternative” for other nations.