The Trump administration’s ambitious tariff program is facing its most pivotal moment yet, as the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether President Donald Trump’s global tariffs, imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), are legal. At stake is not only the fate of billions in tariff revenue but also the administration’s plan to distribute $2,000 rebate checks to millions of Americans—an idea that has sparked fierce debate in Washington and beyond.
National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, a central figure in the administration’s economic policymaking, has been making the rounds on national television, offering both practical and political arguments for the tariffs’ survival. Speaking on CBS News’ Face the Nation on December 21, 2025, Hassett expressed strong confidence that the justices would rule in the White House’s favor. “We really expect the Supreme Court is going to find with us,” Hassett said, echoing a sentiment repeated across multiple interviews. Lower courts have already ruled the so-called reciprocal tariffs illegal, but the Supreme Court’s decision will be final.
Hassett’s optimism, however, is tempered by the potential fallout if the court rules against the administration. He warned that requiring widespread refunds of the tariffs collected—estimated at nearly $100 billion—would create an “administrative problem.” “It would be very complicated,” he admitted, when pressed by CBS host Margaret Brennan on how such a system would actually work. “The people who pay the tariff—if there is a refund, the people who actually paid for the good, the importer in most cases, they are the ones who would be the first line of defense for refunding the tariff. But I really, really don’t think that’s going to happen. It would be very complicated. Then that person would be responsible for allocating the tariff refund to the appropriate folks.”
Trade experts have pointed out that the government already processes millions of tax refunds each year, suggesting the challenge may not be insurmountable. Still, Hassett stood firm: “Yes, it is a mess. And that’s why I think the Supreme Court wouldn’t do it.”
The complexity isn’t just administrative—it’s also economic. Trump has long claimed that foreign countries pay the tariffs, but Hassett’s recent comments suggest a more nuanced reality. “So in the end, who pays the tariff depends on the elasticity of supply and demand,” he said, noting that Chinese companies have cut their prices to offset some tariff costs, but that U.S. importers—and, by extension, consumers—have borne part of the burden. “Post-tariff price from Chinese goods is about what it was before the tariff,” Hassett observed, conceding that the impact has not been as straightforward as the administration once claimed.
Meanwhile, the debate over what to do with the mountain of tariff revenue has grown increasingly heated. As of late September 2025, about $90 billion of the $174 billion in tariff revenue came from IEEPA duties alone. The administration has floated several ideas for how to use these funds, including supporting earlier tax cuts. But the most headline-grabbing proposal is the plan to send $2,000 rebate checks to low- and middle-income Americans in 2026—a move Hassett and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have championed in recent weeks. “And so I would expect that in [the] new year, the president will bring forth a proposal to Congress to make that happen,” Hassett told the press, adding that economic growth and a reduction in government debt make the rebates feasible.
This plan, however, has exposed sharp divisions within the Republican Party. Several GOP leaders, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune, have argued that the tariff windfall should be used to reduce the national debt, not fund new spending. The debate has played out publicly, with some Republicans warning that the rebate checks could set a risky precedent or undermine fiscal discipline. “It would be better to use any tariff revenue to pay down the national debt,” Thune told reporters in November, reflecting a sentiment shared by many fiscal conservatives.
Despite the internal pushback, the administration has already begun to act on its promises. President Trump recently announced a one-time $1,776 payment—dubbed the “warrior dividend”—to nearly 1.5 million U.S. service members, symbolically tied to the nation’s founding year. Trump described the payment as a recognition of military service, made possible by “higher-than-expected tariff collections and related legislation.” The move was widely seen as an effort to showcase the benefits of the tariff program and to shore up support among military families and patriotic voters.
Not all the news on tariffs has been positive for the administration. Monthly tariff revenue, which had surged since the program’s expansion, declined slightly from $31.35 billion in October to $30.76 billion in November after duties were lifted on certain consumer goods, including coffee, oranges, and cocoa. The adjustment, officials said, was aimed at easing affordability concerns for American families heading into the holiday season.
As the Supreme Court deliberates, companies are already positioning themselves for the possible fallout. Costco, the warehouse club giant, has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade, joining dozens of other firms seeking to secure refunds should the tariffs be struck down. The uncertainty has left businesses and policymakers alike bracing for a potentially seismic shift in U.S. trade policy.
For Trump and his top advisers, the stakes could hardly be higher. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal, the president warned that if the Supreme Court invalidates the tariffs, his alternatives would be “not as nimble, not as quick,” and potentially less effective in protecting national security. Treasury Secretary Bessent echoed this view, stating in early November that countries facing higher U.S. tariffs should expect duties to remain in place, and that nations which had made deals with the White House should honor their commitments regardless of the court’s decision.
As the legal and political drama unfolds, Hassett remains a key player—both as the administration’s chief economic spokesman and as a contender to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair. His handling of the tariff controversy, and the broader debate over how to use the revenue, will likely shape both his legacy and the trajectory of U.S. economic policy for years to come.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling will determine whether the Trump administration’s tariffs stand as a cornerstone of American trade policy or become a costly chapter in the nation’s economic history. For now, all eyes are on the justices—and on the millions of Americans who could soon find a $2,000 check in their mailboxes, or not, depending on how the legal chips fall.
