When the pain hits home, Republicans balk at Trump's spending cuts and tariffs

 WASHINGTON — Republicans on Capitol Hill are full of praise for President Donald Trump’s flurry of executive actions and attempts to slash some federal spending, selling it as the kind of disruption that Americans voted for last fall.

That is until the pain risks hitting home for their constituents.

From cuts to health and agriculture funding to fears of new tariffs negatively impacting local industries and consumers, Republican lawmakers are starting to push back against certain aspects of Trump's plans. And they are doing so carefully, acknowledging that voters want to shake up business-as-usual in the nation’s capital — and wanting to avoid Trump’s ire.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., recently pushed back on the administration’s funding reductions under the National Institutes of Health. The University of Alabama is a major recipient of that money, which has helped make it the state’s largest employer.

Britt told AL.com that “a smart, targeted approach is needed in order to not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the cap on indirect costs under NIH grants was “poorly conceived” and would impose “arbitrary cuts in funding for vital research at our Maine institutions.”

And Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., warned that universities that lack “big endowments” would lose out the most due to the NIH cuts.

“It’ll be very difficult for them to conduct this research. And so, of course, I want people in Louisiana to benefit from research dollars, and for it to not all go to Massachusetts and California,” Cassidy said. “So I am in active conversation with my folks back home, and am researching the issue.”

While the NIH funding reductions triggered a round of warnings, they were among several examples of Republicans growing queasy about some of the blunt steps that Trump’s administration is taking that they believe could lead to adverse consequences for their states.

The dynamic points to an upcoming challenge for Trump, as GOP lawmakers represent his most important line of defense to issue controversial orders. If he goes too far for a critical mass of them, they could use their legislative powers to stop him, teaming up with Democrats if they need to.

Protecting parochial interests is among the oldest traditions on Capitol Hill, but it is an elevated imperative for Republicans in red states that are disproportionately dependent on Washington for money.

Among the top 20 states that take more money from the federal government than they sent in tax payments, 13 are solidly red states that voted for Trump in the last three elections, according to an analysis by the Rockefeller Institute of Government into the fiscal 2024 budget. Meanwhile, the top five states (and nine of the top 10) that send more money to the Treasury Department than they receive voted for Democrats in the last three presidential elections.

Another imperative for Republicans in rural areas is to protect farmers, who rely on the federal government as a major customer. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk have targeted for dismantling, administers the Food for Peace program, where the government buys and distributes American crops to help fight hunger around the world.

A coalition of Republicans in rural states and districts, including House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., introduced legislation this week to save the Food for Peace program by transferring it to the Department of Agriculture.

“For 70 years, Kansas and American farmers have played an active role in sending their commodities to feed malnourished and starving populations around the world. This free gift from the American people is more than food. It’s diplomacy and feeds the most vulnerable communities,” Rep. Tracey Mann, R-Kan., said in a statement.

Mann, whose office said the program has “fed more than 4 billion people in more than 150 countries,” introduced the bill with Thompson and Reps. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., David Rouzer, R-N.C., as well as Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and John Hoeven, R-N.D.

Trump’s tariffs have also ruffled feathers among some of his otherwise solid allies on Capitol Hill. That includes Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa — the Senate president pro tempore and chair of the Judiciary Committee — who protested when Trump threatened to levy tariffs on imports from Canada.

Grassley, citing “Biden inflation,” noted the high cost of fertilizer and asked for an exemption that protects Iowa farmers.

“I plead w President Trump to exempt potash from the tariff because family farmers get most of our potash from Canada,” he wrote on X.

“I’m a free and fair trader,” Grassley told NBC News. “And the president was elected on a proposition of trying tariffs out. If they’re for negotiation, we’ll see if they work. If they work, I’ll applaud him. If they don’t work, I’ll tell you I told you so.”

Kentucky’s two Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, have also objected to Trump’s tariffs, warning that they’ll drive up costs for Americans — including Kentuckians.

In a Wednesday opinion piece for the Louisville Courier-Journal, McConnell warned that slapping tariffs could have negative consequences for “our state’s 75,000 family farms that sell their crops around the globe, or the hardworking Kentuckians who craft 95% of the world’s bourbon, or our auto industry.”

“In Kentucky, local storeowners are already hearing about their suppliers’ prices going up. One estimate suggests the president’s tariffs could cost the average Kentuckian up to $1,200 each year,” McConnell wrote. “And it’s not just about rising prices here at home. During the last Trump administration, retaliatory tariffs from trade partners set off a broader trade war that hit wide swaths of American industry, from agriculture to manufacturing to aerospace and motor vehicles to distilled spirits. Already, Canada announced retaliatory measures that take direct aim at Kentucky production, targeting products like peanut butter and whiskey.”

Paul, who often disagrees with McConnell, found common ground with him on that issue.

“We won the last election by complaining about Democrats’ policies, which gave us high prices. Tariff lovers will be forced to explain the persistence of high prices,” Paul said on X.

There may be more tension on the horizon between Trump and Republicans in Congress, as the president has frozen grant funding under two laws enacted by President Joe Biden, for infrastructure money and clean energy credits like on electric vehicles. Both of those laws have delivered significant money to red states.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the vice chair of the Appropriations Committee that oversees government funding, said Trump should go about his attempts to slash or freeze money differently: by winning congressional approval first.

“Running farmers out of business, derailing infrastructure projects, cutting cancer research and killing good-paying clean energy jobs isn’t just unpopular, it’s devastating for working people everywhere — and it is time Trump reverses his illegal funding freeze and DOGE cuts in their entirety,” Murray told NBC News. “Trump’s policies are hurting communities and families in red states and blue states. If Trump and Elon want to cut funding for cancer research and infrastructure projects, they need to send us a proposal and try and win the votes in Congress to do it.”