Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent weighed in Friday on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision, and his message was clear: this ruling hurts the American people more than it hurts President Donald Trump. Speaking at a briefing covered by C-SPAN, Bessent explained that while the Court narrowed one legal pathway, the administration is far from out of options.

Bessent noted that the president still has alternative statutory authorities available and that any challenges to those powers will simply have to be litigated later. In other words, the fight isn’t over—it’s just moving to the next round.

During an interview, Bessent addressed claims that the ruling changed everything. He rejected that idea outright, saying the decision was “a loss for the American people” because it stripped Trump of fast-acting leverage under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. He pointed to last year’s fentanyl-related tariffs against Mexico, Canada, and China, arguing they produced a rapid decline in fentanyl deaths. If that wasn’t an emergency, he asked, what is?

Bessent also recalled how China once threatened to impose worldwide export controls on products containing rare earth elements. Trump responded by warning of a 100 percent tariff, and within 24 hours, China was back at the negotiating table. The result was a one-year extension agreement. According to Bessent, that’s proof tariffs work as a national security and diplomatic tool, not just as a revenue measure.

Here’s where the irony kicks in: while the Supreme Court said Trump can’t impose tariffs under this authority, it acknowledged he could still impose a full embargo. As Bessent explained, the president can’t charge a dollar—but he can shut the door entirely. That’s not exactly softer policy; it’s the nuclear option in trade terms.

Bessent said this actually makes the president’s remaining leverage more “draconian,” since cutting off imports altogether is far more severe than placing a tariff on them. President Trump himself echoed that point earlier in the day, noting the odd logic of allowing total trade shutdowns while forbidding modest duties.

The ruling, Bessent suggested, is limited and far from the final word. The administration had already prepared for this outcome and is now shifting strategies accordingly. Backup plans are in motion, and negotiations are still moving forward.

In short, the Supreme Court may have tried to box in the president—but instead, it highlighted just how powerful his remaining tools still are. Trump’s trade strategy isn’t dead; it’s evolving. And as always, the goal remains the same: defend American workers, protect national security, and keep America in the driver’s seat.