Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended President Trump’s authority to impose a new slate of tariffs without congressional approval during an exchange with NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, arguing that the measures are designed to prevent a future national emergency rather than respond to one after the fact.

The discussion centered on the president’s use of emergency powers to justify tariffs, an issue currently before the Supreme Court.

Welker pressed Bessent on how the administration defines a “national emergency” in this context and whether tariffs aimed at long-term economic threats meet that standard.

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

“Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the tariff portion of this, the President, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies,” Welker said.

“It’s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We’re all awaiting the high court’s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs?”

Bessent responded by framing the tariffs as a proactive geopolitical strategy meant to avert more serious conflicts down the road, including potential military confrontations.

“The National Emergency is avoiding a national emergency that it is a strategic decision by the President,” Bessent said.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“This is a geopolitical decision, and he is able to use the economic might of the US to avoid a hot war. So why wouldn’t we do that?”

Bessent argued that longstanding trade imbalances represent a looming threat to U.S. stability and global security, and that waiting until the situation escalates would be irresponsible.

“Same thing, what if that we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world?” he said.

“I’ve been in financial markets for 45, years. Much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.”

Welker challenged that explanation, noting the apparent contradiction between describing the situation as an emergency while also characterizing the threat as something that may not materialize for years.

“You’re saying it’s a national emergency, but you’re also saying it’s a threat that’s years away,” Welker said.

“How can both be true, Mister Secretary?”

Bessent responded by comparing the administration’s approach to actions that could have prevented the 2008 financial crisis if taken earlier.

“Because you were avoiding creating the emergency,” Bessent said.

“Kristen, what if, during the great financial crisis, someone had raised their hand in 2005 2006 and said, stop with subprime mortgages. But no one did. President Trump is raising his hand and that is preventing the emergency.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.