President Donald Trump warned on Monday that the United States could face major repayment obligations if the Supreme Court rules against his use of emergency powers to impose broad “reciprocal” tariffs, arguing that refunds and related costs could reach into the hundreds of billions or more. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has disputed the scale of any repayment risk and said the Treasury could handle any refunds if ordered.
On Monday, President Donald Trump sharply criticized the prospect that the Supreme Court could strike down a set of wide-ranging tariffs he imposed under emergency authorities, saying the United States would be “screwed” if the court rules against the government.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said a loss could require repayment of “many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars” in tariff collections and could also trigger additional compensation demands tied to investments companies and countries have made to avoid tariffs.
“The actual numbers that we would have to pay back if, for any reason, the Supreme Court were to rule against the United States of America on Tariffs, would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, and that doesn’t include the amount of ‘payback’ that Countries and Companies would require for the Investments they are making on building Plants, Factories, and Equipment, for the purpose of being able to avoid the payment of Tariffs.”
Trump added that when those investments are included, “we are talking about Trillions of Dollars,” and said a rollback would be “a complete mess” and “almost impossible” for the country to pay.
The case before the Supreme Court centers on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authorizes the president to impose tariffs, a power traditionally set by Congress. The court heard argument on the dispute on November 5, 2025, in consolidated cases including Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, after lower courts ruled against the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA.
At oral argument, Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the tariffs by pointing to emergency declarations that cited issues such as fentanyl trafficking and other asserted national-security and economic threats. Public reporting on the argument indicated that justices across the ideological spectrum raised questions about whether IEEPA clearly authorizes tariffs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has played down the prospect of disruptive refunds. In an interview with Reuters published January 10, Bessent said the Treasury had ample cash to cover any repayments if required, but criticized the idea as “a corporate boondoggle,” questioning whether importers would return any refunded money to consumers.
“It won’t be a problem if we have to do it … it’s just a corporate boondoggle,” Bessent said. “Costco, who’s suing the U.S. government, are they going to give the money back to their clients?”
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision remains uncertain. The court has scheduled an opinions announcement for Wednesday, January 14, 2026, and the tariffs decision could be among the rulings released, though the court does not typically provide advance notice of which cases will be decided on a given day.
