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.
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…
Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.
Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.
Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.
Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”
The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.
The Drought Reality in the American West
The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:
The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.
Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.
In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.
What Canada Actually Controls
Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.
The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:
The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty
British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.
What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.
Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line
Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.
Canada has historically resisted:
Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements
The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.
Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.
Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:
Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.
The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.
The Infrastructure Reality
Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:
Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals
No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.
Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.
The Philosophical Divide
At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:
Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?
In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.
That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.
What This Means Geopolitically
Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.
Still, the symbolism matters.
For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:
Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution
Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.
Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:
Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.
The Path Forward
Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:
Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination
Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.
For now, Carney’s message is clear:
Canada’s water is not for sale.
And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.
The Bigger Picture
This episode highlights a larger truth:
In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.
But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.
How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.
