Scott Bessent Says Supreme Court Won’t Dare Strike Down Trump’s Tariffs [WATCH]

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold President Donald Trump’s authority to issue tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Appearing on “Sunday Morning Futures With Maria Bartiromo,” Bessent said the Court has historically avoided striking down what he described as a president’s “signature” policy tools.

The case before the Supreme Court centers on whether Trump can continue using IEEPA to impose tariffs on foreign nations after declaring a national emergency.

Bartiromo asked Bessent whether the administration had prepared a contingency plan or whether it would need to “pay back $200 billion in tariff revenue already collected” if the Court ruled against the President.

“I want to say this in the strongest possible terms: I think there are three points here. One, this is one of President Trump’s signature policies and traditionally the Supreme Court does not interfere with a president’s signature policy,” Bessent said.

“Two, this is an emergency authority which is IEEPA. President Trump has successfully used that,” he continued.

“On the rare earth problem he threatened substantial tariffs on China, and that made the rare earths flow.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Bessent cited several examples in which tariff threats helped advance administration objectives.

He noted instances where Trump raised the possibility of tariffs on goods produced in countries involved in peace negotiations. According to Bessent, that pressure “got us to the peace deal.”

He also pointed to efforts to curb fentanyl trafficking.

“We had fentanyl tariffs. And what is more of an emergency than hundreds of thousands of Americans dying every year? No one had been able to get the Chinese to the table with these precursor drugs,” he said.

Bessent then questioned how the Supreme Court might handle the economic consequences if it were to reject Trump’s tariff authority.

“Three: I would push this back on to the Supreme Court. I don’t think this ruling is going to go against us, but if it does, what’s their plan for refunds? How is this going to get to consumers? Are they just going to hand some of these importers a big windfall?” he said.

“What if the exporters had given big discounts already and then you’re going to give a refund on the tariffs? They’d be making it on both sides. So, I don’t think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that.”

During oral arguments on Nov. 5, multiple justices signaled skepticism about the scope of the President’s authority under IEEPA. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned whether the law could be interpreted to permit tariffs of any kind.

“Congress uses tariffs in other provisions, but not here,” Roberts said.

“And yet the justification is being used for a power to impose tariffs on any product, from any country, in any amount, for any length of time. That does seem like its major authority.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why Congress would grant broad power to restrict trade but not specifically authorize even a minor tariff.

“Why would a rational Congress say, ‘Yeah, we’re going to give the president the power to shut down trade … but can’t do a 1% tariff?’” he asked.

IEEPA, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, grants presidents wide authority to regulate international commerce during national emergencies.

The statute does not explicitly address tariffs. Trump made use of the law throughout his second term, applying or threatening tariffs in multiple contexts.

During the 43-day government shutdown, the Senate passed bipartisan resolutions to end three national emergencies Trump had declared for tariffs placed on Brazil and Canada, as well as his broader reciprocal tariff initiative.

In each vote, a small group of Republicans, including Kentucky Sens. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell, joined Senate Democrats to block the tariff actions.