On Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tossed in his commentary in response to the Supreme Court's tariff decision. It makes for interesting listening; Secretary Bessent may be the administration official who is the best at what he does, tied perhaps with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
First: At a briefing covered by C-SPAN, Bessent spoke on the alternatives available to the president with regard to tariffs.
🔥Tariffs will continue to make America HOT
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026
"We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges."
Which will “result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026."
BOOM.
pic.twitter.com/OH1HdFYghW
Secretary Bessent said in part:
I'd also like to take a moment to address today's Supreme Court ruling, and I would note, that I did not change a single word in my speech, post the ruling. President Trump will always put our national security and Americans first. And as I have said before, the president has multiple tools in his toolbox. Let's be clear about what today's ruling was, and what it wasn't. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump's tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authority can not be used to raise even one dollar of revenue.
This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges. 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.
These are the same statutes the president mentioned this morning, and there will likely be legal challenges to the use of these authorities as well, but that will have to be litigated another day.
Later, speaking with Fox News' Will Cain:
🚨@scottbessent34: "This is a SETBACK for the American people."
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026
"By taking away President Trump's instantaneous leverage, using IEEPA, the American people have suffered a significant setback.
Think to this time last year when POTUS put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico,… pic.twitter.com/vvcv8bPWoy
The post continues:
Think to this time last year when POTUS put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico, Canada, China for precursor chemical. We saw a RAPID decline in fentanyl deaths. If that’s not emergency authority, what was?
So in terms of the direction of travel, national security, how we will get there with these deals, revenue, nothing has changed.
But what has changed, the Supreme Court has taken away the president’s leverage."
Again, Secretary Bessent replies to Mr. Cain:
Will Cain: So, I listened to you speak this morning. And, we've heard from the president. It sounds like the position of the administration is really, nothing has changed today.
Secretary Bessent: Well, Will, to be clear, today was a loss for the American people, because, by taking away President Trump's instantaneous leverage, using the IEEPA authority, the American people have suffered a significant setback. Think to this time last year, when President Trump put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico, Canada, China, for precursor chemicals. And then, we saw a rapid decline in fentanyl deaths. If that's an emergency authority, what was?
On October 8th, when the Chinese government said they were going to put a worldwide export control on any product that had .01 percent Chinese rare earths in it, 24 hours later, President Trump said that he would impose a 100 percent tariff on China if they did it, they immediately came to the negotiating table and we were able to negotiate a one year extension. So, in terms of their direction of travel, national security, how we will get there with these deals, nothing has changed. But what has changed, the Supreme Court has taken away the president's leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian, because they agreed, he does have the right to (impose) a full embargo.
That's an interesting point, and one that President Trump made in his own presser earlier on Friday: This decision indicated that the president may not be able to impose tariffs under IEEPA, but that he can unilaterally embargo any other nation; he can't charge, as the president put it, one dollar, but he can cut off imports from that country altogether. Secretary Bessent is right to call this a more draconian step.
Read More: Breaking: Supreme Court Says No to Tariffs by Emergency Decree
Presser: President Trump Reacts to Supreme Court Tariff Decision
And, finally, the secretary addressed the nebulous issue of tariff refunds.
.@SecScottBessent is asked about the $175 Billion Tariff REFUND:
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026
"I’m not going to get ahead of the courts. As the president said, the Supreme Court was very discombobulated on this...This could take years to litigate and get to a payout. If there is a payout, it looks like… pic.twitter.com/j17tWyGIf0
The post concludes:
If there is a payout, it looks like it’s just going to be the ultimate corporate welfare.
In that exchange:
Will Cain: You mentioned, the revenue will not change for Treasury. But what about the revenue you've already collected? What about the $175 billion? Do you anticipate having to make refunds at Treasury?
Secretary Bessent: Well, I'm not going to get out ahead of the court. And as the president said, the Supreme Court was very discombobulated on this. They didn't give any guidance on it, I think it's probably not $175 (billion) it's probably closer to $130, but still a substantial amount. They have remanded it back down to a lower court, and, as Amy Coney Barrett said in the original hearing, that this could be a mess. And, this could take months, this could take years, to litigate and to get to the payouts. And, if there is a payout, it looks likes it's just going to be the ultimate corporate welfare.
That's something of an understatement.
This decision was, then, limited. This issue is far from over. The administration appears to have had its backup plans already in place, which is hardly surprising; this is a major case affecting perhaps the biggest of President Trump's foreign trade tools, and it stands to reason his administration has been doing some "what if" wargaming in the event they lost, which they did.
What happens now? According to what we saw this morning, the administration is already on the new path and working its way up the gears. It's too soon to know all the implications yet - but we will know more soon enough, and when we know more, so will you.
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and bold policies, America’s economy is back on track.
Help us continue to report on the president’s economic successes and combat the lies of the Democrats. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member