“Every person (except high-income groups) will receive at least $2,000,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social on the morning of November 9 (local time), though he did not specify who qualifies or when payments would be made.
However, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told ABC’s This Week that the “tariff dividend” may not come in the form of direct cash.
“That $2,000 could take many forms. It might be a tax cut or an indirect financial benefit that people are already receiving,” Bessent explained.
Trump asserted that tariffs have generated “trillions of dollars” for the United States, helped 401(k) retirement funds reach record highs, and claimed that “there has been no inflation” due to these taxes.
“Anyone who opposes tariffs is a fool!” he bluntly wrote.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the U.S. government collected approximately $151 billion in import duties from April to October. Bessent projected that this figure could reach $500 billion or more annually.
For comparison, during the pandemic, the $2,000 stimulus payments per household were estimated to cost around $464 billion. It remains unclear whether Trump’s “tariff dividend” would use a mechanism similar to the COVID-19 relief packages. This is not the first time Trump has floated the idea of a “tariff dividend,” but the latest announcement comes shortly after Democratic victories in several key state elections, where cost-of-living and affordability issues were central.
Many Republican lawmakers, however, are not enthusiastic about directly paying cash to citizens.
“That plan will never pass,” Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio told reporters in July, citing the national debt, which has reached $37 trillion.
During a historic Supreme Court hearing on November 5, conservative justices sharply questioned Trump administration lawyers about the constitutionality of the “retaliatory” and “anti-smuggling” tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
Customs and Border Protection data indicate that IEEPA-related tariffs account for about $90 billion of the $151 billion collected in tariffs for fiscal year 2025 (as of September 23).
If the Supreme Court invalidates the use of IEEPA, the Trump administration could attempt to rely on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to maintain retaliatory and anti-smuggling tariffs. However, these legal mechanisms are far more complex and carry a significant risk of being overturned.
In the event of losing the lawsuit, the Trump administration could be forced to refund all collected tariff revenues. Beyond the economic aspect, Trump has also used IEEPA tariffs as a tool for foreign policy negotiations, including efforts to resolve international conflicts.
The Supreme Court’s final ruling on the tariff lawsuit is expected before June next year.