In a significant clash on CNN's "State of the Union," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent dismissed the notion of an immediate $134 billion refund for businesses, following the Supreme Court's explosive ruling against the administration's emergency tariffs.
When questioned by Dana Bash on whether the government would return the massive sum collected under the now-invalidated IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authority, Bessent countered, “That’s not the big question. That’s bad framing.”
While the Supreme Court ruled on February 20, 2026, that the President cannot use "emergency powers" to bypass Congress's taxing authority, the administration remains defiant. Bessent's "bad framing" argument is based on three pillars:
1. Lower Court Delay: Bessent argued that since the Supreme Court remanded the case without explicitly ordering immediate checks to be issued, the Treasury would wait for a lower court to dictate the exact "remedy."
2. Legal Re-classification: The administration is already moving to re-classify the same tariffs under different laws, such as Section 301 (unfair trade) or Section 122 (balance of payments), to maintain the revenue flow.
3. Revenue Neutrality: Despite the legal setback, Bessent informed viewers that the Treasury's 2026 revenue projections remain "virtually unchanged." This suggests the government intends to retain the funds, albeit through different legal channels.
This situation has serious implications for American small businesses and importers, for whom the $134 billion is crucial for survival. With the administration doubling down and even hiking temporary tariffs to 15% just hours after the ruling, the legal battle over ownership of the disputed funds is far from over.