Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted that the American people would never see the return of $175 billion in tariffs collected by the Trump administration after the Supreme Court struck down the president's ability to impose them.
During an event at the Economic Club of Dallas on Friday, Ray Washburne noted that the administration had collected about $175 billion in tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) before the court ruled it unconstitutional.
"But is that going to be in dispute?" Washburne asked. "Like who gets it back?"
"Yeah, it's in dispute," Bessent confirmed. "The Supreme Court did not rule on that today. They pushed it back down to the International Tax and Trade Court. And my sense is that could be dragged out for weeks, months, years."
"Well, that's going to be a food fight going after the $175 billion," Washburne observed.
"I got a feeling the American people won't see it," Bessent predicted.
Trump has vowed to continue imposing tariffs despite the court's ruling on Friday.
A historian Friday described the historic impact of the Supreme Court's decision in its ruling against President Donald Trump's tariffs — something the nation's founders would have appreciated.
Tim Naftali, CNN's presidential historian and former head of the Nixon Presidential Library, explained why the high court's ruling was an active practice of what the Constitution was intended to do.
"Well, wherever he is, James Madison is smiling today. Tariffs are a tax. The founders decided that taxes should be the responsibility of the Article One branch, which is Congress," Naftali said.
"And today the U.S. Constitution worked as it's supposed to work, which is to keep various parts of the government in check when they overstep constitutional bounds," he added.
The court's decision was also one of many times throughout history that the Supreme Court has pushed back on a president.
"This is a huge moment in American history," Naftali said. "Donald Trump is not the first president to have been disappointed by the court. The courts in the 1930s invalidated Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. That's what led to the first push to pack the court that was Roosevelt's response to the fact that he was so angry at the court for undermining the New Deal.
"In the end, the court changed, and the New Deal stayed. Richard Nixon was furious at the court for forcing him to turn over the tapes when he lost the case. U.S. v Nixon. Well, the Dobbs decision really unsettled the Biden presidency. And Obama was not happy with Citizens United."
He said it's not new for presidents to be unhappy about a Supreme Court decision, but it is American.
"It's the way that it works. Our system is supposed to work this way every so often. One of the branches is supposed to be disappointed when it can't engage in a power grab that is unconstitutional."
President Donald Trump was dealt a huge blow by the Supreme Court on Friday as they eliminated his ability to impose tariffs under economic emergency powers — but he almost at once declared he will continue to charge global tariffs, using a number of alternative statutes. During his rant, he claimed under the ruling, he can't charge tariffs to foreign countries but can "destroy the country" by cutting off all trade to it instead.
Trump's bizarre diatribe, as well as his vow to keep all the same policies the Supreme Court eliminated in place by other means, provoked a stunned reaction from commenters on social media.
"Trump announces a new 10% global tariff. Happy midterms, @GOP," wrote progressive political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen.
"Did Donald Trump just openly defy the court’s decision?! He will now impose tariffs by other statutory means," wrote Princeton University professor Eddie Glaude.
"He's having a mental breakdown over this," said Chronicles writer Pedro Gonzalez.
"Dude is screaming 'I'm allowed to destroy the country' in a ramble about tariffs," wrote conspiracy theory expert Mike Rothschild. "He's absolutely cooked, but they need him to stay in office another 11 months, or JD Vance's campaign is DOA."
"What's amazing about Trump is that if you created a fictional character with as little subtext as him, they'd get rejected for being too cartoonishly unrealistic," wrote YouTuber Velodus. "'You can't just have him say he's allowed to destroy the country, that's too on the nose,' your editor would say."
CNN hosts were taken aback by how angry President Donald Trump was Friday after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs.
Anchors Boris Sanchez and Brianna Keilar were talking to senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes about Trump's reaction to the Supreme Court's ruling — and how noticeably upset he appeared to be during it. Trump called the move "deeply disappointing" during a press conference and his first public reaction to the high court's decision. He also said that the SCOTUS justices who voted against his tariffs are "barely" invited to his State of the Union address next week, saying, "I couldn't care less if they come."
