Andrew Ross Sorkin

And therefore, I think there's a big question about whether some of these companies will seek refunds or not.

You are asking what may be the $175 billion question, which is to say there is an argument that may be made by this administration in court if a company comes to seek a refund.

It is possible that the administration will argue that they effectively raised prices, didn't suffer or subject themselves, therefore, to a loss, and therefore effectively have no standing to collect a refund.

Can I say part of the political decision by this administration to pursue tariffs the way he did was because of the expectation that even if they were overturned, it would be very difficult to get the refunds back.

All of this was part of the design because by default, it forced these companies and these countries into this particular situation, some of whom have made commitments, not just commitments, but have made investments that are very hard to turn back on now.

Some people would call them a corporate tax.

Some people would call them a tax on consumers.

The administration would call them a tax on other countries.

I think this goes back to the bigger issue about countries and companies playing chicken with the administration.

And you could argue that China has played the best game of chicken yet because they didn't accept some kind of higher rate earlier.

And they did try to slow roll and play out these negotiations as long as possible.

And you heard early on that some countries had thought about approaching it that way.

But there became this sort of view, especially as a couple of countries early on accepted these deals, that this was the future, that irrespective of what the Supreme Court said, that tariffs in one way or another are here to stay for some period of time that was going to sort of rewrite the global trade order.

I think it's also worth pointing out that the president in implementing these new tariffs at 15 percent across the board is using something called Section 122.

And it is very possible that the way he's approaching it even this time.

is going to be brought to court all over again.

Neil Katyal, who was the lawyer who brought the original case and went to the Supreme Court and argued it there successfully now, has made this point over the weekend that there's an argument potentially that the president cannot use Section 122 in the way that he is attempting to.

And so we could be back here six months from now again in front of the Supreme Court over this, too.

You know, over the next decade, irrespective of what's just happened here, there is going to be an element of tariffs that are going to be part of our lives and are going to be part of all of these countries' and companies' lives.

And as a result, it really has shifted tariffs