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.
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation
E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.
Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.
