Just now, #川普 dropped a "fiscal nuclear bomb" on Truth Social. 💣

He said a very critical statement:
👉 If the Supreme Court rules that Trump's tariffs are illegal, the US may need to refund the tariffs previously collected.
And this amount—
is "hundreds of billions of dollars."
I checked the data:
👉 In 2025 alone, US tariff revenue is approximately $250 billion,
which roughly aligns with Trump's claim of "hundreds of billions of dollars."
But the real horror isn't in this $250 billion.
The real trap lies in "implicit compensation."
If the ruling logic continues to extrapolate 👇
not only tariffs need to be refunded,
but also companies that were forced to set up factories in the US, transfer capacity, or restructure supply chains due to tariffs,
theoretically could claim "policy loss compensation."
In that case, the scale wouldn't be a few hundred billion,
but—
👉 trillions of dollars.
And where did this money go?
The answer is simple:

Used for the fiscal deficit

Used for government spending

Used for subsidies, industry support, voter appeasement

In summary:
The money has already been spent.
So if the Supreme Court really issues:
👉 "Tariffs are illegal, please refund via the original route."
then the US government only has one way:
👉 to issue reckless debt.
And this will directly create a huge hole in fiscal policy, interest rates, the dollar, and risk assets.
Based on this, I personally judge:
👉 The probability of "comprehensive ruling that tariffs are illegal + retrospective refunds" is extremely low.
It's not a legal issue,
but a system capacity issue.
Therefore, the more likely scenarios are the following three paths 👇
Possibility 1: The ruling exceeds authority but does not retroactively, does not refund (I believe this is the most likely)
The court might say:

The president's use of IEEPA for taxation indeed exceeds authority

But the collected funds have entered the treasury and been used

Forcing a refund would severely impact federal fiscal stability

➡️ Conclusion:

The ruling only applies to the future

Immediately stop or restrict new tariffs

Historical tariffs, no refunds

This is the most "politically realistic" ruling.
Possibility 2: The ruling finds tariffs legal but sets clear limits
The court might also adopt a more moderate approach:

Recognize the legality of the current "emergency" tariffs

But emphasize:

They cannot continue indefinitely

They cannot arbitrarily expand scope

Subsequent legislation must involve Congress

➡️ Essentially:
Putting a "brake" on Trump's tariff powers.
Possibility 3: Partly legal, partly illegal, but still no refunds
A more complex but also very realistic scenario:

Some tariffs are deemed legal

Some are deemed overreach

Illegal parts cannot continue to be collected

But the collected parts are not retroactively refunded

➡️ This involves "technical split risk."
So, how does the market view this?
If the final outcome falls on:
✅ Scenario 1 or Scenario 3
For risk assets,
it might actually be a positive.
Why?
Because these two outcomes:

Eliminate the tail risk of "huge refunds + fiscal chaos"

Limit Trump's arbitrary use of tariffs

Reduce policy uncertainty in inflation paths

The market's biggest fear has never been bad news,
but the uncertainty of whether rules will be suddenly rewritten.
What is the real thunder?
❌ Ruling illegal + mandatory refunds
That would not be "bearish,"
but an institutional-level earthquake.
To sum up my view in one sentence:
👉 The court is most likely to "repair powers, not history."
👉 No refunds is the bottom line.
👉 As long as there are no refunds, the market can digest it.
Trump's Truth Social is not threatening the court,
but pre-warning the market:
"Some debts, simply can't be paid back."
Those who understand are already re-pricing the risk.