How Congressional Republicans Are Concealing Their Anxiety
As Trump’s trade war disrupts the global landscape, numerous free traders within his party are opting for a conciliatory approach.
TroibNews 
Since President Donald Trump initiated a global trade war last week, Republicans in Congress have found themselves in a precarious position, resembling stock traders. They are left hoping that Trump is merely using tariffs as a negotiating tactic, closely monitoring every indication from the president and his less aggressive advisers. Overall, they are guessing about Trump’s intentions, cautious not to commit to any position that he might suddenly undermine.
This analogy may somewhat undervalue the role of the traders.
At least those on Wall Street are actively seeking the market's low point, ready to buy whenever there are signs that Trump might not stick with a permanent tariff strategy. A prime example occurred Wednesday when Trump increased tariffs on China but reduced levies to 10 percent for all other countries, granting a temporary reprieve from what he termed "Liberation Day."
In stark contrast, many top GOP lawmakers have displayed a troubling passivity, as though they lack agency or fail to recognize their role as a coequal branch of government with a stake in trade policy.
As markets fell and Trump’s approval ratings dipped, rather than assert their influence, many congressional Republicans responded with detachment—almost as if they were merely commenting from a distance.
During a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune made only a fleeting reference to his opposition, saying, “everybody kind of knows my views on tariffs,” before engaging in punditry, arguing that Trump had campaigned on tariffs, emphasized them at rallies, and won the election.
He overlooked the fact that Trump himself has often noted that his electoral victory hinged on issues like the high cost of “groceries.” Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate were also elected by voters, and very few focused on tariffs as a central issue.
Thune's uncertainty was notable. As a lawmaker from a farming state, he appeared to be anxiously awaiting favorable outcomes for his constituents.
“We hope that the president is successful and if he is, and he gets some reciprocity from other countries around the world, you know, this may all be temporary,” Thune said, further emphasizing: “Obviously, we're all paying attention.”
At best, this reflects a strategy rooted in wishful thinking: the hope that the president will lean toward deal-making instead of his long-standing focus on tariffs, navigating the usual games of manipulation to influence Trump towards desirable outcomes and away from policies masquerading as tantrums.
In a bid to encourage Trump not to "melt down" and derail the economy, congressional Republicans are showering him with praise for enticing numerous nations to negotiate better trade agreements.
The buzzword circulating across the Capitol has been for Republicans to express amazement at the growing list of countries seeking audience with the West Wing. This phrase was echoed repeatedly in discussions with lawmakers this week, as if signaling the onset of a diplomatic boom.
There was a subtle message: take yes for an answer, Mr. President.
When asked if the tariffs were part of a broader negotiating strategy or a long-term protectionist policy, Speaker Mike Johnson hesitated before providing an answer, careful not to alienate Trump. He remarked, “Well, I think it remains to be seen,” but added that there could be “more than 70 countries now that are in the process of making much more fair trade agreements with us.”
I then inquired whether Trump should declare victory after securing significant trade deals.
“Well, it’s for the president to determine when the victory is declared,” Johnson stated, characterizing the influx of countries seeking to negotiate as a “very positive development.”
But what was his own preference?
“I think long-term the best thing for the country is to have actual free trade agreements,” he concluded, aligning with Trump’s perspective.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was even quicker to jump in, interrupting my question about whether the tariffs were meant for negotiation or policy with an assertion about the countries eager to engage.
“You’re seeing that already, you’re seeing over 60 countries that want to negotiate better deals,” Scalise claimed.
Over in the Senate, John Barrasso of Wyoming echoed similar sentiments but didn’t resort to Trump’s exaggerated claim that countries were “kissing my ass” to negotiate.
“I’m encouraged by what the secretary of the Treasury told us last week, which the president continues to talk about, which is the number of countries wanting to have discussions,” Barrasso noted.
It was a point Trump used on Wednesday when, amid market turmoil, he announced the reduction of tariffs to 10 percent for all countries aside from China, claiming that “more than 75 countries” were now seeking peace.
At this moment, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has played a crucial role in alluding to potential negotiations, appears to have influenced the narrative.
“Trust in Scott” seems to resonate as the unofficial motto for the free trade faction within the Republican Party.
However, this situation also entails disregarding or sidelining another strong economic adviser in Trump’s circle, Peter Navarro, who has insisted that the new trade barriers are here to stay.
After Senator Markwayne Mullin noted that around 70 countries want to “work something out with Trump,” he asserted that tariffs would be lifted for nations willing to negotiate. “That’s the whole point,” Mullin insisted.
But what about Navarro’s clear stance that the shift towards a post-globalization trade regime is the primary goal?
“Yeah, but there’s been some opinions about him,” Mullin remarked ominously regarding Navarro.
