The Supreme Court is in the process of deciding the fate of President Trump’s tariffs, but even if the administration loses, it might not matter, said Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
“We can recreate the exact tariff structure with 301’s, with 232’s, with the, I think they’re called 122’s,” he said, referring to several sections of various trade acts that could serve as alternatives to the administration’s current justification for its tariffs.
When interviewer and DealBook editor Andrew Ross Sorkin questioned whether these measures could exist permanently, Bessent replied “permanently.” He later clarified that tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 would not be permanent.
In sum, the Constitution gives Congress purview over tariffs, but over the years it has given the executive branch more leeway to levy them through the trade acts mentioned by Bessent.
Alternatively, the administration could turn to Section 232 of the Trade of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and try to justify tariffs as an issue of national security. The White House is already using this justification to underpin its tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos and those are not being scrutinized by the Supreme Court.
Despite the options in the administration’s back pocket, Bessent said he was optimistic about the White House’s chances at the Supreme Court.
He also said a loss in court would be “a loss for the American people,” and pointed to the fact that China agreed to tighten control over exports of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl earlier this year—a decision which he attributes to pressure created by the administration’s tariffs.
“I have been very consistent on this, that tariffs are a shrinking ice cube. The ultimate goal is to rebalance trade and to bring back domestic production,” Bessent said.
