Trump's Economic Adviser Says Tariff Refunds Would Be 'Very Complicated' and Unlikely
Oh, so now the Trump administration is worried about the complexity of its tariff polices?
The Trump administration is finally confronting the complicated reality of its complex and costly tariff policies.
Oh, not when it comes to collecting those tariffs. The administration is happy to keep doing that.
But if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that Trump's tariffs are illegal and requires the administration to issue refunds—then, suddenly, the complexity is an unsolvable problem. At least, that's the line that Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council, is trying out.
If the Supreme Court rules against Trump's tariffs, "it's going to be pretty unlikely that they're going to call for widespread refunds, because it would be an administrative problem to get those refunds out to there," Hassett told CBS News on Sunday.
"It'd be very complicated," he added. "It's a mess, and that's why I think the Supreme Court wouldn't do it."
As a legal matter, it would certainly be strange for the Supreme Court to decide that the Trump administration had unlawfully imposed tariffs but also decide that it is just too gosh darn difficult to set things right.
Imagine applying Hassett's logic to other high-profile Supreme Court cases over the years. Sure, school segregation is unconstitutional, but don't you know how complicated it would be to make sure everyone has equal access to public education? Yeah, of course the police should have to remind arrestees of their right to an attorney, but that sounds like a real administrative problem!
By comparison, refunding tariff payments is relatively easy. There are records of those payments, and all the federal government would have to do is issue refunds to the American importers and businesses that paid those taxes over the course of the past several months. It would be politically awkward after all that misleading talk about how other countries are paying the tariffs, but not difficult.
Indeed, the federal government collected over $5 trillion in taxes last year and spent over $7 trillion. But processing roughly $200 billion in tariff refunds is prohibitively complicated? Give me a break.
Still, the real kicker here is how Hassett is positioning the Trump administration as the victim. If he thinks refunding the tariffs would be complicated, wait until he sees what goes into collecting them in the first place.
The Trump administration's tariff policies have created a process that is "mind-numbingly difficult for even the most skilled technicians and biggest corporations," wrote Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, earlier this month in a must-read dive into the complexity of the tariff regime. For smaller businesses without the connections, staff, or resources to navigate the tariffs, the past nine months have been a nightmare.
Lincicome and his team at Cato also put together this fantastic infographic to illustrate the maze that all American imports must now navigate.

Adding to the complexity is the fact that tariff rates and exemptions have changed from week to week depending on Trump's mood. A fact sheet published in August by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which was ostensibly meant to help businesses comply with the new rules, contains a darkly hilarious disclaimer saying that it should not be relied upon because "exemptions and details of each tariff action are not fully covered." The tariffs are so complicated that even the government agency tasked with enforcing them can't accurately describe what they are.
Against that backdrop, Hassett's comments about the complexity of refunding the tariffs are not just laughable but downright infuriating.
The Trump administration has forced American businesses to navigate an ever-changing gauntlet of new regulations in order to pay higher taxes that were imposed via questionably legal means and without congressional authorization. If the Supreme Court decides that refunds are necessary to ensure that justice is done, there will be approximately zero sympathy for the federal officials who created this "mess" in the first place.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
The tariffs are not illegal and the Supreme court will rule this way. No one has paid higher taxes due to tariffs. They pay higher taxes from more income generated by the business.
Eric, would you be happy if Trump put all Tariff income toward deficit and debt and not give a nickel to anyone or any program?
I would and I assume this would be consensus through the Reason libertarian commentariat.
The tariffs will continue to change as Trump further negotiates trade deals with other countries. Canada for example has not had negotiations that will eventually take place.
Eric made it clear during the BBB that he prefers raising income taxes.
It’s just more Boehm bullshit.
I bought something off ebay from a guy in Toronto. I had to pay a tariff.
I want my fucking money back.
Or you could just buy American next time , loser.
Oh yeah, what was it?
Why didn't you buy it in America?
Probably maple syrup.
So is the Government going to have to refund all the EO Tariffs imposed for the last 100-years?
The only complexity going on here is TDS.
If a tariff was unlawfully imposed but no-one sued, then there is no case.
But for all your bullshit about opposing government coercion, when it comes to Trump, you support it regardless of legality.
If say Clinton had wrongly imposed a tax/tariff on some entity via EO and only now did they sue for a refund - assuming no limitation period - you'd be the first in line to condemn Clinton and support the plaintiff, But that Trump Exception...
What you're basically saying is "it was okay until Trump". That just makes your case even weaker. SCOTUS will obviously rule in Trumps favor and neither you nor any of your pathetic TDS- riddled ilk will be back for a mea culpa.
So why not just piss off now?
How deep does Trump go when he mounts you?
Not as deep as that basement you live in , loser.
So you think all tariffs should be abolished and America flooded with products from despot countries with no safety, no labor restrictions and made cheap as fuck?
Maybe, in the US, the people's law over their government never allowed EO taxing.
It never did say ...
"except when a [D]emoncrap president does it."
"except when a [D]emoncrap trifecta passes UN-Constitutional legislation."
Trump has other legal authorities he can use in trade negotiations including tariffs. There will be no refunds. And oddly tariff revenue breaks new records with every passing month while the CPI goes down.
Refunds aren't part of the tariff policies. You are conflating to similar but different things to disparage one with the other.
Also, tell me more about how we will never see 3% gdp growth under Trump.
Trump has hinted at a move to eliminate income tax. If the tariffs are contributing even 1% chance of this happening they are worth it. Income tax is the biggest evil of the federal government apparatus today, with the possible exception of the Fed.
^THIS... Well Said +10000000000.
It only makes sense that the International Market pays for the International 'affairs' government.