Tariff Whiplash in Washington Leaves CFOs Managing Cash Cycle Fallout

The global tariff environment has shown CFOs and procurement leaders that operational assumptions can be proven wrong at the drop of a hat.

And the Supreme Court’s Friday (Feb. 20) 6–3 decision limiting the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs showed that even the architects of those tariffs can be subject to the whiplash of uncertainty.

On its surface, the Court’s decision represents a constitutional clarification about the separation of powers. Inside the office of the CFO, however, the ruling has landed less as a policy demarcation line and more as a reminder of how permanently the finance function has changed.

Few finance function observers view the decision as materially reducing the volatility embedded in their planning assumptions. Instead, it reinforces a strategic posture already underway: build organizations that can absorb policy swings without needing to predict them.

For CFOs, the key point is not “tariffs are gone.” It’s that one legal pathway for tariffs is closed, while the commercial aftershocks across cash flow timing, pricing resets, documentation and potential replacement measures are just starting. It’s a familiar reality for the 2026 CFO: legal clarity on one issue, operational uncertainty on several others.

For businesses that depend on imports, and for the lenders, insurers and investors who support them, the Friday ruling is not the end of tariff risk but the beginning of a recalibration.

After all, on Monday (Feb. 23), President Donald Trump issued a warning on his social media platform Truth Social alleging countries that have “‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to.”

See also: Earnings Season Made It Clear: Digitize Supply Chains or Fall Behind

Why Forecasting Is Being Rebuilt Around Scenarios, Not Certainty

For CFOs, the question is now no longer one of “Will tariffs rise or fall?” but “How do we operate when cost structures, supplier relationships and capital needs can shift faster than our planning cycles?”

The Supreme Court answered a statutory question, not an operational one. It determined that IEEPA cannot be used to justify tariffs, but it did not prescribe what happens to duties already assessed or paid. That omission is more than procedural, and it can leave companies navigating a gray zone in which potential tariff refunds exist in theory, yet lack a defined administrative pathway.

In many industries, tariffs imposed over the past several years have already been passed through to customers, renegotiated into supplier contracts, or capitalized into long-term inventory strategies. The financial record is settled even if the legal one is not. Recovering duties, should a mechanism emerge, will require untangling transactions that were never designed to be reversed.

On one hand, boards and executive teams will want to understand potential upside. On the other, prudent financial management requires treating refunds as non-operating contingencies rather than budget inputs. The result is a planning environment where scenario modeling matters more than point estimates.

See also: It’s Contract Renewal Season, Are Your B2B Payment Strategies Ready?

Working Capital Is Where the Real Story Will Play Out

Tariffs exerted their greatest influence in balance sheets. They changed when companies paid for goods, how much inventory they carried, and how they financed procurement. Even the prospect of refunds can disrupt those rhythms.

For lenders, this environment may drive renewed demand for revolving credit, supply chain finance and trade credit insurance as companies hedge against timing mismatches between policy shifts and cash realization.

Ultimately, the uncertainty businesses are feeling in the wake of the ruling follows months of uncertainty about the effect the tariffs might have, as chronicled by PYMNTS Intelligence.

“Across multiple Certainty Project studies, executives described an environment in which policy volatility, rather than underlying demand alone, became a dominant variable in planning,” PYMNTS wrote. “Goods-focused firms, in particular, reported rising concern about input costs, sourcing stability and delivery timelines. Services firms expressed comparatively lower exposure, although they too acknowledged secondary effects flowing through customers and partners.”

Research by PYMNTS Intelligence found that more than half of the heads of payments at goods companies believed tariffs would negatively impact their firms, with nearly 90% expecting delivery delays, shortages or higher raw material costs.

By the summer of 2025, 75% of CFOs had increased prices, although 60% still reported dwindling profit margins.