Scott Bessent Is a Pathetic and Incompetent MORON

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Episode Summary Episode Title: Scott Bessent Is a Pathetic and Incompetent MORON
Release Date: April 27, 2025
Host: Tim Miller, The Bulwark

---

Introduction

In this scathing episode of Bulwark Takes, host Tim Miller delivers a vehement critique of Treasury Secretary Scott Besant. The discussion centers around Besant's recent public appearances, particularly his performance on ABC's "This Week with Martha Raddatz," where Miller perceives Besant as unprepared and misleading regarding critical trade negotiations with China.

Treasury Secretary Scott Besant's Performance

Miller opens the episode by condemning Besant's appearance on "This Week," highlighting what he sees as a pattern of incompetence and dishonesty.

Tim Miller [00:00]: "Treasury Secretary Scott Besant humiliated himself again on the Sunday shows... his answers were ranged from unsatisfactory to lying to just utterly, utterly mortifying and disgraceful."

Miller criticizes Besant for failing to provide clear and accurate information about ongoing trade negotiations, particularly with China, which Miller argues are pivotal to the U.S. economy.

Trade Negotiations with China

A significant portion of the episode focuses on the strained trade relations between the U.S. and China, with Miller emphasizing the detrimental impact of high tariffs.

Tim Miller [01:44]: "We have a 145% tariff on them. I've mentioned this a couple times... 145% tariff is totally unsustainable. We can't make money. We're going to lose money on everything we sell."

Miller underscores the real-world consequences of these tariffs, citing examples such as small business struggles and reduced port traffic:

• Small Business Impact: A small business owner from New Orleans shares how Chinese imports are essential for their sales to tourists, and the high tariffs are crippling their profitability.

• Port Traffic Decline: Reports indicate a significant drop in Chinese goods entering West Coast ports, with the final Chinese ship expected to arrive imminently, signaling an urgent economic crisis.

Tim Miller [03:50]: "There is not an alternative in the US... everyone is going to interact with this crisis in their lives."

Lack of Clear Communication and Leadership

Miller expresses frustration with Besant's inability to communicate effectively and provide a clear strategy:

Tim Miller [04:50]: "The Treasury Secretary should be fully engaged... but he's just sitting there all haughtily talking about... we'll see."

He points out that Besant's vague and evasive responses fail to instill confidence in the administration's handling of the trade war, exacerbating economic uncertainties.

Critique of President Trump's Claims

The conversation shifts to Besant's response to President Trump's assertion of making "200 deals on tariffs."

Scott Besant [05:25]: "I believe that he is referring to sub deals within the negotiations..."

Miller dismantles this claim, suggesting that these "sub deals" are insignificant and do not translate to meaningful progress:

Tim Miller [05:50]: "So, yeah, we got these sub deals. They're sub deals. I don't know... you've made no, like, maybe you've made progress."

He likens the situation to a failed job negotiation, where discussions lack substance and fail to result in actual agreements.

Market and Economic Implications

Miller argues that the administration's handling of the trade negotiations is detrimental to both the markets and the broader economy:

Tim Miller [06:10]: "If I'm an investor, investment's basically saying, we're not going to have any deal for months with China. I don't think that should be calming to the markets..."

He suggests that Besant's public statements are not only ineffective but may be actively harming investor confidence and economic stability.

Final Remarks and Conclusion

In closing, Miller reiterates his disdain for Besant's performance and the administration's trade policies:

Tim Miller [06:16]: "There's nothing. So why defend it? I guess why defend it on ABC this week? Who is that for?"

He calls for more effective leadership and a coherent strategy to address the pressing trade issues, emphasizing the urgency of resolving the trade war with China to prevent further economic fallout.

---

Key Takeaways

• Incompetence and Dishonesty: Besant is portrayed as failing to provide honest and accurate information regarding trade negotiations.
• Severe Economic Impact: High tariffs, especially the 145% on China, are causing significant harm to small businesses and overall economic stability.
• Lack of Effective Communication: Besant's unclear and evasive responses undermine confidence in the administration's trade policies.
• Market Concerns: The handling of trade negotiations is negatively affecting investor confidence and could potentially lead to a recession.
• Urgent Need for Action: There's a pressing need for decisive and transparent leadership to navigate the trade war and mitigate its adverse effects on the economy.

