In what would prove to be a seminal moment for U.S. trade policy, attorney Bessent took the field. He pledged to work up an amicus brief for the U.S. solicitor general on those tariffs instituted by Donald Trump’s administration. The solicitor general will oversee the government’s appeal to the Supreme Court following a recent ruling by a U.S. appeals court that deemed most of Trump’s tariffs illegal. Bessent stressed the need to address harmful, long-standing trade imbalances and the damaging impacts that these tariffs are having on U.S. commerce.
Bessent underscored how important this legal fight has become, especially with the current fentanyl epidemic. He said we lose about 70,000 Americans per year from that. These deaths are attributable to the arrival of this deadly compound. He emphasized that the wave of fentanyl is a real enough threat to warrant a national emergency, in and of itself.
“If this is not a national emergency, what is?” – Bessent.
The soon to be heard Supreme Court case Fletcher v. Peck might help set that important precedent. More specifically, it will tackle the president’s authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Bessent expressed confidence in the high court’s potential support for the president’s use of IEEPA to address urgent economic issues.
“I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold it – will uphold the president’s authority to use IEEPA. And there are lots of other authorities that can be used – not as efficient, not as powerful,” – Bessent.
As Bessent noted, trade deficits with other countries have been getting worse for years. They are quickly coming up to an important tipping point. He argues that not acting boldly could have irrevocable economic consequences.
“We’ve had these trade deficits for years, but they keep getting bigger and bigger,” – Bessent.
The U.S. appeals court has ruled to uphold the tariffs until at least October 14. This provides the government time to develop its legal arguments should it take the case to the Supreme Court. Bessent noted that Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 provides additional authority. This little noticed section could be used to impose tariffs on countries engaged in discriminatory practices against U.S. commercial interests. This vague section allows the president to impose tariffs as high as 50% for five months in situations like this.
Bessent raised warning flags over a series of recent world events. He even denigrated a China-hosted extraordinary ministerial meeting in Shanghai with leaders of 20 non-Western countries as “performative.” He dismissed claims that Trump’s tariffs have actually helped unite countries like Russia, China and India against the U.S.
As Bessent prepares his brief, he aims to present a strong argument emphasizing both the economic and humanitarian crises linked to fentanyl trafficking. He agrees that emergency action is needed to avert more death and injury and arrest the rapid collapse of American trade.
“When can you use IEEPA if not for fentanyl?” – Bessent.
Importantly, he acknowledged that IEEPA isn’t the only authority. As encouraging as this mention was, he acknowledged that these alternatives lack the breadth and depth needed to address the fentanyl crisis and solve trade imbalance issues.
The litigation in this case will ultimately determine the future of Trump’s tariffs. They’ll set a new standard for how future administrations should respond to crises like this one. The bottom line The legal environment is evolving at a breakneck pace. Stakeholders from every sector are intently watching to see how this case plays out in the country’s highest court.