Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s promise of $2,000 tariff rebate checks, stating that Congressional approval is necessary, as the Supreme Court deliberates the legality of the tariffs funding them.
On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appeared on Fox News’ ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ and responded cautiously to questions about the $2,000 payments, stating, ‘We will see. We need legislation for that.’ This comment came just days after Trump assured reporters aboard Air Force One that the checks would be distributed ‘sometime next year,’ highlighting a discrepancy in the administration’s messaging regarding the feasibility of the proposal. Bessent emphasized that the payments would target working families with an income limit, though specifics were not provided, and noted that the checks ‘could go out’ if approved, but legislative hurdles remain significant.
Trump has been aggressively promoting the idea of tariff dividends for months, including in a Truth Social post earlier this month where he labeled opponents of tariffs as ‘FOOLS’ and promised a dividend of at least $2,000 per person, excluding high-income individuals. He claims that substantial revenue from his various tariff policies makes such payments possible, citing economic achievements, but the Treasury Department has not released concrete plans for distribution. The proposal has been floated since July, with Trump reiterating it as a key part of his economic agenda, though details on funding and eligibility remain vague.
The Supreme Court is currently weighing a critical case that challenges Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, with oral arguments earlier this month revealing deep skepticism from both liberal and conservative justices. A ruling against the administration could invalidate a significant portion of the tariff revenue, estimated at around $100 billion, which is essential for funding the proposed rebates. Bessent expressed concern that an unfavorable decision might lead to refunds for importers rather than benefits for consumers, questioning how the court would manage such outcomes.
Beyond legal challenges, the proposal faces political obstacles in Congress, where Republicans have shown only lukewarm support. Since the Constitution grants Congress sole authority to appropriate federal funds, passing legislation for the rebates would require bipartisan agreement, which is uncertain given the divisive nature of tariff policies. Bessent’s remarks underscore the administration’s reliance on Congressional cooperation, with no clear timeline or strategy for advancing the proposal amid other legislative priorities and economic concerns.
The tariff rebate idea is not new; Trump previously suggested similar payments from savings attributed to the Department of Government Efficiency, but those never materialized. This history raises doubts about the feasibility of the current proposal, especially amid ongoing economic issues like inflation and the recent government shutdown, which Bessent acknowledged had set back the economy. Consumer sentiment has declined, and grocery prices have risen, adding pressure to deliver on economic promises while navigating complex policy landscapes.
In the broader context, Bessent also discussed other matters, such as trade negotiations with China on rare-earth minerals, aiming for a deal by Thanksgiving, and the impact of tariffs on inflation. However, the rebate checks remain a focal point, representing a campaign pledge that now confronts legal and legislative realities. The administration’s ability to implement the plan depends on overcoming these barriers, with Bessent’s cautious tone reflecting the uncertainties involved.
Looking ahead, the outcome of the Supreme Court case and Congressional action will determine whether Americans receive the $2,000 payments. If the tariffs are upheld and legislation passes, checks could be issued next year, but if not, the proposal may join other unfulfilled promises, highlighting the gap between political rhetoric and practical governance. Voters and economists will closely watch these developments, as they could influence public perception of the administration’s economic policies and their real-world impacts.
