Scott Bessent Fact Checks Donald Trump’s Lies about Tariffs

/48 Comments/in /by

In the wake of Trump’s batshit post from the other day, Politico reports that John Sauer has predictably asked SCOTUS to move quickly in accepting the tariff case for review.

In support of Sauer’s request for SCOTUS to consider the appeal immediately, Sauer included a declaration from Scott Bessent.

In it, Bessent confesses that Trump’s past claims that he had made trade deals were false. What Trump claimed in “fact sheets” were “deals” are in fact just “frameworks,” and Bessent is still working on negotiating “towards binding agreements.”

5. As of the date of this declaration, the United States has announced frameworks with Japan, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, and the European Union. These frameworks set the parameters for continued negotiation regarding binding, final terms of agreements with these foreign trading partners. The President has found that these frameworks align these foreign trading partners with the national security and economic interests of the United States and help address the trade deficit.

6. In addition to the frameworks already reached, and which continue to be negotiated towards binding agreements, the United States is actively negotiating with many other countries to reach ways forward to address the emergencies declared by the President.

And whereas Trump claimed the deals contribute to agreements to invest $15 trillion in the US, Bessent only laid out “about” $2.35 trillion, covering both purchases and investments, that actually derive from these frameworks that aren’t deals.

9. The frameworks for trade agreements already in place contain additional provisions ‘whereby the trade partners agree to significant purchases from and/or investments in the UnitedStates (e.g., the European Union agreed to $750 billion in energy purchases and $600 billion in investment, and Japan and South Korea collectively agreed to about 1 trillion). These agreed upon frameworks total in the multiple trillions of dollars. The longer the delay in a ruling, the greater these commitments will become. If these agreed upon frameworks were unwound and the investments and purchases had to be repaid, the economic consequences would be catastrophic.

In short, Scott Bessent just confessed that Trump has been lying in his claims about tariffs.

That should undermine the entire claimed emergency in the first place. Trump’s own Treasury Secretary has made it clear Trump is lying about tariffs. There’s no reason SCOTUS should accord claims in his underlying Executive Orders any presumption of regularity.

Share this entry
48 replies
  1. Peterr says:

    Trump was lying? I’m shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

    Bessent copped to the lies in sworn legal filings? OK, I did not see that one coming.

    • zscoreUSA says:

      The White House can’t even agree on a $ figure for their propaganda.

      Per the official White House account announcement on Labor Day, the tariffs created “$8 trillion in new U.S. investment, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.”

      Then, in same message, “$8 trillion in tariff revenue,” as if it’s an interchangeable phrase.

      https://archive.is/pQXzo

      And meanwhile, for those keeping track on Qanon, Trump is still posting Qanon propaganda.
      https://archive.is/QjPQh

        • Raven Eye says:

          I getting a feeling Trump missed that day in elementary school when the teacher explained the difference between numbers and numerals.

        • Ginevra diBenci says:

          And now, even after he fired the person in charge for “numbers too low,” the new jobs report still looks awful. So much for that strategy.

    • IndieGuy says:

      Yep. The thing is, though, everybody on the planet knows that as long it’s Trump doing something shady and illegal it’s okay. Roberts & Co. will rubber stamp this “emergency.”

  2. Barringer says:

    The beautiful thing about the best frameworks in economic history, everyone is saying he’s an economic genius, is that even after coming to an agreement, you can totally change/renege on them and make them even more best without getting called out.

    • gruntfuttock says:

      We are in Humpty Dumpty Land. The Great Leader makes language bend to his will. Nobody else knows what he means. But, hey, that’s okay. Everybody else will go off to negotiate trade with China and India and Russia and anybody who won’t change their mind in the next few minutes.

      As Chris Patten (former Governor of Hong Kong) said yesterday, for China, he’s the gift that keeps on giving.

  3. Scott_in_MI says:

    So essentially the administration is arguing that SCOTUS needs to prevent “an unprecedented economic and foreign-policy crisis” … which exists only because Trump imposed draconian tariffs illegally and is trying to use them as leverage to get “better” trade deals with other nations. I would hope that “we can’t be permitted to suffer the consequences of our own malfeasance” would not be a winning argument, biut given these justices….

