Treasury Secretary Bessent to Attend Supreme Court Hearing on Trump’s Tariff Powers, Citing National Security Imperative

WASHINGTON D.C (VINnews) — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced Monday that he plans to attend the U.S. Supreme Court hearing on a landmark challenge to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, positioning himself in the front row to underscore the “economic emergency” at stake.

The case, which could determine the scope of presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is central to Trump’s foreign policy achievements, including trade negotiations with China aimed at curbing fentanyl precursors. Bessent, a key architect of the administration’s economic strategy, framed the tariffs as essential to national security, declaring, “National security is economic security. Economic security is national security.”

“As the Treasury secretary of the United States, I’m in charge of maintaining both,” Bessent said in remarks previewing his appearance at the high court. He added with characteristic flair, “I’m actually going to go and sit hopefully in the front row and have a ringside seat!”

The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this fall in consolidated challenges brought by small businesses and state attorneys general, who argue that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking IEEPA to impose broad “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from multiple countries. Lower courts, including the U.S. Court of International Trade and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, have ruled against the administration, finding that the 1977 law does not grant the president unlimited power to levy tariffs—a constitutional prerogative traditionally reserved for Congress.

Despite the setbacks, Bessent expressed confidence in a favorable ruling, telling reporters, “I’m confident the Supreme Court will uphold the president’s authority to use IEEPA.” He warned that striking down the tariffs could force the Treasury to refund billions in collected duties—potentially up to half of an estimated $750 billion to $1 trillion—describing it as “catastrophic” for the economy and government coffers.

Bessent tied the legal battle directly to pressing national crises, invoking recent developments in U.S.-China relations. “This is a matter of national security,” he said. “If President Trump had not had the IEEPA, which is an emergency tariff authority, back in the spring, he put IEEPA tariffs on China. Last week in Korea, the Chinese agreed to start working to bring down the precursors for fentanyl. If fentanyl is not a national emergency, what is?”

The tariffs, first unveiled by Trump in an April Rose Garden ceremony, have generated $142 billion in revenue as of July—more than double the previous year’s haul—and have been leveraged to secure trade concessions. Bessent highlighted their role in countering China’s recent restrictions on rare earth minerals, a move that prompted Trump to threaten additional 100% duties. “The president was able to push back using his IEEPA powers,” Bessent noted. “If that’s not use of an emergency power at an emergency time, I don’t know what it is.”

Administration officials have prepared contingency plans, including fallback authorities under Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, should the court side against them. “There are lots of other authorities that can be used—not as efficient, not as powerful,” Bessent acknowledged.

Critics, including the Liberty Justice Center representing challengers, maintain that the Constitution vests tariff power exclusively in Congress. “We are confident that the Supreme Court… will recognize that the President does not have unilateral tariff power under IEEPA,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the group.

The case arrives amid broader trade tensions, with Trump’s tariffs credited by supporters for spurring record investments—over $15 trillion—in the U.S. economy. Legal experts suggest the justices may grant deference to the executive on foreign policy matters, potentially tipping the scales in the administration’s favor.

As the court weighs the balance between congressional intent and presidential flexibility, Bessent’s front-row presence signals the high stakes: a potential reshaping of America’s trade arsenal in an era of geopolitical flux.