By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended proposed tariffs on European countries opposing President Trump’s Greenland acquisition plans, claiming the aim is to prevent a future national emergency. Trump announced a 10% tariff on imports from several European nations, potentially increasing to 25% if a deal isn’t reached. European Union ambassadors and leaders have condemned the tariff threats, emphasizing solidarity with Denmark and Greenland and their commitment to defending against coercion. Despite Trump’s claims of needing Greenland for national security, lawmakers and allies have strongly rejected the threats.
Read the original article here
Treasury secretary defends Greenland tariffs: “The national emergency is avoiding the national emergency.” This statement, on its face, is just… a lot. It’s like a political pretzel, twisted into a knot of circular logic that’s hard to unravel. The idea, apparently, is that imposing tariffs on Greenland is necessary to *prevent* a national emergency. But what’s the actual threat? And what emergency is being avoided? It’s a question that doesn’t seem to have a clear answer. The vagueness itself becomes a weapon. This whole justification seems rooted in fear and the potential for a larger conflict, and, therefore, demands a specific and transparent explanation.
The core problem here is that the rationale for these tariffs doesn’t really hold up. “The national emergency is avoiding the national emergency” – that statement doesn’t provide any tangible details. If we’re operating under the assumption that the United States is somehow preventing a war by using economic might and imposing tariffs, we’re already down a dangerous road. It’s a classic example of what they might call “doublethink,” a term that perfectly captures the current political climate. The notion that threatening allies is a path to peace seems absurd on its face. It’s like saying, “I had to rape her or someone else was going to hurt her.” That’s not a solution, it’s a justification for abuse.
The statement also opens the door to potential abuses of power. Drawing on the political theory of state of exception, it’s worth noting that if an emergency is always declared, then nothing is really an emergency anymore. Once the boundaries between regular law and extraordinary measures blur, we risk a dangerous normalization of actions that should be exceptions. This is exactly what the statement sounds like, and what such a state of exception is intended to avoid. If every action taken is done in the name of averting some crisis, then any action can be justified, regardless of how extreme or detrimental it might be.
This is made worse by the fact that those close to the former administration seem to have a vested interest in the region. Recent reports indicate that former Trump employees and staffers were involved in business interests in Greenland. This creates a deeply concerning situation where policy decisions could be seen as benefiting private individuals, rather than the public good. When we see a pattern of decisions that seem to be about enriching certain people at the expense of allies, the whole thing falls apart. Why is Scott Bessent even involved with this administration, given his background? It raises questions about motivations and priorities.
The whole thing smacks of doublespeak. It’s the kind of language designed to confuse and deflect from the real issues. It’s the kind of logic often associated with fascistic regimes. The only way to avoid the national emergency of overspending is to invade a foreign country. That makes no sense. The people are taxed more because of a single person’s dumb idea. This administration is starting the emergency with their crazy behavior. The phrase “if everything’s a national emergency, then nothing is” rings true.
It’s easy to get lost in the noise of political arguments. But it’s clear that the actions are creating the very problems they claim to be solving. And the use of such flimsy justifications further erodes the already fragile trust. The potential for economic coercion, threats to allies, and the normalization of emergency measures are the real emergencies. The entire regime is a national emergency, and its actions are pushing the nation closer to destruction.