    • Ed Walker says:

      Or, to put it directly, Trump imposed tariffs to gain leverage for renegotiating of existing treaties. There is no emergency to justify his use of legislative authority to impose tariffs, and therefore they are illegal.

    • BRUCE F COLE says:

      You nutshelled it:

      I would hope that “we can’t be permitted to suffer the consequences of our own malfeasance” would not be a winning argument, but given these justices….

      As I was reading their #9 above, that addled proposition/excuse was begging to be encapsulated. Well done.

  4. harpie says:

    The TRUMP administration has blown the Presumption of Regularity clean out of the water.
    But of course that does not matter to this CALVINBALL COURT.

    As a matter of fact… CALVINBALL COURT is COMPLICIT.

  5. Amicus12 says:

    Once upon a time if your cert petition contained obvious falsehoods or unsupported critical assertions you were a dead duck. Here, just skimming through the USG’s petition, reveals the following few gems.

    “Those ‘catastrophic’ deficits, id. at 5, arose from asymmetric tariffs and trade barriers that virtually all our major trading partners had imposed on the United States for decades. Gov’t Mot. to Expedite 2a (Bessent).” Cert. Petition at 2 (emphasis added).

    Could it be instead that some countries have economic advantages and are better at making certain things than here in the US, or in fact produce things that we do not make here? Could it be that the last several decades of globalization is premised on this economic reality?

    “According to the President, ‘[o]ne year ago, the United States was a dead country, and now, because of the trillions of dollars being paid by countries that have so badly abused us, America is a strong, financially viable, and respected country again.’ C.A. Doc. 154, at 1 (Aug.11, 2025).” Id. at 4 (emphasis added).

    Um, “no.” US importers pay the tariffs and if any monies must be refunded it is reasonable to assume that most of those dollars will stay within the US economy. Trump still cannot admit that tariffs are a form of domestic taxation.

    And as regards “frameworks,” the last I knew those were unenforceable. Any assertion about investments flowing from those frameworks is speculative.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        Believe or not, they deny.
        “A spokesperson for Cantor Fitzgerald said reports it has crafted financial products betting on the outcome of Trump’s tariffs was “absolutely false.”
        “What is being reported about our business is absolutely false. Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk, taking views or facilitating business in litigation claims involving the legality of US tariffs,” said Erica Chase, a spokesperson for the firm.”

        • Memory hole says:

          “Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk,”.

          Maybe not.

          But, maybe when the company Chairman is the son of the Commerce Secretary , https://www.cantor.com/our-company/who-we-are/, in an administration that operates more like an organized crime outfit than a normal government, maybe then there is enough insider info to eliminate the “risk” part of the equation.

        • Old Rapier says:

          This is an odd one because I figured the story was nailed. In any case a quick search yielded dozens of articles siting the deals and none about a denial. Will stay tuned.

    • P J Evans says:

      The Felon Guy lives in a completely different universe from the rest of us. We were a lot farther from a “dead country” a year ago than we are now.

    • AirportCat says:

      “Could it be instead that some countries have economic advantages and are better at making certain things than here in the US, or in fact produce things that we do not make here?”

      That is clearly bananas! Perhaps you need more coffee?

    • 200Toros says:

      Yeah this drives me crazy! In regard to flawed premises, the entire idea that a trade deficit is a financial loss is mathematically incorrect. If we buy $100 million in goods from a foreign country, we get $100 million worth of goods in return (big shocker, I know). The transaction is balanced. In Trump’s idiot mind, if you buy $200 dollars worth of groceries, the grocer needs to immediately buy $200 worth of goods from you, and if they do not, you are getting ripped off. Which of course is idiotic. But that’s the “logic” driving MAGA. The “emergency” is a product of a complete misunderstanding (at best) of basic principals of international trade. (But, on the other hand, makes perfect sense if the TRUE goal is to weaken the US.)

      Deficits are not a mathematical loss and are primarily a function of wealth and demographics. Canada’s 40 million citizens cannot buy the same amount of stuff as our 330 million, therefore there will never be trade parity between the two nations, as the idiot Trump administration has said they want. Wealthy countries buy what they want, from wherever they want, and this is in no way a disadvantage to the wealthy country; it’s laughable to put it in those terms. There is also the dynamic of the function of the US dollar as the premier global reserve currency and how that creates a functional deficit that works in everyone’s benefit, but that’s a topic for another day.

