Bessent's Supreme Court Show: Economic Savior or Political Muscle?
Theatrics at the Highest Level
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is heading to the Supreme Court this week for the hearing on President Trump's tariff policy. Bessent plans to sit in the front row, which is already a loaded statement. He claims the tariff policy is a "matter of national security" and intends to "emphasize that this is an economic emergency." This was announced on Fox News' "Jesse Watters Primetime" on Monday, Nov. 3. 
Consider the historical context. Trump's tariff policies have been…unconventional, to say the least. They've targeted allies and adversaries alike, often with little discernible strategic rationale (or at least, none that's been clearly articulated). So, when Bessent says "national security," what does that actually mean? Is it about protecting specific industries crucial for defense, or is it a blanket justification for protectionism?
And "economic emergency"? The US economy, while facing challenges, isn't exactly in a state of collapse. Unemployment is low (around 3.8%—to be more exact, 3.79% as of the last report). GDP growth, while not spectacular, is still positive. So, what constitutes an "economic emergency" in Bessent's eyes? Is it a projection based on potential future impacts of the tariffs, or is it a current reality? Details on the specific metrics Bessent is using to define this "emergency" remain scarce, but the rhetoric is certainly strong.
I've looked at enough economic reports to know that the devil is always in the details. Without those details, "economic emergency" is just a scary phrase. And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. Usually, a Treasury Secretary would back up such a claim with data, projections, and a clear explanation of the methodology. The absence of that makes me wonder whether this is more about optics than economics.
What happens if the Supreme Court rules against the tariff policy? What's Bessent's plan B? Or is the goal simply to create a public narrative, regardless of the legal outcome?
Just a Show?
Bessent's appearance at the Supreme Court strikes me as a calculated move. It's a way to signal the administration's unwavering support for its tariff policy, to put pressure on the justices (whether intentionally or not), and to rally public opinion. Whether it's actually about national security or an economic emergency is a question that only the data can answer. And so far, the data is suspiciously absent.
Smoke and Mirrors
Bessent going to the Supreme Court is like a CEO personally inspecting every paperclip – it's a waste of resources, unless the goal is pure, unadulterated signaling.