"Yeah, he is clearly angry," Holmes said. "He's been seething about this decision. This is the real core tenet of not just his economic agenda, but really his foreign policy agenda as well. He has used these tariffs as leverage, and he said specifically yes, he is going this alternative route. Yes, he is going to be invoking this 10% global tariffs by using the section 122. We know that they are looking into also using section 301. Those are the things those trade law that they're talking about to get this done. But that being said, the reason that they had gone this route initially was because this was quicker. They wanted this to be done quicker. They wanted to be able to instate this quicker. And that is why you're seeing this frustration from President Trump."
Trump was vocal and expressed his annoyance that he wanted his tariffs to continue despite the high court's decision. He also refused to answer CNN questions during the press briefing, calling the network "fake news."
"And I will say there were several interesting things he said. One, he was asked specifically about the two justices that he appointed to the Supreme Court," Holmes said.
Trump had a scathing comment to the justices he had appointed who voted down his tariffs.
"The question that I had also tried to ask, which is whether or not he regretted it, he wouldn't answer that, but he said it was an embarrassment," Holmes said. "This decision to rule against the tariffs was an embarrassment to their families. We know that he has ranted in the past about Supreme Court justices, particularly those he has appointed, who don't rule in his favor, but it was very clear here today that he was incredibly angry; he was angry at the court. He was angry at the people that he put into place. And he said so much, saying that they should be ashamed of themselves and of this decision that they made."
Trump praised the three justices who dissented from the decision, including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who issued a 63-page dissent.
"Now, one of the things we also saw him do was walk through the dissent from Kavanaugh, who obviously ruled in favor of keeping the tariffs or against them being illegal and said that he that Kavanaugh had sort of set up a roadmap for what they were going to be doing now to instate these tariffs and praised Kavanaugh as well also mentioning that all the Supreme Court justices are still invited to the State of the Union, but barely but again, you could see how angry he was," Holmes said. "This is a core part of what they do what he has been doing, both in terms of economic policy, paying for different programs, saying that these tariffs are going to various different programs and bailouts, as well as when he goes into meetings with these foreign leaders using the tariffs as an enormous amount of leverage and really doing so carte blanche until now."
President Donald Trump took a shot at two justices he nominated to be on the Supreme Court — Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — after they ruled that he had illegally imposed massive tariffs.
"Are you surprised in particular by their decision today?" Trump was asked during a White House press conference on Friday.
"I am," the president stated.
"Do you regret nominating them?" the reporter pressed.
"I don't want to say whether or not I regret," Trump replied. "I think their decision was terrible. I think it's an embarrassment to their families. You want to know the truth, the two of them."
President Donald Trump blasted members of the Supreme Court who ruled against his ability to impose tariffs in a 6-3 decision.
During a White House news conference on Friday, Trump said he was "ashamed of certain members of the court."
"Absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what's right for our country," the president explained. "I'd like to thank and congratulate justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now very proud of those justices."
Trump argued that foreign countries were "dancing in the streets" because of the tariff ruling.
"The Democrats on the court are thrilled, but they will automatically vote no," he said. "They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic no matter how good a case you have. It said no."
"They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution," he continued. "It's my opinion that the Court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think. Movement. I won by millions of votes. We won in a landslide. With all the cheating that went on, there was a lot of it, but we still won in a landslide."
"But these people are obnoxious, ignorant, and loud. They don't want to do the right thing. They're afraid of it."
President Donald Trump erupted at the Supreme Court on Friday after it ruled against his authority to impose sweeping tariffs, vowing to circumvent its decision with “alternatives” and lambasting the justices for their "ridiculous opinion,” which he claimed permitted him to "destroy" countries.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 earlier on Friday that Trump acted outside his authority when imposing his sweeping tariffs, which his administration had justified under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). As such, a significant share of Trump’s tariffs have now been declared unlawful.
“The court said that I'm not allowed to charge even $1! Can't charge one dollar to any country under IEEPA!” Trump raged during an address from the White House.
“But I am allowed to cut off any and all trade or business with that same country; in other words, I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge $1!”
