Supreme Court Blocks Trump's Tariff-Funded Stimulus Checks

The ruling deals a major blow to the possibility of $2,000 payments to Americans in 2026.

Published on Feb. 23, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court determined that President Trump lacked the authority to impose broad tariffs that he had planned to use to finance $2,000 rebate checks for most Americans. The court did not direct the administration on what to do with the tens of billions of dollars the government has already collected in tariffs, leaving that issue to be litigated further. With no clear path forward on the stimulus checks, the White House has indicated the proposal remains a possibility, but any such payments would require approval from Congress.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's ruling undercuts a key part of Trump's economic agenda and calls into question his ability to unilaterally provide direct payments to Americans. It also raises uncertainty around the tens of billions in tariff revenue the government has already collected, which Trump had hoped to redirect toward stimulus checks.

The details

In a Feb. 20 ruling, the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 decision that President Trump lacked the authority to impose broad tariffs that he had planned to use to fund $2,000 stimulus checks for most Americans. The court did not provide guidance on what should happen to the tens of billions of dollars the government has already collected in tariffs, leaving that issue to be litigated further. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett has said stimulus checks remain a possibility, but any such payments would require approval from Congress.

  • On Feb. 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's tariff authority.
  • On Jan. 11, 2026, Trump claimed $2,000 stimulus checks could be sent to Americans 'toward the end of the year' using tariff revenue.
  • On Dec. 21, 2025, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said stimulus checks remain a possibility for 2026.

The players

Donald Trump

The former president who had planned to use tariff revenue to fund $2,000 stimulus checks for most Americans.

Kevin Hassett

White House economic adviser who said stimulus checks remain a possibility for 2026, but would require Congressional approval.

Neil Bradley

Chief policy officer for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who said swift refunds of the unlawful tariffs would support stronger economic growth.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Wouldn't you think they would have put one sentence in there saying, 'Keep the money or don't keep the money,' right? I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

— Donald Trump (The New York Times)

“Swift refunds of the impermissible tariffs will be meaningful for the more than 200,000 small business importers in this country and will help support stronger economic growth this year.”

— Neil Bradley, Chief Policy Officer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USA TODAY)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on a future date whether the government must refund the tens of billions of dollars collected through the unlawful tariffs.

The takeaway

The Supreme Court's ruling undercuts a key part of Trump's economic agenda and calls into question his ability to unilaterally provide direct payments to Americans. It also raises uncertainty around the tens of billions in tariff revenue the government has already collected, which Trump had hoped to redirect toward stimulus checks.