President Donald Trump said Friday that it seems what becomes of the revenue generated by International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) tariffs will have to be “litigated” over the coming years.
Trump blasted the Supreme Court, which ruled 6-3 that his IEEPA tariffs are unlawful, for not ruling on what becomes of the reportedly $ 175 billion in tariff revenue.
TRUMP ON TARIFF REVENUE: Asked about 5B in tariffs now in limbo after SCOTUS ruling, President Trump says the Court didn’t address refunds
— Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) February 20, 2026
Calls the decision ‘defective’ and expects the issue to be litigated for years, potentially keeping hundreds of billions collected in… pic.twitter.com/T3V4HpQEXz
“Since Liberation Day, there’s about $175 billion in tariff revenue that is now in limbo. Do you have to refund $175 billion?” Fox News’s Peter Doocy asked.
“Very fair question. They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point. We’ve taken in hundreds of billions of dollars, not millions, hundreds of billions of dollars,” Trump said.
“Wouldn’t you think they would have put one sentence in there saying that ‘Keep the money or don’t keep the money,’ right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he added.
He slammed the decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts, along with justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, sided with liberal judges, as “terrible” and “totally defective.”
“It’s almost like not written by smart people… Your question is very basic. That was the first question I asked,” Trump told Doocy.
When another reporter asked Trump a similar question, Trump said, “We’ll end up being in court for the next five years.”
Trump announced in the briefing that he will be imposing a 10 percent global tariff through Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
This is one of several avenues for future tariffs that Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed to in his dissent, in which he notes he “firmly” disagrees with the court’s decision. He also pointed to Section 232 in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, Sections 201 and 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and Section 338 in the Tariff Act of 1930.
