President Trump has once again put the American people first with his bold plan to return tariff revenue directly to hardworking families. His proposal to issue $2,000 tariff dividend checks to Americans making under $100,000 is not just smart policy—it’s a moral statement. It says that when foreign countries take advantage of our markets, we won’t just fight back, we’ll make sure our own citizens benefit. But now, the Supreme Court may interfere with this common-sense plan, and that raises serious questions about who really gets to decide how we protect American workers—our elected president or unelected judges.
Let’s be clear about what’s at stake here. President Trump used his lawful powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on foreign goods. He did this to stop unfair trade practices and to push for more balanced, reciprocal trade deals. For decades, American presidents have used emergency powers to deal with serious threats to the nation. Why should economic threats be treated any differently?
For too long, countries like China have flooded our markets with cheap goods, undercutting American workers and destroying local industries. Trump’s tariffs changed that equation. They brought in nearly $90 billion in revenue, money that didn’t come from taxing our paychecks but from taxing foreign imports. That’s smart economics and smart leadership.
The President’s plan to give that money back to the people in the form of $2,000 checks is exactly the kind of America First policy Trump was elected to deliver. It’s a way to ensure that everyday citizens—not just corporations or Wall Street—share in the benefits of strong trade policy.
But now, the Supreme Court is considering whether to strike down these tariffs. Some justices, including Trump’s own appointees, are asking tough legal questions about whether IEEPA really allows for tariffs. Let’s not forget: the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, but Congress also passed IEEPA and gave the president authority to act in emergencies. Trump followed the law as written. If the Court strikes this down, they’re not just second-guessing the President—they’re rewriting the law after the fact.
We must also ask: what happens next if the Supreme Court does overturn the tariffs? Will they return billions of dollars to foreign companies and importers? Will they block Americans from getting the dividend checks they were promised? That would be a slap in the face to every working family in this country.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is right to question whether the Court wants to create that kind of chaos. Giving refunds to importers, many of whom are multinational corporations, would be a huge windfall for the global elite. Meanwhile, the American middle class gets nothing. That’s not justice—that’s judicial overreach.
President Trump has said that if the Court rules against him, he’ll find another way to get help to the American people. That’s leadership. He’s not backing down from his promise. He’s showing flexibility, determination, and a deep commitment to the people who elected him.
In the end, this isn’t just about tariffs or checks. It’s about who runs the country. Is it the people, through their elected president? Or is it judges in black robes interpreting laws however they please?
President Trump is fighting for economic fairness, for American workers, and for real constitutional leadership. The Supreme Court should respect the powers given to the presidency by Congress and the Constitution. And if they don’t, the American people will remember who stood up for them—and who stood in the way.
Let’s pray the Court chooses wisely. And let’s support a president who always puts America first.
