Washington, Feb 21 (NationPress) US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized that tariffs will continue to play a pivotal role in President Donald Trump’s economic policy, despite a recent Supreme Court ruling that curtailed the administration’s ability to utilize one legal avenue for imposing them.

Addressing the Economic Club of Dallas, Bessent specifically referenced the court’s decision. He stated, “Six Justices ruled that the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) authorities cannot be applied to generate even a single dollar of revenue.”

He countered the narrative from critics who deemed the ruling a defeat. “In spite of the unwarranted celebrations from Democrats, misinformed media outlets, and those who dismantled our industrial base, the Court did not oppose President Trump’s tariffs,” Bessent remarked.

He indicated a commitment to continuity. “This Administration will use alternative legal frameworks to substitute for the IEEPA tariffs,” he asserted. He mentioned Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities, describing them as having been “upheld through thousands of legal challenges.”

Bessent noted that estimates from the Treasury suggest that utilizing Section 122 authority, alongside potentially enhanced Sections 232 and 301 tariffs, will yield “virtually unchanged tariff revenue by 2026.”

His comments highlight that trade enforcement and tariff leverage are fundamental to what he called an “economic security” strategy.

“Economic security is the bedrock that enables a nation to meet its core obligation of protecting its citizens,” he stated. He contended that the United States must rebuild its industrial capacity and mitigate the risks associated with excessive dependence on foreign supply chains.

Touching on the “China Shock,” Bessent remarked that the US lost “almost six million manufacturing jobs” between 1999 and 2011, which undermined vital industries and productive resilience.

“Our policies have driven companies to reevaluate their sourcing strategies and invest trillions back into American manufacturing and strategic sectors,” he expressed.

The message to trading partners was clear: the administration will persist in employing tariffs as part of its economic strategy, even if the legal framework shifts.

The focus on Sections 232 and 301 is particularly noteworthy. Section 232 permits tariffs based on national security grounds, while Section 301 targets unfair trade practices. Both have been widely utilized in recent years, including in trade disputes involving China.

For India, which has been engaged in trade negotiations and sector-specific talks with Washington, the ongoing reliance on tariff mechanisms suggests that economic security concerns will remain closely tied to US trade policy.

The United States has increasingly categorized trade, supply chains, and industrial production as matters of national security. Under Trump’s second term, this connection seems set to strengthen, with alternative legal strategies prepared to sustain tariff revenue and leverage.

Bessent’s statements indicate that while the legal framework might evolve, the overarching trajectory of US trade policy—assertive, security-focused, and tariff-supported—remains consistent.