Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says Supreme Court didn’t rule against Trump tariffs

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is pushing back on the idea that the Supreme Court just “killed” President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda, arguing the justices only blocked one legal pathway — and that the White House plans to pivot fast to others.

In a post on X, Bessent said “the Court did not rule against this Administration’s tariffs,” claiming it “only said IEEPA can’t be used to raise revenue,” and added the administration would “immediately shift” to other authorities, including Sections 232, 301, and 122.

That message landed right as the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not give the president power to impose broad tariffs the way Trump’s team argued it did. The decision came in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case that tested whether emergency economic powers could be used to create a sweeping tariff regime without Congress.

What the Supreme Court actually did — and didn’t — do

The ruling was narrower than “tariffs are illegal,” but it was still a major loss for the administration’s preferred tool. The Court rejected the use of IEEPA as the legal engine for those tariffs, reinforcing that tariff power lives with Congress unless Congress clearly delegates it.

What it didn’t do: erase every tariff already on the books, or block the White House from trying again under other laws that are specifically built for trade fights.

The pivot Bessent is pointing to

Bessent’s post name-checked three main options the administration says it can lean on next:

• Section 232: A national-security statute often used for industry-specific tariffs (think materials and strategic supply chains).
• Section 301: A trade enforcement law used to respond to “unfair” foreign practices, typically after an investigation and findings.
• Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974): A temporary import surcharge authority tied to “fundamental international payments problems.” The statute caps it at 150 days (unless Congress extends it) and allows a surcharge up to 15%.

The White House has already moved on the Section 122 track, issuing a proclamation that frames a temporary 10% import duty as necessary to address balance-of-payments problems — language pulled straight from that law’s purpose.

Replies: loophole talk, Congress talk, and refund talk

Bessent’s framing sparked an immediate backlash in the replies. Critics argued the post reads like a legal distinction without much real difference for consumers, with some calling the pivot “finding another loophole” rather than accepting the Court’s message about limits on executive power. Others pointed back to the broader point the Court emphasized: tariffs function as a tax on imports, and taxation is fundamentally a congressional power unless Congress clearly says otherwise.

Another thread running through reactions: money. Analysts and trade groups are now watching what happens to tariff revenue already collected under the struck-down IEEPA approach — and whether importers will seek refunds through litigation and administrative claims. Estimates and projections vary, and several outlets have highlighted that the refund question could be massive and messy.