      • CVilleDem says:

        I have never heard this put as succinctly and in language that even the dullest brain should comprehend. I hope you don’t mind that I copied it (with your 200Torus) at the top so that I can send it to my family members who just don’t get this.

        What is really sad is that the president and his entire cabinet don’t seem to get it either.

        Anyway, thank you!

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      I’d like a refund – I recently ordered hydroponic equipment through Alibaba. Total including shipping was $430. Import fees were $111 on top of that. So much for the “other country” paying the tariffs.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        re-Memory hole September 4, 2025 2:13 pm
        ““Cantor is not in the business of positioning any risk,”.
        Maybe not.”
        Their business model is taking positions on risk.
        Probably the only time they’ve ever lost, was, I hate to say this, when 800 of their employees died on 9-11.

      • xyxyxyxy says:

        I don’t know if Alibaba offers satisfaction or your money back.
        If they do and you’re not satisfied and return the product, maybe a not so smart question on my part, are you going to get that tariff back too?

  6. Rugger_9 says:

    Let’s also remember that these are really treaties which require Senate approval. However, an admission like this in public court documents is simply stunning because it shows the WH can’t even come up with a plausible lie.

    Will it make a difference with the reactionary six hacks? We will see. It really should be 9-0 to tell Convict-1 to follow the law, but between IOKIYAR and the unitary executive fallacy I can’t be sanguine about it.

  7. LordAvebury says:

    Of course, the single biggest “commitment” in that list is $750B of EU purchases of LNG from the US. That translates into $250B per year for the next three years. Total sales of LNG by the US in 2024 were about $85B. There is no way that the US could produce $250B worth of LNG in a year, nor that the EU could absorb it. It’s pure fantasy. More at https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eus-pledge-250-billion-us-energy-imports-is-delusional-2025-07-28/

    [Welcome back to emptywheel. THIRD REQUEST: Please use the SAME USERNAME and email address each time you comment so that community members get to know you. You published this comment under what appears to be a RL name; it has been edited to match your established username. Please also continue to enter a URL if you entered one with your first comment (which you did). Thanks. /~Rayne]

  8. Memory hole says:

    So, nobody has actually made trade deals with the Trump administration.? The Great Negotiator Business Genius has failed once again.

    It seems like everyone worldwide, other than the US media and 30% of our population, can see what a clown show our government has devolved into. So, of course they aren’t going to finalize deals that Trump would break as soon as he sees fit.

    We can only hope there is enough sense on the Supreme Court to not even waste the time with this ridiculous appeal.

  9. Ginevra diBenci says:

    “The longer the delay in a ruling, the greater these commitments will become.” Is it just me misreading Bessent / Sauer, or is this attempt to pressure SCOTUS simply backwards? Doesn’t the administration *want* greater commitments from trading partners?

    • gruntfuttock says:

      The longer the delay, the greater the cost of these illegal, non-binding, no-commitment ‘frameworks’ will be?

      Well, it certainly seems pretty stupid to me but I’m not one of those lawyers that gets paid thousands per day to twist words into spretzels ;-)

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Donald Trump to the Supreme Court’s fascist majority:

      “I broke the law and caused so much damage, I can’t calculate the cost of fixing the problems I caused. I demand you fix it for me. Let me off the hook. Tell the world I didn’t break the law in the first place. Easy peasy.”

      It’s the sort of argument a defrocked priest, who sodomized altar boys for a generation, would make. In Trump’s case, he could add, wash, rinse, repeat.

  10. Error Prone says:

    Trump has a framework about deporting people. And a framework with Melania, not a separation, but a framework for communications and event attendance. Trying to reach a framework with Lisa Cook but a potential framework there has spawned some paperwork.

  11. Gerry Canning says:

    Mr trump suggested bleach for covid .?
    Mr trump says other countries pay for tariffs?
    Mr trump says trade agreements done.?
    Mr trump says Mr china Mr russia Mr nth Korea are his friends?

    Am I missing something (s)?
    Ps good luck to you all from here in Ireland

  15. TacomaMike says:

    Deals? Frameworks? They always sounded more like *Infrastructure Weeks!” to me, i.e. worthless bullshit and spin.

Comments are closed.