President Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariff authority suffered another devastating blow, with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against his use of emergency powers to impose universal tariffs. The decision all but guarantees Supreme Court review—and when the inevitable final adverse ruling comes down from the high court, likely in summer 2026, American taxpayers could face the largest unplanned government expenditure in modern history: a massive refund bill that could easily exceed $500 billion, plus interest, at precisely the moment when Treasury markets are already showing dangerous signs of stress.
The economic stakes couldn’t be higher, and Trump himself has made the situation far worse by overtly admitting that his tariffs represent such a massive economic intervention that unwinding them would trigger catastrophic consequences. His recent warning that a court ruling against his tariffs “would be 1929 all over again, a GREAT DEPRESSION!” dramatically undermines his legal case, as it represents a stunning admission that these policies constitute exactly the kind of economically significant action that courts have repeatedly found requires explicit congressional authorization.
The Federal Circuit’s most recent decision validates this concern. The court found Trump’s tariffs have “vast economic and political significance,” affecting over $4 trillion in trade annually, and applied the major questions doctrine to conclude that such sweeping authority requires clear congressional authorization—which the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) simply doesn’t provide.
The case challenged only Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs—specifically the universal 10 percent levy and country-specific “reciprocal” rates, along with fentanyl-related tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada. Even so, the numbers in play are staggering. The government has already collected $150 billion in tariffs through July 2025, with monthly collections now running at roughly $30 billion. All of the revenue from these challenged tariffs becomes subject to refund under federal law if the Supreme Court agrees with the appellate court’s decision.
But here’s where the crisis deepens: Federal regulations require that tariff refunds include interest calculated from the date of payment. At current rates of 6-7 percent annually, tariffs collected in April 2025 would accrue nearly two years of interest by the time a final ruling comes down. This means that the government’s total liability—principal plus interest—could be north of $500 billion, assuming current collection rates continue in the months it will take for the Supreme Court to issue a final decision.
The timing of this potential fiscal bomb couldn’t be worse. Treasury auctions are already showing concerning signs of weak demand, with recent 10-year note auctions producing bid-to-cover ratios that dropped to 2.35 from a recent average of 2.51. Even Treasury’s own borrowing advisory committee has noted “significant stress” in markets, warning that weak auction demand is already driving yields higher.
Bond markets are particularly sensitive to unexpected government financing needs, and a sudden requirement to fund hundreds of billions in tariff refunds would force Treasury into massive unplanned borrowing. This comes as the government is already grappling with persistent budget deficits and market concerns about fiscal sustainability.
Perhaps most remarkably, Trump’s own dire warnings about the economic consequences of losing this case have essentially provided a roadmap for market panic. By repeatedly claiming that adverse court rulings would trigger depression-level economic catastrophe, the president has effectively told investors exactly how severe the disruption could be. Rather than preparing markets for a manageable transition, the president has chosen to use apocalyptic warnings as a judicial pressure campaign—ensuring that when the bill comes due, the economic shock will be amplified by his own dire predictions.
What happens beyond the IEEPA case is even more concerning. A Supreme Court ruling that presidents lack broad emergency authority to impose tariffs would create legal precedent that could challenge other tariff programs. This creates the potential for additional refund liabilities stretching into hundreds of billions more—a cascading series of fiscal obligations that Treasury markets would need to absorb over the coming years.
The Federal Circuit’s decisive rejection of Trump’s legal arguments and Supreme Court precedent makes clear this fiscal reckoning is inevitable. Treasury markets, already under strain from persistent deficits and weak auction demand, now face prospect of absorbing the largest unplanned government financing operation in modern history. The president’s constitutional overreach on trade policy is about to present taxpayers with a bill that could exceed half a trillion dollars—and his own apocalyptic warnings have virtually guaranteed that markets will panic when it arrives.
Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
The post Trump’s Tariff Gamble Could Trigger a $500B Treasury Crisis appeared first on Newsweek.