Notable Quotes

• Tim Miller [00:00]: "He decides you want to go onto TV and try to spin this nonsense for Donald Trump."
• Tim Miller [01:44]: "145% tariff is totally unsustainable. We can't make money. We're going to lose money on everything we sell."
• Tim Miller [05:25]: "If there are 180 countries, there are 18 important trading partners... let's put China to the side because that's a special negotiation."
• Tim Miller [06:16]: "Why defend it on ABC this week? Who is that for?"

---

This episode of Bulwark Takes serves as a critical examination of Treasury Secretary Scott Besant's handling of the U.S.-China trade negotiations, highlighting perceived failures in communication, strategy, and leadership that Miller argues are detrimental to the American economy.

Transcript

[Tim Miller]

Hey, everybody, it's Tim Miller from the Bulwark. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant humiliated himself again on the Sunday shows, this time on this Week on ABC with Martha Raddatz. She was asking him about the status of these deals, these trade negotiations, where people are banging down our door, apparently, and the phone's ringing off the hook on all these trade negotiations while our economy, our economy suffers. And his answers were ranged from unsatisfactory to lying to just utterly, utterly mortifying and disgraceful. I mean, how could you just wake up in the morning, you know, in your Barbie house in Charleston and decide you want to go onto TV and try to spin this nonsense for Donald Trump? Anyway, I want to watch the first clip about the most important thing, the China negotiation, and I'll explain to you what the many, many problems are with it on the other side.

[Martha Raddatz]

Are negotiations actually happening? Who is talking?

[Scott Besant]

This was imf, World Bank Week, the ndc, as you know. And I had interaction with my Chinese counterparts, but it was more on the traditional things like financial stability, global economic, early warnings. I don't know if President Trump has spoken with President Xi. I know they have a very good relationship and a lot of respect for each other, but again, I think that the Chinese will see that this high tariff level is unsustainable for their business.

[Martha Raddatz]

Why would they deny that the negotiations are going on?

[Scott Besant]

Well, I think they're playing to a different audience.

[Tim Miller]

The Treasury Secretary doesn't know if Donald Trump has talked to Chairman Xi. He doesn't know the status of the negotiation. Why are you on TV then? I mean, it'd be one thing to lie and to say, well, you know, those are private conversations. I'm not going to comment on them. That's not what he said. He said, I don't know if they've talked. What are you doing here if you don't know? I mean, like, this is the most important. If you're the Treasury Secretary, the trade war with China is your number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 13 priority right now. Okay? The trade war with China is like a, at the heart of Trump's agenda, positive agenda, if you want to try to spin, spin it that way economically, it is also at the center of the economic challenges that we have in front of us. It could be the thing that leads us into a recession. Like, you know, the negotiation with what's happening with Italy, if we want to pull them out of the EU and do a bi lap, like, that's not that big of a deal. Okay, you know, the Italian marble importers in the country, like, they'd appreciate that. But, like, systemically, what's happening with China is the game. We have a 145% tariff on them. I've mentioned this a couple times, but like, I talked to a woman just a couple days ago who owns a small business here in New Orleans who was like, I'm screwed. Like, so much of the products that we sell to tourists here come from China. There is not an alternative in the US 145% tariff is totally unsustainable. We can't make money. We're going to lose money on everything we sell. And like, we talked about the, you know, game board, the board game company. There are just so many examples of this across the board, like an 145% tariff on China's crisis. Like, there's stories out this morning about the ports, like the Port of Seattle, Port of Los Angeles, like, how much less traffic there is going into the ports already. Like, the final Chinese ship is going to be going into west coast ports in like a week. Or by Chinese ship, I mean, like a ship carrying Chinese goods. So, like, the impact of all of that, like, the impact is the big box store CEO said to Trump of empty shelves, like, all that is coming, that's like, urgent. This is an urgent problem. Okay, it's bad enough. The economy's bad enough right now. The market situation's bad enough, but like a real crisis that people will be able to experience in their lives, be they small business owners or people that shop at Home Depot that, like, almost every American is going to interact with. This crisis is coming right now. The Treasury Secretary should be fully engaged on what is happening with his counterparties in China, what is happening with the President, how we're going to get to some kind of deal or temporary, like some, you know, reprieve, though that wouldn't be that good. I mean, this is an utter crisis. And he's just sitting there all haughtily talking about, oh, well, you know, I, I saw my counterparty at the club, you know, after I had a Cosmopolitan and, you know, we had a little chat there and, you know, we'll see. We'll see. Like what? We're just going to wait. I don't know what Trump is saying. I don't know. I don't know what the status is. Get to work, Scott Besant. Anyway, he did some lying, too. We might as well watch that.