Avoiding direct criticism of Trump by blaming an adviser has long been a tactic for Republicans, previously employed to shield Ronald Reagan. This overlooks the implied condescension and the fact that Trump's view of tariffs has long been a consistent theme throughout his public career.
Nonetheless, it’s easier for Republicans to avert their gaze from his stark departure from traditional Republican ideals. This discomfort contributes to the agony felt by many traditional conservatives. They may deal with panicked calls from donors and constituents regarding market upheaval, but it stings more deeply when they cannot defend a policy grounded on solid principles.
Although action hasn’t been definitively taken yet, it’s evident that some who were once Trump's critics are returning to cautious criticism. Initiating a trade war with tariffs on both allies and adversaries has sparked backlash among libertarian-leaning conservatives like Senator Rand Paul and traditional movement conservatives such as Senator Ted Cruz, both of whom could be eyeing future presidential bids.
Yet Cruz deserves credit for urging Trump to consider the “fork in the road,” using a joint appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox program Tuesday night to advocate for “taking the deal,” expressing that it was not the only possible outcome, and warning against those in the administration who may favor making tariffs a lasting aspect of the economy, which he deemed a mistake.
Cruz’s public critique mirrors the private concerns of his colleagues since Trump resumed office. A month ago, a former Republican House member conveyed that even some of Trump’s fiercest supporters were anxious about pushing through the tax bill to mitigate the fallout from a potential tariff-induced recession.
Yet, the legislation is already facing challenges before it’s even drafted, as House and Senate Republicans strive to satisfy various factions within their slim majorities. Even after Trump met with a group of House GOP holdouts at the White House on Tuesday, some remained undecided about a critical budget resolution vote that serves as the foundation for the tax proposal.
Consequently, it appears that fears of a Trump-induced recession may have prompted him to call for a temporary truce in his self-imposed trade war.
Since beginning his second term, Trump has solidified his grip on the GOP, controlling policy directions, rallying votes, and framing every piece of legislation and cabinet confirmation as a reflection of his leadership. His overwhelming popularity within the party has granted him this power.
However, any decline in that popularity or reminder of his waning influence could diminish Trump’s ability to command respect. Should congressional Republicans no longer fear the repercussions of a primary challenge from Trump, he risks losing a critical leverage point when seeking their support.
By Wednesday, just before the president announced the temporary tariff reprieve, a senior congressional aide suggested that even the threat of a recession prompted by Trump might drain his political capital, weakening “his stroke” in persuading GOP lawmakers to back his central legislative objectives.
Ultimately, after extending the vote for over an hour on Wednesday night, House Republicans decided they couldn’t secure enough votes to pass the budget measure and withdrew the bill. At least for now, Trump’s entreaties had not proved effective.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
This analogy may somewhat undervalue the role of the traders.
At least those on Wall Street are actively seeking the market's low point, ready to buy whenever there are signs that Trump might not stick with a permanent tariff strategy. A prime example occurred Wednesday when Trump increased tariffs on China but reduced levies to 10 percent for all other countries, granting a temporary reprieve from what he termed "Liberation Day."
In stark contrast, many top GOP lawmakers have displayed a troubling passivity, as though they lack agency or fail to recognize their role as a coequal branch of government with a stake in trade policy.
As markets fell and Trump’s approval ratings dipped, rather than assert their influence, many congressional Republicans responded with detachment—almost as if they were merely commenting from a distance.
During a press conference at the Capitol on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune made only a fleeting reference to his opposition, saying, “everybody kind of knows my views on tariffs,” before engaging in punditry, arguing that Trump had campaigned on tariffs, emphasized them at rallies, and won the election.
He overlooked the fact that Trump himself has often noted that his electoral victory hinged on issues like the high cost of “groceries.” Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate were also elected by voters, and very few focused on tariffs as a central issue.
Thune's uncertainty was notable. As a lawmaker from a farming state, he appeared to be anxiously awaiting favorable outcomes for his constituents.
“We hope that the president is successful and if he is, and he gets some reciprocity from other countries around the world, you know, this may all be temporary,” Thune said, further emphasizing: “Obviously, we're all paying attention.”
At best, this reflects a strategy rooted in wishful thinking: the hope that the president will lean toward deal-making instead of his long-standing focus on tariffs, navigating the usual games of manipulation to influence Trump towards desirable outcomes and away from policies masquerading as tantrums.
In a bid to encourage Trump not to "melt down" and derail the economy, congressional Republicans are showering him with praise for enticing numerous nations to negotiate better trade agreements.
The buzzword circulating across the Capitol has been for Republicans to express amazement at the growing list of countries seeking audience with the West Wing. This phrase was echoed repeatedly in discussions with lawmakers this week, as if signaling the onset of a diplomatic boom.
There was a subtle message: take yes for an answer, Mr. President.
