Posted on 09/12/2025 8:36:59 AM PDT by Miami Rebel
President Donald Trump warned on Friday that if the Supreme Court shoots down his global tariffs than the United States will owe “trillions and trillions of dollars” to other nations.
Trump joined Fox & Friends on Friday where he discussed a number of topics, including the shooting and killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
While talking up his tariff strategy, the president admitted that trillions could be added to the United States’ debt should he end up losing in the Supreme Court, which recently agreed on an expedited timeline to rule on whether Trump’s tariffs are legal.
The president said on Friday:
It’s given us a great power to negotiate with other countries that took advantage of us, tremendous power. Also, it’s brought in trillions of dollars into our country. We have a big case brought by foreign governments because the foreign governments have been ripping us off for years and it’s now in the Supreme Court That case is really important to win because it’s made us a rich country. It’s made us a rich country because I don’t want to call it retribution but we’ve been ripped off.
Should the tariffs be shot down by the Supreme Court, he added, the United States will owe trillions more than it already owes.
“That Supreme Court case is so important,” Trump said. “And, frankly, this economy, if we win the tariff case — which we should, on the legal merits, but on common sense merits — we would have to give back trillions of dollars to these countries. Can you imagine? We would have give back trillions and trillions of dollars because we got it because of tariffs.”
1. Why would trillions be owed to foreign countries? Total tariffs collected this year is not in the trillions, of course. About $185 billion has been paid, and that's come from US importers, not foreign countries.
2. "We have a big case brought by foreign governments because the foreign governments have been ripping us off for years..." I know that there have been legal challenges to the tariffs, but I'm certain that a foreign government would never have standing to do so.
“In 1971, after President Nixon suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar to gold, he made use of Section 5(b) of TWEA to declare a state of emergency and place a 10% ad valorem supplemental duty on all dutiable goods entering the United States.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
On May 30, 2019, President Trump announced his intention to use IEEPA to impose and gradually increase a 5% tariff on all goods imported from Mexico until “the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico.”158 The tariffs were scheduled to be implemented on June 10, 2019, with 5% increases to take effect at the beginning of each subsequent month. On June 7, 2019, President Trump announced that that “The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. [on June 10], against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45618
North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act §201(a)(1)
(1993):31 “The President may proclaim—(A) such modifications or continuation of any duty, (B) such continuation of duty-free or excise treatment, or (C) such additional duties, as the President determines to be necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply [specified] articles ... of the Agreement.”
“Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
§103(a):35 “Whenever the President determines that one or more existing duties or other import restrictions of any foreign country or the United States are unduly burdening and restricting the foreign trade of the United States and that the purposes, policies, priorities, and objectives of this chapter will be promoted thereby, the President ... may ... proclaim—(i) such modification or continuance of any existing duty, (ii) such continuance of existing duty-free or excise treatment, or (iii) such additional duties, as the President determines to be required or appropriate to carry out any such trade agreement.... The President shall notify Congress of the President’s intention to enter into an agreement under this subsection.” This authority is subject to the following restrictions: “No proclamation may be made under paragraph (1) that—(A) reduces any rate of duty (other than a rate of duty that does not exceed 5 percent ad valorem on June 29, 2015) to a rate of duty which is less than 50 percent of the rate of such duty that applies on June 29, 2015; (B) reduces the rate of duty below that applicable”
“In Cornet Stores v. Morton, a case involving a challenge to a presidential proclamation that imposed a 10% surcharge duty on certain imported merchandise in light of a declared national emergency, the plaintiffs sought recovery of the import surcharges they had paid, relying on the jurisdictional provisions of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917.37 Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the matter, finding it fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Court (Customs Court), which has since been replaced at the trial level by the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT).”
“Cornet Stores v. Morton, 632 F.2d 96, 97 (9th Cir. 1980).”
In 1928, a similar challenge was brought in the Customs Court in J.W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States. In Hampton, an importer challenged an increase in duties on certain imported goods as a result of a presidential proclamation issued under Section 315 of the Tariff Act of 1922, which provides:
[W]henever the President, upon investigation of the differences in costs of production of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of the United States and of like or similar articles wholly or in part the growth or product of competing foreign countries, shall find it thereby shown that the duties fixed in this act do not equalize the said differences in costs of production in the United States and the principal competing country he shall, by such investigation, ascertain said differences and determine and proclaim the changes in classifications or increases or decreases in any rate of duty provided in this act shown by said ascertained differences in such costs of production necessary to equalize the same.”
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44707
That is the last place I’d go to for informed analysis.
Mediaite quoted President Trump. It didn’t analyze anything.
What is YOUR analysis?
He’s right.
But when the ruling comes down and we see how the SC judges ruled, I bet those activist judges will still “resist”.
US has tariffed imports since the 1790s which significantly financed the USG
Tariffs existed until WW1 when income taxes were intro’d to pay war debt. Yeah that was Woody Wilson sticking it to the little guy.
Thank you for time and effort posting these for greater understanding. This is a somewhat complex issue that avoids most people’s radar.
What ruling in what case?
I am assuming he is referring to tariff revenue from his first term.
Take it out of the SCOTUS budget until it’s paid off.
EC
The American people and Trump will win this case so speculation is moot.
I guess all tariff revenue collected since 1974 will have to me paid back.
Tariffs refunds would be to American importers.
the company I work for imports some inputs from overseas, and we have paid duties. I don’t care - our domestic production is booming. The plants in WA, CA, OH are running 110% capacity, hiring every day. That’s how it should be.
I really doubt SCOTUS would overturn this. It would be a bigger deal economically than John Roberts declaring Obama a “tax” so it could be approved.
Congress gave the President all kinds of unilateral, emergency powers on duties, protection of national industry, etc....and Trump is using those.
The “tarriff case” in the SC, which Trump is referring to in the headline.
I think he is talking over decades.
Sounds like an incentive for foreign countries to bribe judges.
Why would you assume that? And total tariffs collected in the first Trump administration were $236 billion for all four years>
Trump does embellish things a lot, it’s probably coming from his negotiating style.
But in the long run he is correct. We cannot continue to have tariffs on American exports and virtually no tariffs on imports.
Could he be right to use emergency powers? It could be argued that the national debt is an emergency (it is). It could be argued that reshoring industry is necessary for national security (it is).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.