Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared on CNN this weekend with host Dana Bash following the Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling blocking President Donald Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs. What followed was a tense and testy exchange over a simple but consequential question: what happens to the roughly $134 billion already collected?
Bash framed the issue directly. With the Court ruling that the Trump administration had exceeded its authority under IEEPA, would the government refund the revenue generated by those emergency tariffs?
Bessent bristled immediately, setting a defensive tone that underscored many of his responses throughout the interview.
“That’s not the big question,” he said, accusing Bash of “bad framing.” He characterized the Supreme Court’s decision as a “very narrow reading” of presidential authority and emphasized that the justices had remanded the matter to a lower court. Refunds, he insisted, were not addressed in Friday’s ruling and therefore were not yet at issue.
When Bash clarified that refunds would ultimately fall under the executive branch’s responsibility if ordered, Bessent interrupted: “It is not up to me. It is not up to the administration. It is up to the lower court.”
Bessent Dodges Questions, Refuses To Acknowledge Tariff Refunds
Bash pointed out that the Justice Department had previously told a federal appeals court that, if tariffs were held unlawful, refunds would be issued to plaintiffs. Bessent declined to elaborate, repeating that he would not “get out ahead of the court,” which could take “weeks or months” to rule.
Pressed for his own view—after all, he is the Treasury secretary—Bessent pivoted once again. The “big story,” he insisted, was not potential refunds but the administration’s continued push to reshore manufacturing and address trade imbalances. He framed Trump’s 15% tariffs under Section 122 as temporary placeholders, describing them as a “bridge” leading to tariffs under Sections 232 and 301. Revenue projections for 2026, he added, remain unchanged.
But Bash returned to the practical consequences. Before the ruling, Bessent had described tariff refunds as “corporate welfare,” suggesting that companies would pocket the money rather than pass it along to consumers. What about small business owners, she asked—many of whom say they have absorbed the costs directly?
Again, Bessent deflected. He suggested that the government did not know what pricing arrangements had been negotiated between importers and foreign suppliers. He urged a focus on Friday’s ruling rather than hypothetical downstream impacts.
The exchange grew sharper when Bash expressed skepticism that the Treasury secretary lacked an opinion about the fate of more than $100 billion in federal revenue. Bessent dismissively responded: “Again, I had an opinion. And the court did not agree with my opinion. So, Dana, I’m going to wait for the lower court opinion.”
At multiple points, Bessent appeared less interested in addressing the substance of the refund question than in contesting its premise. He repeatedly minimized the issue, narrowed the scope to procedural technicalities, and treated inquiries about executive responsibility as mischaracterizations.