[Martha Raddatz]

Let's talk about the TIME interview with President Trump. He said that he has made 200 deals on tariffs, 200 deals. Who has he made deals with? Is there actually any deal at this point?

[Scott Besant]

I believe that he is referring to sub deals within the negotiations we're doing. And if there are 180.

[Martha Raddatz]

But those aren't actual deals, Martha.

[Scott Besant]

If there are 180 countries, there are 18 important trading partners. Let's put China to the side because that's a special negotiation. There's 17 important trading partners and we have a process in place over the next 90 days to negotiate with them. Some of those are moving along very well, especially the deal with the Asian countries.

[Tim Miller]

So, yeah, we got these sub deals. They're sub deals. Okay, we don't have any deals. We got sub deals. I don't know. Subway, sub or subordinate deals, I guess. I don't know. We've, we have some, we've had some chats, you know, like, no, like, you have nothing. There's nothing. A sub deal. There's no, there's nothing. Like you've made no, like, maybe you've made progress. You know what I mean? It's kind of like, I don't know, if you were trying to hire somebody for a job and, you know, they'd submit their resume and they said that though they want X amount of dollars a year, you're like, ooh, that's too rich for our blood. And then you talked about it. You're like, well, we could, you know, maybe do it with a bonus. And they're like, oh, I don't, you know, and then you go into. And then you're like, well, we have, we have a sub deal, you know, and it's like, well, no, no, you don't actually. You have nothing. You've discussed some potential, you know, pathways to a deal, but you don't, you haven't actually done anything. And I genuinely don't understand why he's doing this. People on the Internet are saying like, oh, this is for a audience of one Trump. Could Trump possibly be impressed by the most haughty and affected, like, you know, billionaire going on TV to, like, make very condescending remarks about the. Demanding that people be patient and, like, not giving really particularly compelling answers and having a horrible Q score? Like, it's just, to me, it's just so. I don't know, it's pathetic. I can't imagine that Trump watches that and it's like, that's good tv. So I don't know. And the other argument is that he's doing it for the markets. But again, if you're the market. If I'm an investor, how do I look at that? Investment's basically saying, we're not going to have any deal for months with China. I don't think that should be calming to the markets, calming to the business community. So I don't know what he's doing. Maybe this is a kink. I don't know. Maybe Trump's making him do it. Maybe that's a kink. I'm just open to different ideas because I don't see anything positive coming out of Scott Bessant's appearance on the Sunday shows this weekend. I see somebody that basically reveals that they're out of loop on the most important negotiation that they should be the central player in. And I see somebody, like, just making up some really, really obvious lies that anybody could see through to try to buy time and rationalize a policy that is undefensed. It is indefensible. It's just like the idea of tariffs are not indefensible. The idea of some kind of nationalist, you know, economic policy that, that tries to reshore jobs is not indefensible. Like there, there are ways to do all of this that I probably wouldn't support, but that, you know, you could at least have a policy argument around. There's no policy argument for having a 145% tariff on China, shutting down the ports and like, randomly changing the number every day, like there's nothing. So why defend it? I guess why defend it on ABC this week? Who is that for? Maybe one day we'll learn. Anyway, we'll be seeing you all again real soon. Peace.