Quoted By:
To be sure, the jump in tariff revenue from 2024 to 2025 is considerable, roughly triple or quadruple the level from the year before, as calculated by Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok in September (as shown below). But Hassett’s claim of spending restraint has been challenged by budget watchdogs, notably the Peter G. Peterson Institute and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the former of which calculated the debt’s growth by $1 trillion in just two months was the fastest-ever recorded outside of the pandemic.
Bessent defended the tariff regime in his interview with the New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin, saying tariffs are currently bringing in substantial revenue, and they are “good for labor.” He stressed the ultimate goal is to rebalance trade and rebuild domestic manufacturing, not to fund government permanently.
Supreme Court watching
The remarks from Bessent and Hassett come as the Supreme Court weighs whether Trump overstepped by using the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs far beyond past presidents’ use of the law. Bessent said on Wednesday if the Supreme Court succeeds in throwing out many of the tariffs, it would be “a loss for the administration” and “a loss for the American people.”
Regarding the Supreme Court, Hassett said the use of an economic emergency law was justified by the social damage from decades of large trade deficits and diminished well-being for American labor, as evidenced by “deaths of despair,” often fentanyl-related. Hassett said the administration is confident the Supreme Court will uphold Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy import charges. He also rejected the idea tariffs are inherently inflationary, calling them a one-time price shock rather than a persistent driver of rising prices, something that was echoed in Bessent’s interview with Ross Sorkin.
