🚨 Supreme Court Says ILLEGAL. Bessent Says "We'll Just Do It Again." Here's How.
リアクション
2026年07月04日
#SupremeCourt #ScottBessent #Tariffs
#Bessent #IEEPA #Section301
Bessent Said "I'm Very Optimistic" — Three Months Later He Lost At The Supreme Court
One court hearing. One confident prediction. One reversal that changed everything.
In November 2025, leaving the Supreme Court, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he was "very optimistic," mocking the plaintiffs as people who "almost embarrassed themselves" and "don't understand basic economics." He was certain Trump's IEEPA tariff authority would be upheld.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled: the tariffs were illegal. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize them.
The U.S. had already collected roughly $66 billion in IEEPA tariff revenue.
💣 THE ADMISSION THAT FOLLOWED:
Weeks earlier, in a separate hearing, Bessent had already conceded: "My forecasts were bad. I also said the dollar would strengthen — it did the opposite." A rare moment of a Treasury Secretary openly admitting his own predictions failed.
🔴 WHAT THE RULING ACTUALLY COST:
✓ $66 billion in tariff revenue — suddenly without legal foundation
✓ According to the Center for American Progress: tariff-driven cost increases on lumber, copper, cabinets, and steel could prevent construction of approximately 450,000 homes over five years
✓ Bessent's own "shrinking ice cube" metaphor for tariffs — collapsed overnight; the ice cube wasn't melting, it was eliminated by the court
🚨 BESSENT'S RESPONSE: NOT ACCEPTING DEFEAT — FINDING A WORKAROUND
On CNBC: "USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer is working on Section 301. If successful — which I have no reason to believe it won't be — tariff rates will go back to exactly where they were."
At a Wall Street Journal event: "We had a setback in the Supreme Court. But we will run the Section 301 work so tariffs can be put back to their previous levels by early July."
The legal pivot: Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act — a completely different statute, same outcome intended.
⚖️ THE QUESTION THIS RAISES:
If the Supreme Court rules a legal mechanism illegal, and the administration simply finds another statute to reach the identical result — how much authority does that ruling actually carry?
A Treasury Secretary who was "very optimistic." A Supreme Court loss. And a plan to be back to the same place by July — through a different door.
👇 Drop a comment below. Legal strategy — or working around a Supreme Court ruling?
👍 Like, Comment, and Subscribe for complete congressional and Supreme Court coverage
🔔 Turn on notifications for tariff policy and economic oversight coverage
#Tariffs #SupremeCourt #Bessent #IEEPA #Section301 #USPolitics #BreakingNews #Accountability #TradePolicy #Treasury #ScottBessent #CongressHearing #LindaSanchez #IRSAuditImmunity #TrumpTaxes #MostCorruptTreasury #TrumpTaxImmunity #IRSAudit #TrumpSlushFund #BrianTylerCohen #TaxTheRich #TrumpTariffs
#Bessent #IEEPA #Section301
Bessent Said "I'm Very Optimistic" — Three Months Later He Lost At The Supreme Court
One court hearing. One confident prediction. One reversal that changed everything.
In November 2025, leaving the Supreme Court, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters he was "very optimistic," mocking the plaintiffs as people who "almost embarrassed themselves" and "don't understand basic economics." He was certain Trump's IEEPA tariff authority would be upheld.
In February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled: the tariffs were illegal. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize them.
The U.S. had already collected roughly $66 billion in IEEPA tariff revenue.
💣 THE ADMISSION THAT FOLLOWED:
Weeks earlier, in a separate hearing, Bessent had already conceded: "My forecasts were bad. I also said the dollar would strengthen — it did the opposite." A rare moment of a Treasury Secretary openly admitting his own predictions failed.
🔴 WHAT THE RULING ACTUALLY COST:
✓ $66 billion in tariff revenue — suddenly without legal foundation
✓ According to the Center for American Progress: tariff-driven cost increases on lumber, copper, cabinets, and steel could prevent construction of approximately 450,000 homes over five years
✓ Bessent's own "shrinking ice cube" metaphor for tariffs — collapsed overnight; the ice cube wasn't melting, it was eliminated by the court
🚨 BESSENT'S RESPONSE: NOT ACCEPTING DEFEAT — FINDING A WORKAROUND
On CNBC: "USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer is working on Section 301. If successful — which I have no reason to believe it won't be — tariff rates will go back to exactly where they were."
At a Wall Street Journal event: "We had a setback in the Supreme Court. But we will run the Section 301 work so tariffs can be put back to their previous levels by early July."
The legal pivot: Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act — a completely different statute, same outcome intended.
⚖️ THE QUESTION THIS RAISES:
If the Supreme Court rules a legal mechanism illegal, and the administration simply finds another statute to reach the identical result — how much authority does that ruling actually carry?
A Treasury Secretary who was "very optimistic." A Supreme Court loss. And a plan to be back to the same place by July — through a different door.
👇 Drop a comment below. Legal strategy — or working around a Supreme Court ruling?
👍 Like, Comment, and Subscribe for complete congressional and Supreme Court coverage
🔔 Turn on notifications for tariff policy and economic oversight coverage
#Tariffs #SupremeCourt #Bessent #IEEPA #Section301 #USPolitics #BreakingNews #Accountability #TradePolicy #Treasury #ScottBessent #CongressHearing #LindaSanchez #IRSAuditImmunity #TrumpTaxes #MostCorruptTreasury #TrumpTaxImmunity #IRSAudit #TrumpSlushFund #BrianTylerCohen #TaxTheRich #TrumpTariffs
