Tariffs Will Remain Central to Donald Trump Economic Policy: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent

Washington: US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has made it clear that tariff policy will remain a key pillar of President Donald Trump’s economic strategy. Although the Supreme Court of the United States has restricted the administration’s use of a specific legal provision to impose tariffs, Bessent indicated that there would be no fundamental shift in the government’s broader trade agenda.

Speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas, Bessent directly addressed the court’s ruling. He noted that six justices had clearly determined that the authority granted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) cannot be used to raise even a single dollar in revenue.

Responding to critics who described the decision as a setback for the administration, Bessent pushed back strongly. “Despite the baseless celebrations by Democrats, misinformed media outlets, and those who weakened our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs themselves,” he said.

He emphasized that the administration would rely on alternative legal authorities to maintain its tariff framework. Specifically, Bessent cited Section 232 and Section 301 powers, which he described as having been upheld through numerous legal challenges.

According to Treasury estimates, Bessent said that using Section 122 authority—potentially combined with expanded Section 232 and Section 301 tariffs—would result in almost no change in tariff revenue projections for 2026. His remarks underscored that trade enforcement and tariff measures remain integral to the administration’s economic security agenda.

Bessent argued that economic security forms the foundation of a nation’s ability to fulfill its most basic responsibility: protecting its people. He stressed that the United States must rebuild its industrial capacity and reduce vulnerabilities created by excessive dependence on foreign supply chains.

Referring to what he called the “China shock,” Bessent noted that the US lost nearly six million manufacturing jobs between 1999 and 2011, weakening strategic industries and productive flexibility.

“Our policies have compelled companies to reassess their sourcing strategies and invest trillions of dollars in American manufacturing and strategic sectors,” he said. The message to trading partners, he added, is clear: the administration will continue to use tariffs as part of its economic strategy, even if the legal pathway changes.

Particular emphasis was placed on Sections 232 and 301. Section 232 allows tariffs to be imposed on national security grounds, while Section 301 targets unfair trade practices. Both have been widely used in recent years, including in trade actions involving China.

For countries like India, which have been actively engaged in trade negotiations and sector-specific discussions with Washington, continued reliance on tariff tools signals that economic security considerations will remain deeply embedded in US trade policy.

The United States has increasingly framed trade, supply chains, and industrial production as national security issues. In a potential second Trump term, this linkage is expected to deepen further, with alternative legal mechanisms ready to sustain tariff revenue and policy impact. Bessent’s remarks strongly suggest that even if the legal framework evolves, the overall direction of US trade policy—assertive, security-focused, and tariff-backed—will remain unchanged.