WASHINGTON — Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are applauding President Donald Trump’s recent series of executive actions aimed at reducing federal spending, presenting these moves as the kind of bold change that voters endorsed last fall.

However, the enthusiasm dims when these cuts begin to impact their constituents.

From reductions in health and agriculture funding to concerns about new tariffs affecting local businesses and consumers, GOP lawmakers are beginning to express reservations about Trump’s strategies. They are proceeding cautiously, recognizing voters’ desire for a shake-up in the usual political landscape, while also attempting to avoid provoking Trump’s anger.

Senator Katie Britt, R-Ala., has recently raised concerns regarding the administration’s proposed cuts to funding for the National Institutes of Health. The University of Alabama stands as a significant beneficiary of this funding, making it the largest employer in the state.

Britt remarked to AL.com, “We need a smart, targeted approach to ensure we do not impede life-saving and groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”

Senator Susan Collins, R-Maine, criticized the limitation on indirect costs associated with NIH grants, calling it “ill-conceived” and warning that it could lead to “arbitrary cuts in essential research funding at our institutions in Maine.”

Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La., cautioned that universities without substantial endowments would be particularly hard-hit by the NIH funding reductions.

“These cuts will make it extremely challenging for them to carry out their research. I want Louisiana to benefit from research dollars, rather than seeing it all favor Massachusetts or California,” Cassidy stated. “I am actively discussing this with stakeholders back home and researching the implications.”

The backlash against NIH funding cuts is just one example of how some Republicans are growing uneasy about certain measures from Trump’s administration that may adversely affect their states.

This situation presents a significant test for Trump, as GOP lawmakers are crucial to his ability to enact controversial policies. Should his actions alienate enough of them, they might leverage their legislative power to block his initiatives, potentially forming coalitions with Democrats.

Defending local interests is a time-honored practice on Capitol Hill, which takes on extra urgency for Republicans from red states that heavily rely on federal funding.

Among the 20 states that receive more from the federal government than they pay in taxes, 13 are strongly Republican states that supported Trump in the last three elections, according to a Rockefeller Institute analysis of the fiscal 2024 budget. Conversely, the five states that contribute more to the Treasury than they receive consistently voted for Democratic candidates in recent presidential elections.

Another priority for Republicans, particularly in rural areas, is to safeguard the interests of farmers, who depend on the federal government as a significant source of income. The U.S. Agency for International Development, which Trump and his billionaire advisor Elon Musk have targeted for cuts, oversees the Food for Peace program. This initiative allows the government to purchase and distribute American crops to mitigate global hunger.

A group of Republicans from rural constituencies, including House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., recently introduced legislation aimed at preserving the Food for Peace program by relocating it to the Department of Agriculture.

“For 70 years, Kansas and American farmers have been integral in sending their commodities to assist malnourished populations worldwide. This gesture goes beyond food; it represents diplomacy and provides for the most vulnerable,” stated Rep. Tracey Mann, R-Kan., in a press release.

Mann, whose office highlighted that the program has “served over 4 billion people across more than 150 countries,” collaborated with Thompson along with Reps. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., Dan Newhouse, R-Wash., David Rouzer, R-N.C., and Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and John Hoeven, R-N.D.

Trump’s tariffs have also stirred discontent among some of his reliable allies in Congress. This includes Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa — who holds the position of Senate president pro tempore and chairs the Judiciary Committee — and who expressed concern when Trump threatened to implement tariffs on imports from Canada.

Grassley, referencing “Biden inflation,” raised the alarm about soaring fertilizer costs and called for an exemption to protect Iowa farmers.

“I urge President Trump to exempt potash from tariffs since family farmers source most of our potash from Canada,” he stated on X.

“I am an advocate for free and fair trade,” Grassley told NBC News. “The president was elected based on a commitment to explore tariffs. If they yield positive results, I will commend him. If not, I’m ready to say I told you so.”

Kentucky’s Republican senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, have also expressed objections to Trump’s tariffs, cautioning that they could lead to increased costs for residents — including those in Kentucky.

In a recent opinion piece for the Louisville Courier-Journal, McConnell warned that imposing tariffs could adversely affect “our state’s 75,000 family farms that market their crops internationally, as well as the hardworking Kentuckians who produce 95% of the world’s bourbon, and our automotive sector.”

“Local retailers in Kentucky are already reporting increases in supplier costs. One estimate suggests that the president’s tariffs could cost the average Kentuckian up to $1,200 annually,” McConnell noted. “It’s not solely a matter of rising local prices. During Trump’s previous administration, retaliatory tariffs initiated a broader trade conflict that impacted numerous American industries — from agriculture and manufacturing to aerospace and spirits production. Canada has already begun retaliatory actions targeting Kentucky goods, affecting products such as peanut butter and whiskey.”

Paul, who doesn’t always align with McConnell, found common ground on this matter.

“We achieved victory in the last election by criticizing the Democrats’ policies that led to high prices. Advocates of tariffs will need to justify the ongoing price increases,” Paul stated on X.

More friction may loom between Trump and Congressional Republicans, particularly as the president has frozen funding for grants under two legislations enacted by President Joe Biden, which provide money for infrastructure and clean energy initiatives. Both laws have significantly benefited red states.

Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., who serves as vice chair on the Appropriations Committee responsible for overseeing government funding, suggested that Trump should seek congressional approval before attempting to cut or freeze funding.

“Driving farmers out of business, sabotaging infrastructure initiatives, eliminating cancer research, and killing well-paying clean energy jobs isn’t just unpopular; it’s detrimental to working families everywhere — and it’s crucial for Trump to reverse his illegal funding freezes and proposed cuts completely,” Murray stated to NBC News. “If Trump and Elon seek to reduce funding for cancer research and infrastructure programs, they need to present a detailed proposal and endeavor to secure congressional support.”