President Donald Trump's wide-ranging tariffs on virtually all imports could soon be struck down by the Supreme Court. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is not sweating the possibility, however, and believes there is a legal way open to the president allowing him to keep his import taxes in effect "permanently."
Bessent on Wednesday appeared at the New York Times DealBook Summit, where he sat for an onstage interview with Too Big to Fail author Andrew Ross Sorkin. During their conversation, the secretary touched on the major legal challenge facing Trump's tariffs, but cited a few sections of the 1962 Trade Act which argued would provide a framework for keeping them alive if the Supreme Court rules against the administration.
“We can recreate the exact tariff structure with [sections] 301, with 232, with 122," Bessent said, and then confirmed when Sorkin asked if those measures would implemented "permanently."
As explained by CNBC, Section 122 of the 1962 Trade Act would give Trump tariff authority for up to 150 days. Sections 301 and 232, however, "are less definitive on time frame," and could be why Bessent said the measures could be implemented permanently.
“Because of the fentanyl tariffs, the Chinese are making the first the step forward that they’ve made," Bessent said about the supposed impact of Trump's tariffs, further claiming that China is making a "robust effort" to stop the flow of drugs into the U.S. in reaction to the new import duties.
The case regarding Trump's tariffs currently before the Supreme Court pertains to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Trump administration has cited as giving him the authority to enact his broad swath of import duties. Bessent said on Wednesday that he was confident the Court, typically friendly to Trump in recent years, would rule in their favor, but the reactions of the Justices during the initial arguments did not make it seem like that would be the case.
Many of the Justices, including the Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barret, bristled against the arguments in favor of Trump's interpretation of the IEEPA, which has generally only been used the impose sanctions on other countries. The authority to impose new taxes is reserved for Congress.