Bessent backs Trump’s use of emergency tariffs and Greenland push, dismisses EU threats
Scott Bessent defended President Trump’s aggressive approach to Europe on Meet the Press, arguing that a “weak Europe” justifies using emergency powers to pressure a Greenland deal. Bessent said the trade pact with eight European countries is not final and that Trump is leveraging emergency tariff authority—announced as a 10% tariff from Feb 1 rising to 25% in June unless a Greenland-linked deal is reached—to force outcomes. He downplayed EU retaliation threats and said the Supreme Court is unlikely to block the president’s emergency economic measures, citing precedent in Affordable Care Act rulings. Bessent framed Greenland as part of a broader US strategy addressing Arctic competition, energy reliance on Russia, and planned missile defenses. He also commented on the Federal Reserve succession, saying the Senate would accept any of the four candidates under consideration and calling for stronger Fed oversight while rejecting criminal prosecution of Powell. Key names: Scott Bessent, President Donald Trump, Emmanuel Macron; key facts: proposed tariffs (10% to 25%), potential link to Greenland acquisition, Supreme Court review likely imminent.
Neutral
This geopolitical and trade story is only indirectly related to cryptocurrency markets and presents limited direct catalysts for crypto prices. The article outlines US tariff actions tied to a geopolitical objective (Greenland) and legal debate over emergency powers—factors more likely to affect FX, equities, and energy sectors than digital assets. Short-term: heightened geopolitical risk or broader risk-off moves could cause temporary crypto volatility as traders seek liquidity or hedge positions; however, no crypto-specific measures, sanctions, or tech/regulatory changes are announced, so moves would be secondary. Long-term: if sustained trade and geopolitical friction materially impacts macro liquidity, inflation expectations, or monetary policy (e.g., Fed actions referenced by Bessent), that could feed into crypto narratives around inflation hedging or risk-on flows. Past parallels: trade tensions (e.g., US–China tariffs) produced episodic crypto volatility but no clear directional trend solely attributable to tariffs. Conclusion: expect neutral baseline impact with potential brief volatility tied to risk sentiment and macro spillovers rather than structural change to the crypto sector.