Trump Warns Supreme Court Ruling on Tariffs Could Leave U.S. “Screwed”

President Donald Trump has delivered a stark warning to the Supreme Court, arguing that a ruling against his sweeping tariff policy would plunge the United States into economic chaos and leave the country financially crippled. With a decision potentially arriving as soon as this week, the legal showdown focuses on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose global tariffs without congressional approval. Trump insists the policy is not just a trade tactic but the backbone of his second-term economic strategy—one he says is vital for national security and for funding direct $2,000 “dividend” payments to millions of Americans. A loss at the Court, he claims, would unravel his agenda and trigger massive repayment demands from foreign governments and U.S. companies alike.

A Trillion-Dollar Fallout

In a series of posts on Truth Social on Monday, January 12, Trump outlined what he described as a devastating financial reckoning if the justices strike down his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs.

“The actual numbers that we would have to pay back… would be many Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” he wrote, pointing to the refunds that importers could demand. He warned that the total cost could soar into the trillions once additional claims are factored in from countries and corporations that invested in U.S. operations specifically to avoid the tariffs.

“It would be a complete mess, and almost impossible for our Country to pay,” Trump said, rejecting arguments that his tariff regime could simply be undone without severe consequences.

The Constitutional Question at the Core

At the center of the case is a basic constitutional dispute: Does a president’s emergency authority to “regulate” international commerce under IEEPA also grant the power to impose what critics view as taxes?

Since February 2025, the administration has relied on the law to levy tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on more than $150 billion worth of imports from countries including China, India, Canada, and members of the European Union. The courts so far have not been persuaded.

• May 2025: The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled the tariffs unlawful.

• August 2025: The Federal Circuit upheld that ruling, emphasizing that tariffs fall squarely under Congress’s authority and that “regulate” does not mean “tax.”

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, on an accelerated timeline. During oral arguments in November, even some conservative justices expressed concern about granting a president such broad economic power without explicit congressional approval.

Opening Another Front: The “Iran Tariff”

Despite the legal uncertainty, Trump expanded his trade strategy again on Monday, announcing a new 25% tariff on any country that continues doing business with Iran. He justified the move by pointing to Tehran’s violent suppression of domestic protests.

“Effective immediately, any Country doing business with the Islamic Republic of Iran will pay a Tariff of 25%,” he declared. While aimed at isolating Iran, the policy could strain trade ties with key U.S. partners such as China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.

Critics say the move highlights the unpredictability of Trump’s approach, which has already sparked more than 1,000 lawsuits from U.S. importers. They argue that while Iran may feel pressure, American consumers ultimately pay the price through higher costs on everyday goods.

The $2,000 Checks in Jeopardy

For voters, the most concrete element of the tariff fight is Trump’s promise of a “Tariff Dividend.” He has pledged to use tariff revenue—estimated by his administration at $309 billion by late 2025—to send checks of at least $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans.

Budget experts, including analysts at the Tax Foundation and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, have warned that the plan only works if the tariffs remain intact. If the Supreme Court invalidates them, that money could instead be swallowed up by refund obligations totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.

“WE’RE SCREWED!”

As the country awaits the Court’s 10:00 a.m. opinion release, Trump’s language has grown increasingly dire. He has brushed off claims that the U.S. could smoothly transition away from his tariffs, calling such views “false” and rooted in misunderstanding.

He ended his latest message with a blunt summary of what he sees at stake for his national security and economic vision.

“Remember, when America shines brightly, the World shines brightly,” Trump wrote. “In other words, if the Supreme Court rules against the United States of America… WE’RE SCREWED!”