(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump continues to defend his use of tariffs worldwide as businesses await a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the president’s tariff authority.
Trump has been urging the high court to rule in his favor, allowing him to continue imposing tariffs at will under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Trump has declared two emergencies under the 1977 law, one on fentanyl and the other on trade imbalances. A group of small businesses and some states have challenged his authority under the law, which doesn't mention the word "tariff" and has never before been used for that purpose. Trump and his federal attorneys argue the 1977 law gives the president broad authority to act in times of emergency.
Several Supreme Court justices in November 2025 asked skeptical questions during oral arguments in the high-stakes case. While the high court agreed to take the case on an expedited basis, it has provided no indication when a ruling could come.
Trump recently said his tariffs "have created an American economic miracle," in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal.
Trump also attacked claims that his tariffs are taxes on Americans. He called them "totally false."
"The data shows that the burden, or 'incidence,' of the tariffs has fallen overwhelmingly on foreign producers and middlemen, including large corporations that are not from the U.S.," Trump wrote.
That contradicts several recent reports on who pays the tariffs, which can be a complex negotiation between all parties involved. Debate over who pays and how much is likely to continue.
Nearly all tariff costs fall on American importers and consumers, according to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a German think tank. The authors said that for every $100 in tariff revenue the U.S. government collects, $96 comes "out of American pockets" and $4 comes from lower foreign exporter profits.
Last October, Goldman Sachs economists projected that American consumers will pay 55% of the tariff costs, U.S. businesses will pay 22% and foreign exporters will pay 18%.
Trump also cited a Harvard study that he said proved his point. That paper notes "tariff costs were gradually but steadily transmitted to U.S. consumers, with additional spillovers to domestic goods."
The Harvard study further stated, "our results suggest that U.S. consumers paid up to 43% of the tariff burden, with the rest absorbed by U.S. firms."
Phillip Magness, a senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, said U.S. consumers and businesses are paying the costs.
"The only real debate is over what share of the tariff incidence is being carried by U.S.-based importers, who are legally required to pay the tariffs, and what share is being passed on to consumers as they raise their prices," Magness told The Center Square. "Most studies of this question suggest that U.S. importers were initially willing to absorb some of this tax on a temporary basis before passing it on to their customers, but as the tariffs drag on, expect more of the burden to be shouldered by American consumers."
In November 2025, the Congressional Budget Office revised its tariff projections after noting that foreign businesses were absorbing about 5% of the tariff costs through lower prices.
Trump's tariffs are expected to cost U.S. consumers an extra $1,300 in 2026, according to an updated analysis from the Tax Foundation.
Trump also said his tariffs have generated $18 trillion in U.S. investment from abroad.
"I have successfully wielded the tariff tool to secure colossal Investments in America," Trump wrote.
Magness is skeptical of Trump's investment claims.
"Trump has been exceedingly vague and self-contradictory about the nature of his $18 trillion figure or where it allegedly comes from. At certain times, he suggests it is tariff revenue. At other times, he describes it as 'investments' from abroad," Magness told The Center Square. "Neither claim has any basis in reality. Tariff revenues for the year are expected to come in at around $200 to $300 billion for 2025, a tiny fraction of the $18 trillion. The alleged 'investment' deals do not appear to exist in any verifiable or written form beyond the White House's claims. Though Trump has been short on specifics about these alleged 'investments,' the $18 trillion figure is far-fetched."
He noted that in context, "that number is roughly the entire [gross domestic product] of China. There's no conceivable way that Trump has secured foreign investments equal in size with the world's second-largest economy."
Gross domestic product is a measure of total economic output.
Commented