President Donald Trump declared on Sunday that most Americans would receive at least $2,000 from tariff revenue, calling opponents of his trade policies ‘fools’ whilst the Supreme Court weighs whether his sweeping duties are even legal. The promise arrives as the administration faces the biggest legal challenge yet to the cornerstone of Trump’s economic agenda, with justices from across the ideological spectrum expressing deep scepticism about the president’s unilateral authority to impose such far-reaching taxes.
‘People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS! We are now the Richest, Most Respected Country In the World, With Almost No Inflation, and A Record Stock Market Price’, Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone’.
A Legal Storm Brews Over Tariff Authority
The announcement marks yet another iteration of a proposal Trump has floated repeatedly but never executed, this time coming just days after a rocky Supreme Court hearing where even conservative justices questioned whether the president exceeded his authority.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC News on Sunday that he had not yet spoken to Trump about the proposal, adding that ‘the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms’ including tax cuts on tips, overtime and Social Security rather than direct payments.
The legal challenge facing Trump’s tariffs threatens to unravel not just the promised dividends but billions in revenue the administration has already collected. Federal courts have twice ruled that Trump overstepped his authority by using the International
Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, with a lower court finding that the power to tax lies ‘squarely with Congress‘. The government has collected nearly $90 billion from the contested tariffs, and Treasury Secretary Bessent warned in September that the US might have to refund $750 billion or more if the Supreme Court rules against the administration.
The Numbers Don’t Add Up
During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government’s lawyer, ‘You say tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are. They’re generating money from American citizens, revenue’. Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed the administration on whether its theory of executive power would allow a future president to impose tariffs based on a climate emergency, a prospect that appeared to trouble several justices about the precedent such expansive authority would set.
The mathematics of Trump’s dividend proposal are problematic even if the tariffs survive legal scrutiny. Tariffs are expected to generate $300 billion to $400 billion annually, but paying $2,000 to each of roughly 260 million Americans would cost approximately $520 billion per year, exceeding the revenue collected. The Congressional Budget Office estimates tariffs could produce $3.3 trillion over the next decade, yet economists note that each dollar of tariff revenue offsets about 24 cents of income and payroll tax revenue, further reducing the net gain.
The proposal resembles legislation introduced by Senator Josh Hawley this summer to provide $600 tariff rebates, though that bill went nowhere in Congress. Any actual payment programme would require congressional approval, something the administration has not secured.
Power, Politics and the Price Americans Pay
Meanwhile, the tariffs’ impact on American consumers has become undeniable. Trump acknowledged on Thursday that Americans are paying ‘something’ for tariffs, among his first admissions that US consumers bear at least part of the cost. The duties have raised overall retail prices by about 4.9 percentage points and increase taxes by an average of $1,000 per household in 2025, according to the Tax Foundation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling, expected in the coming months, will determine not just the fate of Trump’s trade agenda but the boundaries of presidential power itself. If the justices strike down the tariffs, it would mark a rare rebuke to Trump from a court that has largely deferred to his assertions of executive authority. If they uphold the tariffs, it would legitimise an unprecedented expansion of presidential power to impose sweeping tax increases without congressional approval.
For now, Trump’s $2,000 promise remains precisely that, a promise whose fulfilment depends on legal battles, congressional cooperation and economic realities that all seem to work against it.
Originally published on IBTimes UK
