Treasury Secretary Bessent Speaks Out on Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent shared his insights following the Supreme Court’s decision on tariffs, a topic that has sparked considerable debate. Secretary Bessent, recognized for his adeptness in navigating complex economic policies, stands out as one of the administration’s most proficient voices, rivaled perhaps only by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

During a C-SPAN-covered briefing, Bessent delved into the president’s potential courses of action concerning tariffs. He highlighted the range of statutory tools at the president’s disposal, implying that while these options are viable, they could also face legal challenges.

Bessent elaborated, “These are the same statutes the president mentioned this morning, and there will likely be legal challenges to the use of these authorities as well, but that will have to be litigated another day.”

His comments continued later in an interview with Fox News’ Will Cain, where he further discussed the implications of the court’s decision and the administration’s strategy moving forward.

“We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges.”

Which will “result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”

BOOM.
pic.twitter.com/OH1HdFYghW

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026

Secretary Bessent said in part:

I’d also like to take a moment to address today’s Supreme Court ruling, and I would note, that I did not change a single word in my speech, post the ruling. President Trump will always put our national security and Americans first. And as I have said before, the president has multiple tools in his toolbox. Let’s be clear about what today’s ruling was, and what it wasn’t. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs. Six justices simply ruled that IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authority can not be used to raise even one dollar of revenue. 

This administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges. Treasury’s estimates show that the use of Section 122 authority combined with potentially enhanced Section 232, and Section 301 tariffs, will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.

These are the same statutes the president mentioned this morning, and there will likely be legal challenges to the use of these authorities as well, but that will have to be litigated another day.

Later, speaking with Fox News’ Will Cain:

🚨@scottbessent34: “This is a SETBACK for the American people.”

“By taking away President Trump’s instantaneous leverage, using IEEPA, the American people have suffered a significant setback.

Think to this time last year when POTUS put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico,… pic.twitter.com/vvcv8bPWoy

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) February 20, 2026

The post continues:

Think to this time last year when POTUS put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico, Canada, China for precursor chemical. We saw a RAPID decline in fentanyl deaths. If that’s not emergency authority, what was?  

So in terms of the direction of travel, national security, how we will get there with these deals, revenue, nothing has changed.  

But what has changed, the Supreme Court has taken away the president’s leverage.”

Again, Secretary Bessent replies to Mr. Cain:

Will Cain: So, I listened to you speak this morning. And, we’ve heard from the president. It sounds like the position of the administration is really, nothing has changed today. 

Secretary Bessent: Well, Will, to be clear, today was a loss for the American people, because, by taking away President Trump’s instantaneous leverage, using the IEEPA authority, the American people have suffered a significant setback. Think to this time last year, when President Trump put on the fentanyl tariffs against Mexico, Canada, China, for precursor chemicals. And then, we saw a rapid decline in fentanyl deaths. If that’s an emergency authority, what was?

On October 8th, when the Chinese government said they were going to put a worldwide export control on any product that had .01 percent Chinese rare earths in it, 24 hours later, President Trump said that he would impose a 100 percent tariff on China if they did it, they immediately came to the negotiating table and we were able to negotiate a one year extension. So, in terms of their direction of travel, national security, how we will get there with these deals, nothing has changed. But what has changed, the Supreme Court has taken away the president’s leverage, but in a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian, because they agreed, he does have the right to (impose) a full embargo. 

That’s an interesting point, and one that President Trump made in his own presser earlier on Friday: This decision indicated that the president may not be able to impose tariffs under IEEPA, but that he can unilaterally embargo any other nation; he can’t charge, as the president put it, one dollar, but he can cut off imports from that country altogether. Secretary Bessent is right to call this a more draconian step.