Scott Bessent says Trump tariffs will survive Supreme Court but warns of massive Treasury refund risk

Scott Bessent said on Sunday that Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs are likely to pass Supreme Court scrutiny, but warned the Treasury may be forced to return hundreds of billions in tariff revenue if the court rules against the White House.

Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press, the Treasury Secretary said he was “confident” Trump’s trade moves would be upheld.

Still, he admitted that “we would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” if the court strikes them down. “If the court says it, we’d have to do it,” he added.

The Trump administration is now urging the court to move fast. After a federal appeals court ruled last month that most of Trump’s tariffs were illegal, the Justice Department filed a request for an expedited decision.

The legal fight is over what Trump calls “reciprocal tariffs,” which were applied to nearly every country under his “liberation day” policy. The Federal Circuit Court found that Trump went beyond the limits of presidential authority when imposing those measures. However, that ruling won’t go into effect until October 14, giving the administration a narrow window to appeal.

White House warns delay could trigger trillion-dollar refund

Bessent warned that if the court delays a final ruling until 2026, the Treasury could be sitting on top of as much as $1 trillion in collected tariffs.

“Delaying a ruling until June 2026 could result in a scenario in which $750 billion to $1 trillion in tariffs have already been collected, and unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he said. A refund of that size would be an enormous cash windfall to importers, and a serious financial hit to the federal government.

During the same interview, NBC’s Kristen Welker asked Bessent whether he believes American companies are passing the cost of those tariffs on to regular consumers. “Do you acknowledge that these tariffs are attacks on American consumers?” she asked.

“No, I don’t,” Bessent replied, dismissing criticism that the tariffs are driving up prices across the country. “You’re taking these from earnings calls, and on earnings calls, they have to give the draconian scenario,” he said. “There aren’t companies coming out and saying, ‘Oh, because of the tariffs, we’re doing this.’”

He defended the economic outlook under Trump, pointing to headline numbers. “If things are so bad, why was the GDP 3.3%? Why is the stock market at a new high? Because, you know, with President Trump, we care both about big companies and small companies.”

Manufacturing jobs fall as hiring slows and wages stall

Welker then turned to new numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In August, the U.S. lost 12,000 manufacturing jobs. That brings total losses in the sector to 42,000 since April, when Trump rolled out his new tariffs.

Welker pressed Bessent on whether those numbers prove that the tariffs are falling short of Trump’s job promises. Bessent pushed back: “It’s been a couple of months.

And with the manufacturing sector… we can’t snap our fingers and have factories built.” He insisted that things would turn around before the end of the year. “By the fourth quarter, we’re going to see a substantial acceleration,” he said.

But the hiring freeze isn’t limited to factory floors. The Center for American Progress reported that since April, job openings are down by 76,000 and hires have dropped by 18,000.

While the administration insists the tariffs are about protecting American industry, economists estimate that U.S. households are now spending $2,400 more per year as a direct result.

At the same time, manufacturing wages are barely rising. In August, the average hourly pay for a factory worker was $35.50, just 10 cents higher than it was in July.

All this pressure hasn’t changed the administration’s legal approach. Trump is pushing ahead with the Supreme Court appeal, and Bessent is backing him. But if the justices don’t agree, Bessent has made it clear who’s left holding the bag: “If the court says it, we’d have to do it.”

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.