The Supreme Court struck down President Trump's international tariff policy Friday in a 6-3 ruling, and within hours, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was already mapping the road around the obstacle. His message: the Court didn't disarm the president. It forced him into a heavier arsenal.

Appearing on "The Will Cain Show," Bessent laid out the administration's reading of the decision with characteristic directness.

Fox News reported that the ruling strips the president of his ability to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as instantaneous leverage in trade negotiations.

But the Court, in the same breath, affirmed something the administration's critics might not want to dwell on: the president retains the authority to impose a complete embargo on any country or product line he chooses.

"In a way, they have made the leverage that he has more draconian because they agreed he does have the right to a full embargo."

That is not the talking point of a defeated administration. That is a recalibration.

The Ruling and the Reality

Six justices sided against the administration's use of IEPA authority to impose tariffs. The president called the decision "deeply disappointing" and said he was "ashamed" of the six justices who ruled against him. Those are strong words, and they signal that this White House views the ruling as a setback imposed by a Court that misread its moment.

But Bessent's framing tells you where the administration is headed next. He pointed to Section 122 authority, which allows the president to impose a 10% global tariff within three days. On the revenue side, the Treasury Department projects no decrease for the full year of 2026.

"Within three days, the President can put on the Section 122 10% global tariff. So, at Treasury for the full year 2026, we foresee the no decrease in revenue."

The tools change. The destination doesn't.

Leverage Lost, Leverage Found

What the Court effectively did was remove speed from the equation. Under IEPA, the administration could deploy tariffs instantly, creating the kind of pressure that brings foreign governments to the negotiating table in days rather than months. That leverage is now gone. What remains is blunter but arguably more severe.

Bessent was candid about the tradeoff. He acknowledged the ruling as a genuine loss for the American people, framing it not as a policy disagreement but as a practical problem.

"Today was a loss for the American people, because by taking away President Trump's instantaneous leverage using the IEPA authority, the American people have suffered a significant setback."

He also warned about the litigation chaos that follows. Refund claims, legal battles, and bureaucratic tangles could drag on.

"This could be a mess, and this could take months, this could take years to litigate and to get to the payouts."

But Bessent pivoted quickly to the path forward. The president can still tell any trading partner on earth that he will embargo all of their products. He just cannot collect a dollar from it. The distinction matters legally. Whether it matters practically to a country staring down a total shutout from American markets is another question entirely.

"If he wants to negotiate with these countries, he does have the right to say, 'I can embargo all your products.' We just can't collect $1 from the embargo."

Will the Deals Hold?

When Will Cain pressed Bessent on whether existing peace deals face new threats following the tariff blow, the Treasury Secretary expressed confidence.

"I think that everyone is going to honor their deal."

That confidence rests on something more than hope. Countries that have already struck agreements with the administration did so knowing the alternative. The Court's ruling doesn't erase that knowledge.

If anything, Bessent's public reminder that the president can impose a complete embargo, cutting entire nations or product lines off from American commerce, reinforces the stakes for any partner thinking about walking back commitments.

"And there is the draconian alternative that the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the president has. He has a right to a complete embargo, like he can just cut countries off. Or he can cut whole product lines off."

The word "draconian" is doing a lot of work in Bessent's vocabulary, and he's using it deliberately. He wants foreign capitals to hear it.

A More Convoluted Path to the Same Place

The most telling line from the entire interview may have been the quietest one. Bessent acknowledged that the administration will reach the same tariff levels it had before the ruling. The route just gets messier.

"We will get back to the same tariff level for the countries. It will just be in a less direct and slightly more convoluted manner."

This is what the Court's critics on the right should focus on. The ruling doesn't end tariffs. It doesn't end the trade agenda. It adds friction, legal uncertainty, and delay. Those are real costs. But the underlying executive authority to restrict trade, including the nuclear option of full embargo, survived intact.

The left will celebrate this as a decisive check on presidential power. It isn't. It's a procedural rerouting.

The destination remains the same: an administration willing to use every available tool to rebalance American trade relationships. The Court took away the fastest road. It left the highway open.

Countries weighing their options should do the math carefully. A president who can embargo your entire economy doesn't need tariff authority to get your attention.