‘So much tariff coming in’: Trump floats $2,000 direct payments to Americans without Congress approval
He added, “The reason we’re even talking about it is that we have so much money coming in from tariffs that we’ll be able to issue at least a $2,000 dividend and also pay down debt for the country.”“But we do a $2,000 dividend to the people of our country and would probably set an income limit where it makes sense, but we will be able to make a very substantial dividend to the people of our country.
I believe we can do that without Congress.”These remarks come after the US Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to Trump’s tariff framework.
In the case Learning Resources, Inc.
vs Trump, the court ruled 6-3 that the US president does not have authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs.
The decision invalidated tariffs introduced under that law, including the administration’s “Liberation Day” measures, and complicated the proposed $2,000 “tariff dividend”, according to Forbes.Financial implications from the ruling could be substantial.
Economists at the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimate more than $175 billion in tariff collections are now facing potential refunds, according to Reuters.The court’s verdict was widely viewed as a sharp rebuke of Trump’s aggressive trade policy.
Writing for the majority, chief justice John Roberts said the tariffs in question exceeded the scope permitted under federal law.Following the ruling, Trump moved to adjust his approach, increasing the global tariff rate to 10 and then 15% eventually.
After criticising the six justices who ruled against him, Trump posted on Truth Social that the tariff would be raised “to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level” under Section 122 of the Trade Act, which allows the president to impose duties to address “large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.”Trump had first floated the idea of a tariff-funded rebate last year, promising a $2,000 payment to Americans next year as households grapple with elevated living costs.
However, questions remain over the programme’s affordability.
