Washington – Republicans in Capitol Hill are full of praise for the wave of executive actions of President Donald Trump and attempts to reduce some federal expenses, selling it as the type of interruption that Americans voted for the past fall.
That is, until the pain runs the risk of getting home for their constituents.
From cuts to health and agriculture financing to the fear of new tariffs that negatively impact local industries and consumers, Republican legislators are beginning to reject certain aspects of Trump’s plans. And they are doing it carefully, recognizing that voters want to shake businesses as usual in the capital of the nation, and wanting to avoid Trump’s anger.
Senator Katie Britt, R-an. The University of Alabama is a great receiver of that money, which has helped make it the largest employer in the state.
Britt told Al.com that “an intelligent and directed approach is needed so as not to hinder the research that save life in high performance institutions such as Alabama.”
Senator Susan Collins, R-MAINE, said that the limit of indirect costs under NIH subsidies was “badly conceived” and would impose “arbitrary cuts in funds for vital research in our Maine institutions.”
And Senator Bill Cassidy, Republican of the la-la.
“It will be very difficult for them to conduct this research. And so, of course, I want people in Louisiana to benefit from research dollars, and not everyone goes to Massachusetts and California, ”said Cassidy. “So I am in an active conversation with my friends at home, and I am investigating the problem.”
While NiH’s financing reductions triggered a round of warnings, they were among several examples of Republicans who grew dizziness on some of the blunt steps that Trump’s administration is taking that they believe they could lead to adverse consequences for their states.
The dynamic points to an upcoming challenge for Trump, since the legislators of the Republican party represent their most important line of defense to issue controversial orders. If you go too far for a critical mass of them, they could use their legislative powers to stop it, associating with the Democrats if they need it.
Protecting parish interests is among the oldest traditions of Capitol Hill, but it is a high imperative for Republicans in red states that depend disproportionately on Washington for money.
Among the 20 main states that take more money from the federal government than that sent in tax payments, 13 are solidly red states that voted for Trump in the last three elections, according to an analysis of the Rockefeller Government Institute to the Fiscal Budget of 2024. Meanwhile, the five main states (and nine of the main 10) that send more money to the Treasury Department of what they receive voted for the Democrats in the last three presidential elections.
Another imperative for Republicans in rural areas is to protect farmers, who depend on the federal government as an important client. The United States Agency for International Development, which Trump and billionaire advisor Elon Musk have attacked to dismantle, manages the Food For Peace program, where the government buys and distributes US crops to help fight hunger worldwide.
A coalition of Republicans in rural states and districts, including the president of the Agriculture Committee of the House of Representatives, Glenn Thompson, Republican of PA-PA., Presented legislation this week to save the Food Program for La Paz when transferring it to the Department of Agriculture.
“For 70 years, Kansas and American farmers have played an active role in sending their products to feed malnourished and hungry populations around the world. This free gift from the American people is more than food. It is diplomacy and feeds the most vulnerable communities, ”said Representative Tracey Mann, R-Kan. He said in a statement.
Mann, whose office said the program “fed more than 4 billion people in more than 150 countries,” presented the bill with Thompson and representatives Rick Crawford, R-Ank., Dan Newhouse, R-Wash. , David Ruzer, Rn .C., As well as the sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., And John Hoeven, RN.D.
Trump tariffs have also scrambled feathers among some of their solid allies in Capitol Hill. That includes Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, president of the Senate, Pro Tempore and president of the Judicial Committee, who protested when Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Canada imports.
Grassley, citing “Biden inflation,” said the high cost of the fertilizer and requested an exemption that protects Iowa farmers.
“I beg the President Trump to exempt Potash from the rate because family farmers get most of our potassa in Canada,” he wrote in X.
“I am a free and fair merchant,” Grassley told NBC News. “And the president was elected in a proposal to prove tariffs. If they are to negotiate, we will see if they work. If they work, I will applaud it. If they don’t work, I will tell you that I told you. “
The two Republican senators of Kentucky, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, have also opposed Trump’s rates, warning that the costs for Americans will increase, including Kentuckians.
In an opinion article on Wednesday for Louisville Courier-Journal, McConnell warned that slapped slaughter could have negative consequences for “the 75,000 family farms of our state that sell their crops worldwide, or the workers who prepare 95% of the world bourbon, or our automotive industry. “
“In Kentucky, local owners are already listening to the prices of their suppliers. An estimate suggests that the president’s rates could cost the average Kentuckian of up to $ 1,200 every year, ”McConnell wrote. “And it’s not just about increasing prices here at home. During the last administration of Trump, the reprisal rates of the commercial partners triggered a broader commercial war that hit broad stripes of the American industry, from agriculture to manufacturing to aerospace and motor vehicles and distilled spirits. Already, Canada announced retaliation measures that sign directly to Kentucky production, aimed at products such as peanut butter and whiskey. “
Paul, who often disagrees with McConnell, found a common land with him on that subject.
“We won the latest elections complaining about the policies of the Democrats, which gave us high prices. Tariff lovers will be forced to explain the persistence of high prices, ”said Paul in X.
There may be more tension on the horizon between Trump and the Republicans in Congress, since the president has froze subsidies under two laws promulgated by President Joe Biden, for infrastructure money and clean energy credits such as electric vehicles. Both laws have given significant money to red states.
Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., Vice President of the Assignments Committee that supervises government financing, said Trump should follow his attempts to cut or freeze money in a different way: by gaining the approval of the first congress.
“Extract farmers outside business, derail infrastructure projects, reduce cancer research and kill clean and well -paid energy work is not only unpopular, it is devastating for working people everywhere, and it is time for Trump It reverts its illegal freezing and the Duxt cuts in their entirety, “Murray told NBC News. “Trump’s policies are harming communities and families in red states and blue states. If Trump and Elon want to reduce funds for cancer research and infrastructure projects, they must send us a proposal and try to win the votes in Congress to do so. ”
