Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent consistently delivers compelling insights during his Sunday show appearances, and his latest interview with Kristen Welker on NBC News’ Meet the Press was no exception.

From discussions on Greenland to the Federal Reserve, Bessent came well-equipped to tackle the pressing questions posed by Welker.

Welker immediately addressed Greenland, highlighting that both Denmark and Greenland have firmly stated it’s not for sale. She inquired, “Why does President Trump believe it is?” Bessent responded by underscoring the island’s strategic significance.

Continuing the conversation, Welker pressed Bessent on whether President Trump seriously intends to annex Greenland or if this is merely a negotiation strategy. Bessent emphasized the administration’s commitment to maintaining peace through strength.

Shifting gears, Welker questioned the role of tariffs, asking what “national emergency” might warrant their implementation. Bessent clarified that the objective is to avert any potential crises.

BESSENT: Kristen, if we look for years, for over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland. And what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security — we`re building the golden dome, the missile system. 

And look, President Trump is looking — is being strategic. He is looking beyond this year. He`s looking beyond next year to what could happen for a battle in the Arctic. We are not going to outsource our national security. We are not going to outsource our hemispheric security to other countries. 

In Trump 1.0, President Trump told the Europeans, “Do not — do not build Nord Stream 2. Do not rely on Russian oil.” And guess what, Kristen? Guess what is funding Russia`s efforts against Ukraine? European purchases of Russian oil. So, America has to be in control here.

Welker followed up by asking Bessent whether Trump is serious about annexing Greenland, or instead, using the discussion as a negotiating tactic. Bessent responded by noting the importance of ensuring peace through strength.

.@SecScottBessent: “If there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other area, we would get dragged in — so better now. Peace through Strength… Europeans project weakness. The U.S. projects strength.” pic.twitter.com/KyREpkA7DP

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 18, 2026

BESSENT: President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security. Because, Kristen, let me tell you what will happen, and it might not be next year, might not be in five years. But down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real. We would keep our NATO guarantees. And if there were an attack on Greenland from Russia, from some other — other area, we would get dragged in. 

So, better now, peace through strength, make it part of the United States, and there will not be a conflict because the United States right now, we are the hottest country in the world. We are the strongest country in the world. Europeans project weakness. U.S. projects strength.

Welker then pivoted to the role tariffs play in the discussion, questioning what “national emergency” might justify their use. Bessent explained that the goal here is to prevent an emergency. 

.@SecScottBessent: “The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency… He is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war, so why wouldn’t we do that?” pic.twitter.com/McanL8FBTU

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 18, 2026

WELKER: Let me ask you, broadly speaking, about the tariff portion of this. The president, as you well know, has justified his authority to impose previous tariffs without going to Congress by declaring national emergencies. It`s an issue before the Supreme Court right now. We`re all awaiting the high court`s decision. What is the national emergency that justifies these new slate of tariffs?

BESSENT: The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency. It is a strategic decision by the president. This is a geopolitical decision. And he is able to use the economic might of the U.S. to avoid a hot war. So, why wouldn`t — why wouldn`t we do that? You know, same — same thing that what if we had a national emergency coming with these gigantic trade balances that we had with the rest of the world — I`ve been in financial markets for 30, 45 years — much better to be strategic, avoid the emergency.

WELKER: You`re saying it`s a national emergency. But you`re also saying it`s a threat. It`s years away. How can both be true, Mr. Secretary?

BESSENT: Because you are avoiding creating the emergency, Kristen. What if during the great financial crisis, someone had raised their hand in 2005, 2006 and said, “Stop the sub-prime mortgages?” But no one did. President Trump is raising his hand. And that is preventing the emergency.