In the gallery of colorful portraits of the Trump administration, the future American Treasury Secretary stands out. No known past in the wrestling world like Education Secretary-designate Linda McMahon. No particular experience of television sets, like the host-surgeon Mehmet Oz, the new pilot of American health insurance. No flashy positions, as the indescribable Elon Musk has the secret, he who was chosen to cut public spending. Scott Bessent, chosen by the Republican president to manage federal finances, displays, in contrast, a very classic profile. At least, at first glance.
A Yale graduate, this sixty-year-old is “a pure product of the American elite,” summarizes Romuald Sciora, director of the United States Political and Geostrategic Observatory at the Institute of International and Strategic Relations (Iris). first supported Democrats Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before turning, in 2016, to Donald Trump. The choice may be surprising, but “Trump 2025 has nothing to do with that of the first campaign,” recalls the researcher. At the time, surrounded by very few professionals, he had no ideological structure. then that he became a radical right politician, supported by Republicans whose project is to completely change America over the next four years. Bessent’s vision fits perfectly into this project.
His professional career did not augur such a destiny. This financier spent the 1990s, then the years 2011 to 2015, within Soros Fund Management (SFM). In other words, the investment fund of George Soros, a billionaire reviled by part of the Republican camp for his progressive views – before saying goodbye to the White House, Democrat Joe Biden, like a snub, awarded him the start January the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian decoration in the United States… When Scott Bessent left Soros to launch Key Square Capital Management, the Hungarian businessman allocated two billion dollars to his investment fund. But the two men have not spoken to each other for eight years.
“He will know how to talk to the markets”
On Wall Street, the announcement of his appointment as Treasury Secretary relaxed the atmosphere. “Bessent has both a macroeconomic and financial view, he will know how to speak to the markets,” hopes Raphaël Gallardo, chief economist of the management company Carmignac. “In the event of a crisis, he will have the necessary pragmatism and credibility,” adds Stephen Myrow, who experienced the financial debacle of 2008 in the team of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. At Soros Fund Management, Shahin Vallée worked closely with Bessent, then investment director. The economist remembers a man “quiet, discreet, very intelligent and very well informed, who called on consultants from all countries to be aware of political changes.”
Faced with the unpredictable Donald Trump, his composure promises to be precious. Between the vagueness maintained on certain key points of this second mandate, the reversals and the programmatic inconsistencies, observers are already tearing their hair out. “Will he manage to arbitrate among the contradictory objectives of Donald Trump? Will he be able to reduce budgetary spending? Will he manage to find a way to pacify trade relations, after the implementation of customs barriers? To maintain strong confidence in the dollar and Treasury bonds?” asks Shahin Vallée. The president-elect decries inflation – a major reason for discontent among American households who brought him to power – but plans to raise customs duties in all directions. He wants to accelerate economic growth, but close the borders to immigration. He advocates for a weak dollar, but his entire policy leads to a strong currency. Trump’s advisers risk a headache, and the financial markets, a few shocks.
Will Bessent bring a little rationality to this mess? The future big financier is especially expected to turn the corner on commercial issues, central to Trumpian software. “Customs duties are presented as the ideal solution to the problems of deindustrialization, social welfare, trade deficit and budget deficit,” observes Raphaël Gallardo. In his speeches, Scott Bessent had the opportunity to moderate the proposals of the 47th president, who had first announced that he wanted to tax China at 60%, and all other countries at 10% before issuing a 25% project for Mexico and Canada. To hear him say, these customs threats appear above all to be a negotiating weapon, to force partners to comply.
Stephen Myrow, now a member of the independent research institute Beacon Policy Advisors, does not take this speech at face value. “It’s not just a threat, they’re going to put them in place. Because the objective is not so much to use this instrument to negotiate as to promote industrial production in the United States and reduce dependence on China, he believes, if the consequences of the trade war become too negative, Bessent could, on the other hand, plead for exemptions. Already, according to Washington PostTrump’s entourage would study the possibility of applying taxes to all countries, but on a limited number of products. The sectors that the new administration intends to repatriate to American territory would be affected – metals used in the defense industry, medical supplies, batteries… “Fake news!”, Donald was quick to respond on the Truth social network. Trump, who certainly does not want to let it be said that he is revising his tariff ambitions downwards.