Trump has staked much of his presidency on his tariff policy, warning over the past several months that a ruling against the policy could lead to a $2 trillion “catastrophe” and reduce the United States to “almost Third World status.”
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled against the tariffs, Trump appears ready to circumvent the order through alternative tariffs, tariffs that he argued could generate “more money.”
“I can do anything I want to do to them, but I can't charge any money,” Trump continued. “So I'm allowed to destroy the country, but I can't charge them a little fee. How ridiculous is that?”
Trump erupts at SCOTUS after ruling against tariffs:
"I can destroy the trade, I can destroy the country! I'm even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo, I can embargo! I can do anything I want, but I can't charge one dollar!” pic.twitter.com/shwto7FAcc — Alexander Willis (@ReporterWillis) February 20, 2026
President Donald Trump slammed liberal justices after the Supreme Court ruled against his tariffs on Friday.
In his first public comments since the decision, Trump called the high court's ruling "deeply disappointing" and described his frustration following the 6-3 vote during a White House press briefing.
"The Democrats on the court are thrilled but they will automatically vote 'no.' They're an automatic 'no' just like in Congress, they're an automatic 'no,'" Trump said.
"They're against anything that makes America strong, healthy and great again. They also are a, frankly, disgrace to our nation, those justices. They're an automatic 'no' no matter how good a case you have — it's a 'no.' You can't knock their loyalty. It's one thing you can do with some of our people."
Trump claimed he had tried to use discretion around his tariffs.
"I was very modest in my ask of other countries and businesses because I wanted to do and it's very important, I wanted to be very well-behaved because I... didn't want to do anything to affect the decision of the court," Trump said. "Because I understand the court. I understand how they're very easily swayed. I wanted to be a good boy."
Following a Supreme Court decision on tariffs, Andrew Kolvet, co-host of The Charlie Kirk show, admitted that consumers would get "screwed" because President Donald Trump had no intention of refunding the effective taxes paid due to his illegal policies.
During Friday's edition of The Charlie Kirk Show, Kolvet argued that consumers paid only 20% of the cost of Trump's tariffs, even though The Wall Street Journal foundit was at least 90%.
"But if, let's assume that they were right about that," Kolvet said, "then Americans are basically going to get double tax because of this court decision, which is hilarious."
Co-host Blake Neff read a question from a viewer: "Kathy asked, is the possibility of refunding tariffs to the importers. A lot of them have passed costs onto consumers. Do the consumers get a refund also?"
"The answer is no!" Neff admitted.
"Nope!" Kolvet agreed. "We know, it's consumers, the little man gets screwed."
"Get hosed," Neff remarked.
"Listen, you could make the argument that perhaps this was textually the right decision by the letter of the law," Kolvet said. "But it's, there's a measure of insanity to it because you could just ban all the imports. You can't tariff them a single penny!"
President Donald Trump could face even more legal challenges after the Supreme Court struck down his tariffs, according to an analyst.
Ken Dilanian, justice and intelligence correspondent for MS NOW, pointed to how Trump has plenty of success with the high court and previous rulings in his favor — yet not this time.
"He won a lot of rulings. But now we're getting to some really big ticket items. This was one of them," Dilanian said. "But then there's some other ones upcoming where a lot of legal scholars believe the Supreme Court is not going to rule in his favor. One example is the birthright citizenship case, where Donald Trump is trying to redefine the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, and who can be a citizen in this country. That was argued in April. Remember, initially they looked at the question of whether there could be a nationwide injunction in that case, and they ruled that there could not be, but they didn't rule on the merits. That's coming up. And a lot of people believe that that is not going to go Donald Trump's way."
The next legal battles could also be losses for the president.
"Another big case involves the firing of Fed Board member Lisa Cook, and whether Donald Trump can remove her for cause related to something that she didn't do while in office," Dilanian said. "That's a really big case about presidential power, and it's a very good chance he's going to lose that case. And then there are a number of cases involving immigration and DHS. And the use of emergency powers essentially limits on the president's powers that are going to come before this court. And it's really possible that this court is going to constrain Donald Trump in ways that he hasn't seen before. And it will be really interesting to see how he reacts. We know that he tends to attack judges when things don't go his way, as do members of his administration."
