"Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether most of Trump's tariffs were legally imposed, with justices sounding skeptical of his authority. They appeared concerned that tariffs effectively acted as a revenue-raising tax, as opposed to a mechanism to solve any emergency caused by a trade imbalance. There are questions about whether the government could end up having to refund more than $100 billion to importers if the high court rules the tariffs weren't legal."
"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, in an interview with ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, insisted the tariffs were not about "taking in the revenue," but rather were intended to re-balance trade. Flashback: Trump has hinted at a tariff dividend many times this year. He's more recently settled on the $2,000 figure, though. What to watch: It's not clear when the Supreme Court will rule on the tariff case."
Trump posted that tariffs are taking in trillions and will help pay down a $37 trillion debt while prompting record investment and factory growth in the USA. He proposed a tariff dividend of at least $2,000 per person, excluding high-income individuals. The Supreme Court heard arguments on whether most tariffs were legally imposed, with justices skeptical and concerned tariffs act as a revenue-raising tax rather than an emergency trade remedy. Questions exist about potential refunds exceeding $100 billion to importers if the tariffs are ruled illegal. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the tariffs aim to rebalance trade, not raise revenue. Timing and authorization of any dividend remain unclear.
Read at Axios
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]