U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he feels “very optimistic” about the Supreme Court’s review of former President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, as justices weigh presidential power and congressional authority.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent struck a confident tone after attending the Supreme Court hearing on the legality of former President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying he felt “very, very optimistic” about the outcome.
Speaking on Fox Business Network’s Kudlow program Wednesday, Bessent said that the plaintiffs challenging Trump’s tariffs “almost embarrassed themselves” during oral arguments. He expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would overturn a lower court ruling declaring the tariffs illegal.
“We’ll cross that bridge if we come to it, but I’m confident we won’t have to,” Bessent said, when asked how the administration would return billions already collected if the ruling went against them.
A Legal Battle Over Presidential Power
The case centers on whether Trump’s use of a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), gave him the authority to impose tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner — an unprecedented move in American trade policy.
During more than 2½ hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices questioned whether the law, originally intended for national emergencies, could justify such sweeping economic measures.
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the administration’s position, reminding Solicitor General D. John Sauer that “the imposition of taxes on Americans has always been the core power of Congress.”
The outcome could reshape how future presidents wield economic emergency powers — and determine the balance between executive and legislative authority in setting U.S. trade policy.
Tariffs and the Economic Ripple Effect
The tariffs, effectively taxes on imported goods, have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue since they were first introduced. Critics argue they have raised consumer costs and strained trade relationships, while supporters credit them for reviving domestic manufacturing.
Bessent downplayed concerns about the loss of tariff income, describing it as a “shrinking ice cube.” As import duties decrease, he said, higher domestic production and income tax revenues will offset the difference.
“It’s a balanced result,” he explained, arguing that the policy’s long-term benefits outweigh short-term fluctuations in trade revenue.
Trump’s Economic Legacy on the Line
Former President Donald Trump has publicly urged the Supreme Court to uphold the tariffs, calling them a vital economic and foreign policy tool. A ruling against him would mark a significant departure from a court that has historically supported several of his controversial policies — from immigration restrictions to federal agency reform.
Trump was the first U.S. president to use the IEEPA to impose tariffs on such a large scale. The Biden administration has asked the court for a swift decision, though the timeline for a ruling remains uncertain.
What’s at Stake
If the court strikes down the tariffs, it could limit future presidents’ ability to use emergency economic powers to reshape trade policy without congressional approval. If upheld, the decision would expand executive power, giving presidents greater latitude in managing foreign trade crises.
For now, both Wall Street and Washington are watching closely — knowing that the outcome could redefine U.S. trade policy for decades to come.