In early June, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent faced the question of whether the United States’ nearly $40 trillion deficit meant that default was imminent. Bessent responded with certainty:
The United States is never going to default. That is never going to happen. We are on the warning track and we will never hit the wall.
There are four key issues with his words.
1. Absolute Language
First, the use of absolute language. Bessent uses “never” three times. Recall Charles Dickens in The Pickwick Papers:
Never say never.
Such language should be treated with skepticism since it implies that the user can accurately predict the future, extending beyond their lifetime and forever. To earn trust, a speaker or writer must demonstrate language precision. Bessent fails to do this.
2. The Baseball Metaphor
Bessent uses a baseball metaphor to illustrate his point, but unfortunately, he fails to signal that he’s shifting into figurative language. Think of such an acknowledgment as a way of “bracketing” the metaphor. This is similar to how lines of code in some programming languages need brackets to work properly. In English, these “brackets” don’t need to be literal, but there should be some indication that we’re venturing into metaphorical territory. Without this, the metaphor loses its clarity and impact. This also raises the question: is the language user lost within the figure of speech, affecting their ability to communicate accurately?
To see how this can be done properly, consider the case of legendary bond trader Bill Gross. When Gross’s Total-Return Fund was underperforming, he addressed the issue in his monthly Investment Outlook publication:
I’m just having a bad year. This year is a stinker. PIMCO’s centerfielder has lost a few fly balls in the sun.
Notice how Gross begins with a literal statement about his performance (“having a bad year”) before using the baseball analogy to further explain the situation. By introducing the “centerfielder” metaphor after establishing the real-world context, Gross signals to the reader that we’re shifting to figurative language. This creates a sense of precision, even though the words themselves aren’t literal.
Bessent, however, offers no such signal and moves abruptly into metaphorical language.
3. The Contradiction Within the Metaphor
Returning to Bessent’s metaphor, he says, “We are on the warning track and we will never hit the wall.” In baseball, it’s inevitable that an outfielder will hit the wall at some point, whether during a game, a season, or a career. So while Bessent is using the metaphor of the “warning track,” his statement contradicts the basic reality of the sport. Sooner or later, an outfielder will hit the wall. Bessent’s use of “never” is misleading and fails to reflect the inherent unpredictability of the situation. This contradiction weakens the metaphor, especially when compared to Gross’s more grounded use of figurative language.
4. The Grammar
Finally, there’s the grammar. While structurally, Bessent’s sentence is not incorrect, the choice of conjunction is problematic when paired with the figure of speech. His sentence, “We are on the warning track and we will never hit the wall,” fails to properly convey the extraordinary nature of his claim.
Why?
In baseball, the warning track leads to the wall. Being on the warning track implies impending contact with the wall. Therefore, for Bessent’s claim to make sense, the extraordinary nature of “never hitting the wall” needs to be emphasized. This is where the conjunction “but” would be more fitting, not “and.”
The conjunction “but” would signal a contrast and draw attention to the improbable, almost impossible nature of the claim. It would frame Bessent’s statement as an exception to the usual rule, as if an outfielder were, against all odds, to avoid hitting the wall over the course of a long career:
We are on the warning track but we will never hit the wall.
This properly highlights the exceptional nature of the statement and acknowledges that although the warning track typically leads to the wall, here is an extraordinary deviation from that.
On the other hand, using “and” merely links the two clauses together, without capturing the contradiction at the heart of Bessent’s claim. The “and” implies that being on the warning track and never hitting the wall are two normal outcomes that are equally likely. This is misleading because it ignores the inherent contradiction: the very point of the metaphor is that it’s extraordinary for the warning track to not lead to contact with the wall.
By using “but,” Bessent would have made his claim more precise and in line with the metaphor’s true meaning. Instead, his choice of “and” fails to signal the exceptional nature of his argument and ultimately weakens his credibility.
Conclusion:
Bill Gross uses metaphorical language while clearly signaling its figurative nature, whereas Scott Bessent moves more abruptly into metaphor and relies heavily on absolute language. The contrast illustrates how seemingly small things can influence perceptions of precision and credibility in public communication.