President Trump’s latest tariff threats aimed at Europe highlight two critical questions that extend beyond the scope of a single trade conflict. These questions revolve around the effectiveness of the president and his administration in reshaping America’s global position and their success in revitalizing the U.S. economy.

The responsibility for these ambitious objectives largely falls on two pivotal figures: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Through a blend of fortune, strategic planning, and political savvy, Rubio and Bessent have risen to prominence as the most well-regarded senior advisors within Trump’s circle. Their reputation for intelligence, seriousness, competence, and genuine achievement is widely acknowledged across diverse sectors, from Wall Street and international capitals to media studios, Capitol Hill, and influential opinion forums.

This recognition may seem straightforward, yet it holds significant weight. Many other cabinet members do not share the same reputation, often being seen as more ideological or contentious figures. As for Vice President JD Vance, his situation is unique and merits a separate discussion altogether.

That may sound obvious, but it is not trivial. The same adjectives would not be applied, in too many cases, to several other cabinet officials, whose reputations are more ideological, performative or controversial. Vice President JD Vance is a separate and sui generis case, one I’ll save for another day.

What is striking about the current backlash to Trump’s tariff threat is that almost none of the public anger has landed on Rubio or Bessent. The criticism is aimed squarely — and exclusively — at the man in the Oval Office.

That insulation is not accidental. It reflects the belief, held even by many Trump skeptics, that these two men represent ballast: grown-ups in the room who understand markets, alliances and second-order consequences.

From the perspective of the traditional foreign-policy establishment, this tariff gambit looks like a disaster. It risks antagonizing allies, spooking markets and weakening Western unity at a moment when Russia and China are actively testing it. 

By some combination of luck, design and political survival instinct, Rubio (left) and Bessent (right) have emerged as the two most broadly respected senior advisers in the Trump orbit

They are widely viewed — across Wall Street, foreign capitals, television green rooms, Capitol Hill and elite opinion-shaping circles — as smart, serious, qualified and genuinely accomplished

From that vantage point, tariffs are a blunt instrument wielded recklessly. From the perspective of Team Trump, however, this is precisely how leverage is created and objectives are achieved. 

In this case, the broader strategic aim — securing long-term American leverage in the Arctic, including Greenland — is seen as worth short-term diplomatic and economic turbulence.

The deeper question is whether Rubio and Bessent are executing a coherent strategy or merely providing intellectual cover for presidential impulse.

What critics often miss about Trump — and by extension about his top advisers — is his belief that a nation seeking radical change cannot move directly from an old equilibrium to a new one. 

In Trump’s worldview, stability can only be reached by passing through chaos. Disruption is not a regrettable side effect; it is the mechanism.

This tariff threat is chaos in its purest form. But from inside the administration, it is viewed as a calculated risk on a longer road toward strategic and economic reordering.

There are, to be fair, real signs of economic progress. Inflation has stabilized. Gas prices have dropped sharply. The stock market recently hit new highs. Wage growth has accelerated and, unlike during the later Biden years, is outpacing inflation. 

Those are not trivial accomplishments in a post-pandemic, high-debt world.

Beyond the short-term indicators, the administration argues that lower taxes, reduced regulation, expanded domestic energy production and accelerated adoption of artificial intelligence will yield long-term gains that do not show up neatly in quarterly reports. Productivity, they say, is the prize.

On the global stage, the picture is more mixed. The war in Ukraine grinds on. Russia remains aggressive. China remains ambitious and patient. Yet Trump is pursuing a slate of high-level engagements — including planned summits with Xi Jinping — that his team believes could produce incremental but meaningful progress.

Protests have erupted in Denmark and Greenland

Mark Halperin is the editor-in-chief and host of the interactive live video platform 2WAY and the host of the video podcast ‘Next Up’ on the Megyn Kelly network

The skeptics, of course, have plenty of ammunition. The uncertainty surrounding the Federal Reserve has rattled markets and arguably benefited Beijing. European leaders are openly bristling. Protests have erupted in Denmark and Greenland. Electricity costs remain high. Health-care costs remain largely untouched. There has been no serious effort to rein in deficits or debt.

The list of unresolved economic and geopolitical challenges is long — and, in some areas, growing.

Against that backdrop, Trump has chosen to make things worse in the short term in the hope of making them better later. Rubio and Bessent are not passive observers of this strategy. They are its loyal foot soldiers and, in their respective domains, its intellectual architects.

Which raises the final, unavoidable question.

Are Rubio and Bessent master strategists in the tradition of a James Baker or Henry Kissinger — disciplined, historically grounded and ultimately vindicated?

Or are they men of good intentions who have been seduced by MAGA disruption, destined to leave behind a weakened NATO, emboldened autocrats in Moscow and Beijing and an American economy that works mainly for the already wealthy?

Spoiler alert: no one knows.

And anyone who tells you otherwise is selling certainty in an age that has very little of it.