Bessent Says Supreme Court Unlikely To Block Trump Tariffs
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said it is “very unlikely” the Supreme Court will overturn President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, with a ruling possibly coming as soon as this week.
“I believe that it is very unlikely that the Supreme Court will overrule a president’s signature economic policy,” Bessent said during an appearance on Meet the Press. “They did not overrule Obamacare. I believe that the Supreme Court does not want to create chaos.”
Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a key provision of the Affordable Care Act that allows a federal panel to recommend preventive services insurers must cover at no cost to patients.
Bessent’s remarks came one day after Trump announced plans to impose a new round of tariffs on European goods until what he described as “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”
Trump did not specify which statute he is invoking, though the move mirrors prior “liberation day” tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
Trump said tariffs on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland will begin at 10 percent on Feb. 1 and rise to 25 percent on June 1.
He argued that only the United States has the resources and strategic reach to secure the island and counter growing geopolitical threats in the Arctic.
“We have subsidized Denmark, and all of the Countries of the European Union, and others, for many years by not charging them Tariffs, or any other forms of remuneration,” Trump wrote. “Now, after centuries, it is time for Denmark to give back.”
The tariffs will apply not only to Denmark but also to Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, all of which have pledged to deploy military forces to Greenland in support of Danish sovereignty.
Trump said those actions have dangerously escalated tensions.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule before the end of its term on Trump’s use of IEEPA to impose tariffs, though a decision could come this week.
The law grants the president broad authority to deploy economic measures in response to what it defines as an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
The U.S. government in January ran up a smaller deficit than a year earlier, while tariff collections surged, underscoring how pivotal a long-awaited Supreme Court decision could be to federal fiscal health.
The $30 billion in customs duties collected through tariffs for the month brought the total for the fiscal year to date to $124 billion, which is 304% more than the same time last year.
President Trump first put tariffs on all goods and services coming into the U.S. in April 2025. He also put so-called “reciprocal tariffs” on individual countries. Since then, the White House has been talking to its trading partners and backing off on some of the more aggressive claims while still being tough on issues.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last November that questioned the reasons Trump gave for the tariffs. It was thought that the decision would come in January. The high court hasn’t made a decision yet, and the White House is worried that a bad decision could mean the U.S. has to pay back the duties it has already collected.
The tariffs helped slow down the rate at which the budget deficit was growing.
The Treasury Department said that in the fourth month of the fiscal year, the shortfall was about $95 billion. This was about 26% less than the same time last year.
That brought the federal deficit to $697 billion so far this year, which is 17% less than the same time last year, according to numbers that weren’t adjusted for the calendar. Changes to the calendar brought the deficit cut down to 21%.
The $38.6 trillion U.S. debt is still costing the country money in interest. The net interest paid for the month was $76 billion, which was more than all other expenses except for Medicare, Social Security, and health care. This year, gross interest has reached $426.5 billion, up from $392.2 billion last year.
Why People Keep Talking About Caroline Leavitt’s Public Image
Public figures quickly learn that every detail of their appearance can become a topic of discussion.
For Caroline Leavitt, that reality has followed her throughout her rise in national politics. As one of the most recognizable faces in Washington, her speeches, clothing choices, hairstyle, and overall presentation are constantly analyzed by supporters and critics alike.
In recent months, online discussions have increasingly focused on her fashion and styling choices. Some observers argue that Leavitt's appearance projects professionalism and seriousness, helping her stand out in an environment where image often matters as much as messaging.
Others see things differently.
Critics have suggested that her hairstyle and wardrobe sometimes make her appear older than her age, sparking countless debates across social media platforms. What one person sees as classic and professional, another may view as overly traditional or outdated.
The discussion reveals something larger about modern politics.
Women in public life often face scrutiny that extends far beyond their policies or job performance. Hairstyles become headlines. Clothing choices become talking points. Minor details can generate more attention than major policy announcements.
For older Americans, the debate may feel familiar.
Generations have watched female politicians, journalists, and public officials endure intense commentary about their appearance in ways that their male counterparts rarely experience. Whether fair or unfair, public image has become part of the political landscape.
What makes Leavitt's situation particularly interesting is that reactions are so divided. Supporters often describe her look as polished, disciplined, and professional. Critics argue that it reflects an older political style that feels out of place among younger leaders.
Ultimately, fashion and hairstyle remain matters of personal preference.
What one voter finds elegant, another may find unremarkable.
Years from now, however, people are unlikely to remember every hairstyle or outfit.
They will remember how effectively she performed one of the most visible and demanding communications roles in American politics.
And that may prove far more important than any debate about appearances.
News / Politics BREAKING: Terror attack in Michigan! A person RAMMED a truck LOADED with explosives at high speed into a synagogue and a preschool where 140 children were.
The truck was rented by a naturalized U.S. citizen from Leb
The terrorist organization Hezbollah is headquartered in Lebanon and is the primary proxy of the nation of Iran in that country.The New York Post is reporting:
“An armed wannabe car b-mber plowed a vehicle full of explosives into the preschool entrance of a synagogue in Michigan and barreled down a hallway before security opened fire, k-lling the suspect.
The attack unfolded at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield just before 1 p.m. Thursday, when the suspect smashed through the doors and sped through the building with 140 students inside, as security fired shots to stop them, Oakland Sheriff Mike Bouchard told reporters.The attack sparked a blaze, law enforcement sources said, with aerial footage from local outlets showing smoke wafting from the building in the aftermath as authorities swarmed the synagogue.”
We must NO longer naturalize people who come from countries prone to terrorism! It must end now, and we must deport ALL those who crossed our border illegally who came from countries with terror groups!
No taxation without deportation!
