For decades, Republicans have told voters that they are the party of small government and free markets.

On Tuesday, the Republican Treasury secretary offered a very different description of government’s role in the economy.

“I am the house now.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent made the remark while discussing the government’s recent intervention in currency markets.

He then challenged traders to bet against him if they wanted.

This was not just rhetoric. The United States and Japan recently bought yen, attempting to increase its value rather than leaving the exchange rate entirely to the market.

Bessent has also moved aggressively in the Treasury market.

Last month, Bessent announced that Treasury would double the size of long-term bond buybacks.

None of this necessarily makes Bessent wrong. He spent decades operating in global financial markets before becoming Treasury secretary.

The more interesting question is what this says about the Republican Party.

For generations, Republicans have presented themselves as the party of smaller government and less interference in the economy.

But there is a reason the old philosophy is becoming harder to practice.

The United States faces a world very different from the one that existed even a few decades ago.

China has helped drive a global shift toward a more active role for government in the economy, using policies intentionally designed to strengthen its position in global markets.

That reality has also appeared in Mississippi’s congressional campaigns.

Michael A. Chiaradio, the Democratic nominee for Congress in Mississippi’s Third District, has argued that policy in Mississippi cannot be separated from the national and global economy.

His argument is that there is ultimately a ceiling on what can be accomplished if policymakers ignore what surrounds them.

Chiaradio has argued that investments in infrastructure, agriculture, education and healthcare, for example, should not be viewed as isolated policies.

He has presented them as parts of a larger economic strategy intended to strengthen America’s competitive position.

He has also maintained that the consequences of failing to remain competitive do not stay on Wall Street.

People in the middle and at the bottom of the economy are often the first to be hurt.

None of this means every government intervention is wise.

But it does mean the Republican Party’s traditional small-government argument is becoming increasingly detached from the way both parties actually govern.

The question is no longer simply whether government should participate in the economy.

It already does.

The more useful questions are how and why government intervenes, and who ultimately benefits.

Republicans may continue campaigning on the language of small government and free markets.

But when a Republican Treasury secretary is openly warning that the federal government has an informational advantage over traders, it becomes difficult to describe that government as hands-off.

The United States government is not merely watching the gaming table anymore.

According to its own Treasury secretary, it is now the house.

There is something fitting about a former hedge fund manager being the person to say it so plainly.