Trump pulls Hurd endorsement after lawmaker cites Congress’s role on tariffs, backs Navy veteran Hope Scheppelman
President Trump on Saturday withdrew his endorsement of Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), citing Hurd’s refusal to back Trump’s tariff agenda, and instead endorsed Navy veteran Hope Scheppelman amid a dispute over trade authority and escalating legal separation-of-powers debate.
Key takeaways
- Endorsement reversed: Trump announced on Truth Social he was withdrawing support for Rep. Jeff Hurd and endorsing Hope Scheppelman instead, according to reporting by Fox News.
- Constitutional dispute: Hurd emphasized that the Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling limits unilateral presidential tariff authority and argued Congress holds Article I power over trade.
- Tariff escalation: Trump announced raising a global tariff rate the same day — invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — and criticized the Court’s decision as “ridiculous” and “extraordinarily anti-American.”
- Rare public break: The reversal is an uncommon public withdrawal of a presidential endorsement and signals intra-party tension over process and policy.
What Trump said and where he posted it
President Trump used Truth Social to announce the endorsement reversal, accusing Hurd of failing to back “the unbelievably successful TARIFFS” that he said have made America “Richer, Stronger, Bigger, and Better than ever before.” In his post he labeled Hurd a “RINO” and declared his replacement endorsement for Hope Scheppelman, described as a “distinguished Critical Care Nurse Practitioner, and a brave U.S. Navy Veteran” who supports “America First Policies.” Reporting of that post is linked from Fox News.
The tariff announcement came the same day: according to reporting, Trump said the global tariff rate would be raised first to 10% and then to 15%, invoking trade law authority and reacting to a Supreme Court ruling that limited the executive’s emergency power to impose tariffs (see reporting by Fox News).
Hurd’s stance: separation of powers and legal footing
Rep. Jeff Hurd publicly pushed back on expansive executive power after the Supreme Court’s decision, posting on X that “The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of IEEPA, and that clarification matters.” He emphasized that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations and to impose tariffs,” arguing that major trade decisions require clear statutory authority and legislative debate rather than broad emergency interpretations.
“I share the goal of strong trade enforcement, but strong trade enforcement must be grounded in durable legal footing,” Hurd wrote, urging that “Congress should debate them and vote on them directly.”
The distinction Hurd draws is procedural and constitutional rather than purely about trade outcomes: he supports tougher enforcement but insists it be carried out through Congress.
Why the Supreme Court matter matters here
The Supreme Court recently limited the president’s power to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs tied to a declared national emergency. That decision narrowed a legal tool the administration used and refocused the question on Congress and statutory authority for trade measures. Hurd cited that ruling directly in arguing for a return to legislative debate and votes, a timeline synchronized with Trump’s tariff announcement (reporting: Fox News).
A rare break with a Republican incumbent
Public rebukes and endorsement withdrawals from Trump are uncommon for sitting Republican members of Congress. Fox News notes this was only the president’s second public withdrawal of an endorsement since 2022, the earlier example being Mo Brooks. The action underscores internal GOP tensions over how to pursue “America First policies” while navigating constitutional constraints.
Reporting discrepancies and gaps
Early coverage contained inconsistencies: one outlet misnamed Hurd as “Jim Hurd” and referenced an unrelated House measure (see Mediaite), while a third source reproduced the core claim with little added context (see the Binance / Square post). The most detailed public account cited here is from Fox News.
Implications for San Luis Obispo, California
Economic impact
Higher tariffs and trade tensions can raise costs for consumers and local businesses in San Luis Obispo County, which relies on agriculture (wine grapes, fruit, vegetables), tourism, and small manufacturers. Tariffs on imports can push up prices for goods and inputs, while retaliatory measures risk harming exporters.
Even without a major port, supply-chain and freight cost shifts on the West Coast may ripple through distribution networks, affecting retailers and restaurants in the region.
Political consequences
The episode highlights divisions within the national GOP over methods for implementing “America First” priorities. Local leaders and voters in a predominantly Democratic state like California may watch how national GOP debates influence Congressional races, endorsements, and fundraising. If national figures intervene in House primaries, local organizing and issue attention can shift.
Social effects
Tariff-driven price increases on food, fuel, or goods could strain lower- and middle-income households. Agricultural workers and small farm owners may face uncertainty if export demand shifts, potentially affecting seasonal employment and household incomes.
Cultural relevance
Trump’s emphasis on veteran support and “America First” rhetoric can resonate with military families and veterans in San Luis Obispo, while Hurd’s constitutional argument may appeal to voters prioritizing process and institutional checks. Both narratives could shape local civic engagement.
Practical applications for residents
- Consumers should monitor price changes in groceries, fuel, and household goods.
- Small businesses should review supplier contracts and shipping plans if tariff policies change.
- Farmers and exporters should consult trade groups and county extension services for market guidance.
- Residents can contact members of Congress and attend town halls to follow potential legislative responses.
Sources and further reading
Reporting aggregated from publicly available accounts including Fox News, Mediaite, and a Binance / Square post.
(Reporting based on Times Media Service aggregation of publicly available accounts and the sources above.)