When asked if the tariffs were part of a broader negotiating strategy or a long-term protectionist policy, Speaker Mike Johnson hesitated before providing an answer, careful not to alienate Trump. He remarked, “Well, I think it remains to be seen,” but added that there could be “more than 70 countries now that are in the process of making much more fair trade agreements with us.”
I then inquired whether Trump should declare victory after securing significant trade deals.
“Well, it’s for the president to determine when the victory is declared,” Johnson stated, characterizing the influx of countries seeking to negotiate as a “very positive development.”
But what was his own preference?
“I think long-term the best thing for the country is to have actual free trade agreements,” he concluded, aligning with Trump’s perspective.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was even quicker to jump in, interrupting my question about whether the tariffs were meant for negotiation or policy with an assertion about the countries eager to engage.
“You’re seeing that already, you’re seeing over 60 countries that want to negotiate better deals,” Scalise claimed.
Over in the Senate, John Barrasso of Wyoming echoed similar sentiments but didn’t resort to Trump’s exaggerated claim that countries were “kissing my ass” to negotiate.
“I’m encouraged by what the secretary of the Treasury told us last week, which the president continues to talk about, which is the number of countries wanting to have discussions,” Barrasso noted.
It was a point Trump used on Wednesday when, amid market turmoil, he announced the reduction of tariffs to 10 percent for all countries aside from China, claiming that “more than 75 countries” were now seeking peace.
At this moment, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who has played a crucial role in alluding to potential negotiations, appears to have influenced the narrative.
“Trust in Scott” seems to resonate as the unofficial motto for the free trade faction within the Republican Party.
However, this situation also entails disregarding or sidelining another strong economic adviser in Trump’s circle, Peter Navarro, who has insisted that the new trade barriers are here to stay.
After Senator Markwayne Mullin noted that around 70 countries want to “work something out with Trump,” he asserted that tariffs would be lifted for nations willing to negotiate. “That’s the whole point,” Mullin insisted.
But what about Navarro’s clear stance that the shift towards a post-globalization trade regime is the primary goal?
“Yeah, but there’s been some opinions about him,” Mullin remarked ominously regarding Navarro.
Avoiding direct criticism of Trump by blaming an adviser has long been a tactic for Republicans, previously employed to shield Ronald Reagan. This overlooks the implied condescension and the fact that Trump's view of tariffs has long been a consistent theme throughout his public career.
Nonetheless, it’s easier for Republicans to avert their gaze from his stark departure from traditional Republican ideals. This discomfort contributes to the agony felt by many traditional conservatives. They may deal with panicked calls from donors and constituents regarding market upheaval, but it stings more deeply when they cannot defend a policy grounded on solid principles.
Although action hasn’t been definitively taken yet, it’s evident that some who were once Trump's critics are returning to cautious criticism. Initiating a trade war with tariffs on both allies and adversaries has sparked backlash among libertarian-leaning conservatives like Senator Rand Paul and traditional movement conservatives such as Senator Ted Cruz, both of whom could be eyeing future presidential bids.
Yet Cruz deserves credit for urging Trump to consider the “fork in the road,” using a joint appearance on Sean Hannity’s Fox program Tuesday night to advocate for “taking the deal,” expressing that it was not the only possible outcome, and warning against those in the administration who may favor making tariffs a lasting aspect of the economy, which he deemed a mistake.
Cruz’s public critique mirrors the private concerns of his colleagues since Trump resumed office. A month ago, a former Republican House member conveyed that even some of Trump’s fiercest supporters were anxious about pushing through the tax bill to mitigate the fallout from a potential tariff-induced recession.
Yet, the legislation is already facing challenges before it’s even drafted, as House and Senate Republicans strive to satisfy various factions within their slim majorities. Even after Trump met with a group of House GOP holdouts at the White House on Tuesday, some remained undecided about a critical budget resolution vote that serves as the foundation for the tax proposal.
Consequently, it appears that fears of a Trump-induced recession may have prompted him to call for a temporary truce in his self-imposed trade war.
Since beginning his second term, Trump has solidified his grip on the GOP, controlling policy directions, rallying votes, and framing every piece of legislation and cabinet confirmation as a reflection of his leadership. His overwhelming popularity within the party has granted him this power.
However, any decline in that popularity or reminder of his waning influence could diminish Trump’s ability to command respect. Should congressional Republicans no longer fear the repercussions of a primary challenge from Trump, he risks losing a critical leverage point when seeking their support.
By Wednesday, just before the president announced the temporary tariff reprieve, a senior congressional aide suggested that even the threat of a recession prompted by Trump might drain his political capital, weakening “his stroke” in persuading GOP lawmakers to back his central legislative objectives.
Ultimately, after extending the vote for over an hour on Wednesday night, House Republicans decided they couldn’t secure enough votes to pass the budget measure and withdrew the bill. At least for now, Trump’s entreaties had not proved effective.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
Find more stories on Business, Economy and Finance in TROIB business