Trump’s countless promises
Especially since the new tenant of the White House will need these dollars taken from its commercial partners to present a balanced budget – a sensitive point for many Republicans in the House of Representatives. His expensive program requires new tax revenue. Extensions of household tax cuts – $5,000 billion over ten years -, exemptions on overtime, tips, pensions… Candidate Trump has been lavish in promises. “Applying 10% customs duties to all partners of the United States would hardly bring in more than 2,000 billion over ten years. We are far from the mark,” points out Florence Pisani, chief economist at Candriam. Will Elon Musk make up the difference by slashing government spending? Nothing is less certain. “Out of 6,000 billion in federal spending, Musk wants to cut 2,000. He will not succeed,” continues the expert, who calculates the large incompressible masses: 1,000 billion in debt interest payments, 3,000 billion for pensions and health programs. There remains 1,000 billion for defense and the same amount for operating expenses, on which we can expect some 200 billion in savings, not much more.
Under these conditions, it is difficult to give credibility to the “3-3-3” program presented by Bessent: 3% GDP growth, 3% budget deficit at the end of the mandate – half the current level -, and production additional 3 million barrels of oil per day. Simple and effective, the slogan appealed to the Palm Beach billionaire, a fan of shocking phrases. “The growth objective is reasonable given the current situation and some of the measures announced. That of reducing the deficit, less so. Especially since, in a certain way, these two ambitions are contradictory,” notes Stephen Myrow.
The Fed in the role of arbiter
Beyond Bessent’s intentions, the institutional mechanics are not reassuring either. “When it comes to customs duties, Donald Trump has the power to decide alone. He can even go quite far without going through Congress, as he did during his first term by invoking national security,” recalls Florence Pisani . Due to lack of visibility, this specialist in the United States is currently considering two futures for the American economy. “In a moderate scenario, where customs duties are raised without excess, where illegal immigration is stopped, but without expulsions, and with a little stimulation of middle class consumption through certain tax exemptions, growth, without going up to 3%, can remain above 2%. On the other hand, if it goes very far in the trade war and sends back some of the migrants already present on American soil, causing tensions on the labor market, this would fuel inflation.” Hypothesis which would push the Federal Reserve to increase its interest rates, pushing the American economy into recession.
Will the Fed retain enough independence to make the necessary decisions to fulfill its mission: to fight against rising prices? In principle, the question will not arise before May 2026, the date of the end of the mandate of Jerome Powell, the president of the institution, confirmed to this position under Joe Biden. Unless the idea suggested by Scott Bessent catches on. “He suggested weakening Powell by revealing the name of his replacement in the first days of the Trump administration,” explains Raphaël Gallardo, dismayed by the maneuver. His reasoning is that the financial markets will anticipate immediately, and with almost certainty , a relaxation of monetary policy at the end of this mandate.
A way to lower the dollar to promote exports, Donald Trump’s other favorite. “His majority in the House of Representatives is tenuous. If he does not want to lose it during the mid-term elections next fall, he must quickly keep certain promises,” adds the chief economist of Carmignac. For Florence Pisani, the hypothesis of a loss of independence of the Fed must be put into perspective: “the appointment of the president must be approved by the senators, who will not give their approval to just anyone. And politics monetary policy is a collective decision of twelve voters, it does not belong to the president of the Federal Reserve alone.
If in economic matters, the Secretary of the Treasury seems ready to play Trump’s game, it is on the societal level that his position could quickly become untenable. Bessent is homosexual, married and father of two children. “I think that if a member of the administration has to jump first, it will be him,” bets Romuald Sciora, of Iris. It is difficult to imagine him in the long term, within an administration, supported by the most conservative evangelical movements, which wish to ban gay marriage at the federal level! How flexible will Scott Bessent go?
.