U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is betting big on the Supreme Court to back President Donald Trump’s bold tariff strategy.
Reuters reported that with a recent appeals court ruling throwing a wrench into the works, the administration is gearing up for a legal showdown that could shape trade policy for years. And if the justices don’t play ball, a Plan B is waiting in the wings.
From Arlington, Virginia, on September 1, 2025, Bessent voiced optimism that the high court will affirm Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to slap sweeping tariffs on most trading partners, even as a divided appeals court deemed many of these levies unlawful just days prior.
Let’s rewind to earlier this year—Trump rolled out “reciprocal” tariffs in April 2025, aiming to level the playing field in a heated trade war.
Then, in February 2025, he targeted China, Canada, and Mexico with additional duties to curb the deadly flow of fentanyl into the U.S. Both moves were justified under the IEEPA, which grants emergency powers to tackle extraordinary threats.
Fast forward to last Friday, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., dropped a bombshell with a 7-4 decision ruling most of Trump’s tariffs illegal.
Thankfully, they’ve allowed the tariffs to stay in place until October 14, 2025, giving the administration breathing room to appeal. It’s worth noting that tariffs on steel and aluminum, issued under separate authority, remain untouched by this ruling.
Bessent isn’t sweating it, though, declaring, “I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the president’s authority.” Confidence is nice, but let’s be real—progressive judges might see this as a chance to clip Trump’s wings, ignoring the very real crises these tariffs address.
Still, the administration’s legal team is hard at work, crafting a brief for the U.S. solicitor general to be submitted early next week.
That brief will zero in on two massive issues: decades of ballooning trade deficits and the fentanyl epidemic claiming roughly 70,000 American lives each year. Bessent’s argument is simple—if this drug crisis isn’t a national emergency, what is? It’s a compelling point that should resonate even with skeptics who question executive overreach.
“When can you use IEEPA if not for fentanyl?” Bessent asked, driving home the urgency. It’s hard to argue with that logic when communities across the nation are reeling from overdose deaths. This isn’t just policy—it’s a fight for survival against a scourge crossing our borders.
Bessent also pointed to trade imbalances, noting, “We’ve had these deficits for years, but they keep getting bigger.” He warned of a looming “tipping point” that could spell economic disaster if ignored. While some might scoff at such dire predictions, history—like the 2008 financial crisis—shows that inaction often costs more than bold moves.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t side with Trump, Bessent hinted at a fallback: Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which allows temporary tariffs up to 50% against nations discriminating against U.S. commerce.
It’s not as robust as IEEPA, but it’s a reminder that this administration isn’t out of ammo. Critics might call it a relic, yet desperate times call for creative measures.
On the international front, Bessent dismissed a recent China-hosted meeting in Shanghai of 20 non-Western leaders as “more of the same.”
He criticized nations like India and China for fueling Russia’s war machine through oil purchases, suggesting that the U.S. and its allies will soon ramp up pressure. It’s a sharp but fair jab at countries playing both sides while American interests take a hit.
Speaking of pressure, the U.S. is making headway in convincing Europe to join a crackdown on India with a 25% additional tariff on Russian oil deals.
Bessent stayed mum on whether China would face similar heat, but the message is clear—Washington isn’t messing around. Allies should take note: this is about collective security, not just American grit.
Bessent also threw a reality check at Beijing, noting that China would struggle to find markets for its goods outside the U.S., Europe, and other English-speaking nations due to lower incomes elsewhere. “They don’t have a high enough per capita income in these other countries,” he said. It’s a polite way of saying China’s economic leverage isn’t as ironclad as it thinks.
Back to those trade deficits—Bessent’s warning of a “calamity” isn’t just rhetoric; it’s a call to action. He even referenced past inaction, like missed opportunities under President George W. Bush to curb mortgage speculation before the 2008 crash. The lesson? Waiting for a crisis to explode isn’t leadership—it’s negligence.
As the Supreme Court appeal looms, the stakes couldn’t be higher for Trump’s trade agenda. These tariffs aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet; they’re tools to protect American jobs, security, and lives from threats both economic and chemical. Even if you question the method, the intent deserves a fair hearing.