U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a pending Supreme Court decision on the president’s use of emergency tariff powers could significantly affect Washington’s ability to pressure foreign governments in trade negotiations, pointing to recent disputes with China and other partners as evidence of the authority’s reach.
Speaking on the Fox News programme “Sunday Morning Futures,” Bessent defended President Donald Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, known as IEEPA, describing it as a central instrument in the administration’s economic strategy during what he characterised as ongoing national emergencies. “President Trump has used his IEEPA authority consistently throughout the year to negotiate better deals for the American people,” Bessent said in the interview. He argued that the statute, which grants the executive branch authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies, has shaped recent diplomatic and trade discussions.
Bessent linked the policy directly to efforts to address the flow of fentanyl into the United States, framing the issue as justification for emergency economic measures. “It’s an emergency authority, and what was an emergency if it wasn’t the fentanyl crisis? We are seeing Canada, Mexico, [and] China come to the table to stop this scourge of the American people,” he said.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, enacted in 1977, allows the U.S. president to impose economic sanctions and other financial restrictions after declaring a national emergency tied to an external threat. The law has been used by multiple administrations to target foreign governments, companies and individuals, typically through sanctions or asset freezes. Its application to tariffs has drawn scrutiny from legal scholars and lawmakers, and the issue is now before the Supreme Court.
Bessent said the administration views the authority as a critical negotiating tool, particularly in disputes involving trade, supply chains and strategic materials. He warned that a ruling limiting or overturning its use in the tariff context would weaken Washington’s position in dealings with major economic rivals.
Read Also: South Korea Tariffs Dispute Deepens As Minister Heads To US
He cited a confrontation with Beijing in October as an example of the policy’s impact. According to Bessent, Chinese officials reconsidered threatened export controls on rare earth minerals after the White House signalled it could impose steep tariffs in response. Those materials are widely used in electronics, defence systems and renewable energy technologies, and restrictions could have affected global supply.
Bessent said the prospect of tariffs prompted discussions that helped ease tensions at the time. Details of the negotiations and any formal commitments were not publicly disclosed.
The secretary also said the authority has been applied in discussions with Canada and Mexico, linking trade policy to cooperation on fentanyl trafficking and cross border security. Officials in Ottawa and Mexico City have not publicly detailed any specific agreements tied to the emergency powers cited by Bessent.
Legal challenges to the administration’s tariff actions have argued that the statute was not designed for broad trade policy and that Congress holds primary authority over tariffs under the U.S. Constitution. Supporters of the administration’s approach contend that national emergencies tied to economic security fall within the president’s powers under existing law.
The Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling. The timing of a decision remains unclear, though legal observers expect the case to clarify how far executive authority can extend into trade policy under emergency statutes.
Bessent warned that curbing those powers could carry wider implications beyond the current disputes. He described the authority as a source of leverage in negotiations with countries viewed as strategic competitors and said removing it could limit Washington’s options at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions.
Read Also: US–India Trade Deal Cuts Tariffs As Modi Halts Russian Oil
Treasury officials have not released additional guidance on how the administration would respond if the court rules against its interpretation of the law. It is also unclear whether Congress would pursue legislative changes to address any limits imposed by the judiciary. IEEPA has historically been invoked in contexts ranging from sanctions on Iran and North Korea to financial restrictions on individuals linked to terrorism or cyber activity. Its use as a basis for tariffs, however, remains contested, and previous administrations relied primarily on other statutes, including Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, to impose duties tied to trade disputes.
The White House has not issued a separate statement responding to the pending legal review, and officials have declined to comment on ongoing litigation. Representatives for Canada, Mexico and China did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Bessent’s remarks.
The Supreme Court’s decision, when released, is expected to determine whether the administration can continue to use emergency economic authorities in the tariff context or must rely on other legal mechanisms for future trade actions.