U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed strong confidence on Sunday that the Supreme Court will rule to uphold President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), despite skeptical questioning from several Justices during recent oral arguments.
Appearing on Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, Bessent argued that the high court has a tradition of not interfering with a president’s “signature” policies.
The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case challenging the administration’s authority to levy tariffs on foreign nations using the IEEPA, a 1977 law intended to regulate international commerce following a declaration of national emergency. Critics argue the law does not explicitly grant the president the power to impose tariffs.
Bessent Cites Emergency Authority and Judicial Restraint
When asked by Bartiromo if the administration had a “back-up plan” or would face paying back an estimated $200 billion in collected tariff revenue if the Court ruled against the president, Bessent dismissed the prospect of an adverse ruling.
“I think there are three points here,” Bessent stated. “One, this is one of President Trump’s signature policies and traditionally the Supreme Court does not interfere with a president’s signature policy.”
READ: US Aircraft Carrier Arrives In Caribbean Amid Launch Of “Operation Southern Spear”
He further defended the action as a legitimate use of the IEEPA’s emergency authority, highlighting its effectiveness in securing foreign policy concessions.
- Trade Negotiation Tool: Bessent noted the use of tariffs as a threat in negotiations, such as their role in resolving the rare earth issue with China and securing “peace deals” with other nations.
- National Emergency: The Secretary also pointed to the “fentanyl tariffs,” arguing that the flow of precursor drugs and the resulting high number of American deaths constitute a clear national emergency warranting IEEPA’s use.
The Problem of Refunds: A “Mess” for the Court
Bessent also challenged the Supreme Court on the practical implications of striking down the tariffs and forcing refunds.
“I don’t think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that,” Bessent cautioned, questioning the logistics of refunding the collected revenue. He argued that ruling against the administration would only hand “a big windfall” to importers, particularly if exporters had already provided discounts, creating a scenario where companies would profit from both sides of the transaction.
Justices Express Constitutional Concerns
Bessent’s confidence contrasts with the tone of the November 5 oral arguments, where several Justices appeared inclined to question the scope of the President’s tariff authority.
Chief Justice John Roberts, often a swing vote, expressed concern that the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA granted the power to impose tariffs “on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time,” suggesting such “major authority” typically requires clearer congressional direction.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, also questioned the scope of the power, asking why a “rational Congress” would authorize the president to “shut down trade” via embargo but not to impose a small, 1% tariff under the same emergency statute. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce and levy taxes, a key issue at the center of the dispute.
The case, which tests the limits of executive power under a law not previously used as the basis for broad tariff imposition, is expected to be decided in the coming months.
READ: Wyoming Sen. Barrasso Calls Trump’s Filibuster Argument “Compelling” But Vows To Protect Senate Rule
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