In a 6-3 vote, the high court ruled that Trump's tariffs were illegal. Among the six justices in the majority decision were Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Amy Coney Barrett — both Gorsuch and Barrett were appointed by the president.
This decision and push back against Trump sent a message to the president, Dilanian said.
"Well, I think it's been veryclear for a long time. And thistariffs case underscores that,that none of those threejustices are lackeys for Donald Trump," Dilanian said. "They don't necessarilyshare his administration's viewof executive power. They'recertainly very conservative.This is the most conservativecourt in modern history. Butthey are independent. And thequestion of whether they'regoing to remake, for example,hundreds of years of law oncitizenship, it just doesn'tseem like their style,particularly Roberts is aninstitutionalist. And so, again, Donald Trump may be in for arude awakening here with someof these big cases down theline on."
Former Republican lawmaker Adam Kinzinger issued a bleak warning Friday that, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s bombshell ruling on President Donald Trump’s tariffs, the president may very well ignite a regional war out of rage after having “clearly the worst day” of his second term.
On Friday, the Supreme Courtruled 6-3 against the Trump administration regarding its authority to impose sweeping tariffs, and thus, essentially shuttered the president’s signature foreign trade policy. And, with Trump reportedly on the cusp of “pulling the trigger” on a “full-fledged war” with Iran, Kinzinger expressed fears that the court’s decision could send Trump over the edge.
“While this is not the worst day for the country – it’s a good day – in Donald Trump’s mind, it is the worst day for the country,” Kinzinger said in a video published Friday on his Substack. “This is a massive rebuke to Donald Trump, this is embarrassing to him… He’s going to be angry today. Maybe we go to war with Iran now because he’s angry.”
Trump has yet to directly respond to the Supreme Court’s decision, but in past months, has grown increasingly panicked that the court may rule against the legality of his tariffs. He’s previously warned that, should the court rule against his tariffs, the United States would suffer a $2 trillion “catastrophe,” and that the country “could be reduced to almost Third World status.”
However Trump does respond, Kinzinger theorized, would almost certainly be explosive.
“You’re going to see Donald Trump lose his mind even more,” Kinzinger said. “All in all, really good day, [but] this is a bad day for Donald Trump.”
Regarding Iran, peace talks have stalled between Tehran officials and the Trump administration, and a colossal U.S. military force has been mobilized in the region.
Emergency Video: Donald Trumps Very Bad Day by Adam Kinzinger
MAGA influencer Steve Bannon seized on the Supreme Court's decision to strike down President Donald Trump's tariffs to push gold purchases on his "patriot" viewers.
"I can't be more blunt that this is a bombshell," Bannon announced on Friday after the court's ruling. "So this is a stunning blow."
"Now more than ever, if you haven't been convinced today, if you haven't been convinced up today, maybe you'll be convinced today, for five years, we've been working with Birch Gold, when gold was, I don't know, $1,000," he continued, "to talk about the process of why gold has been a hedge, physical gold has been a hedge."
"And now it's kind of segued back to a financial asset class like it was in the 19th century. We are very proud of this work."
Bannon encouraged his followers to use his promo code when contacting Birch Gold.
"You get access to the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump," he insisted. "And with a qualifying purchase, you get a free copy of the Patriots edition of The End of the Dollar Empire. You will learn a lot."
In his dissent after a 6-3 majority clamped down on Donald Trump’s ability to bypass Congress and levy tariffs on a whim, Justice Brett Kavanaugh went beyond a legal and historical precedent argument and instead worried how the current administration will cope with the adverse ruling.
Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee, wrote a dissent where he broke with conservative Justices John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch and complained that the court did not consider the implications of how the Trump administration will refund the ill-gotten tariff money.
He wrote, “So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. But the Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term.”
“One issue will be refunds,” he predicted. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U. S. Treasury. The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.”
Recalling when the case was presented to the sitting court, he added, “But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument.”
