How Congress Breaks with Trump in Quiet Ways

The subtle tensions between Trump’s cuts and the GOP’s votes.

Earlier this month, President Trump stood before a joint session of Congress — and more than 36 million television viewers — and called for the CHIPS and Science Act to be repealed.

“Your CHIPS Act is a horrible, horrible thing,” he said, referring to the 2022 bill to invest $280 billion in scientific research and semiconductor manufacturing. “We give hundreds of billions of dollars, and it doesn’t mean a thing. They take our money and they don’t spend it.”

“You should get rid of the ‘Chip’ Act and whatever’s left over, Mr. Speaker, you should use it to reduce debt,” Trump added. The entire Republican side of the aisle stood up and applauded.

This week, the House of Representatives took up a bill to amend the CHIPS and Science Act. Was the Republican-controlled chamber finally following the president’s lead and getting rid of the Biden-era package?

Not quite. The United States Research Protection Act — which was approved unanimously — only makes a minor tweak to the bill, strengthening a provision designed to prevent any of the measure’s funding from flowing to countries like Russia, China, Iran, or North Korea.

This was hardly a major challenge to Trump’s supremacy in the GOP, but it was still notable: Republicans applauded Trump’s call to repeal the CHIPS Act when the country was watching them, but once the primetime audiences tuned out, they voted for a bipartisan update to the package. That was time that could have been used to repeal (or even partially undo) the package. But Republicans clearly have no intention of doing so.

While debating this week’s bill on the House floor, multiple Republican lawmakers praised the funding Trump asked them to kill. “America’s leadership in science and technology is built on the foundation of federal investments and basic research,” House Science Committee Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) said. “These investments enhance our national security, strengthen our economy, and improve the lives of our citizens.”

That was a message unmistakably at odds with the DOGE agenda. The National Science Foundation — a key recipient of CHIPS funding — fired 10% of its staff last month; according to the Washington Post, the White House now wants to cut another 28%. Babin also mentioned the importance of academic research, which the administration has repeatedly moved to defund.

It wasn’t the only subtle disconnect in messaging between the Trump administration and its congressional allies this week.

Perhaps the most amusing tension came when the House Judiciary Committee voted on a bill called the NICS Data Reporting Act, which would require the Justice Department to report annually on the demographic data of people deemed ineligible for buying a firearm through the federal background check system.

I’ll allow the bill’s sponsor to explain the problem the legislation is trying to fix:

When you undergo a [National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS] background check, if you have a name and/or birthday that’s similar to somebody who’s been convicted of a disqualifying crime for firearm ownership, you could be falsely denied.

Now, this happens, we understand. But we estimate that it happens three times more frequently for Blacks and twice as frequently for Hispanics, because within ethnic and racial groups, you share first names and surnames as well. And there is a large population of Blacks that is incarcerated or has committed crimes and have been convicted, and because they share these names — and, by the way, probably, I’ll say this from my side of the the aisle — over-incarcerated.

And so, it’s not fair. It’s built into the system and it needs to be fixed. But to fix something, we need to see the data. And that’s what this would do.

No, that wasn’t Ibram Kendi talking. It was Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky, offering an unusual combination, at least for Washington: an argument against systemic racism…in defense of gun rights.

Massie has always had a libertarian streak, but his statement still managed to raise some eyebrows from his colleagues. With President Trump on a rampage against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in government, it isn’t every day you hear a Republican lawmaker calling to create a requirement with race in mind.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, took notice: “He’s moved perilously close to committing a thought-crime under the new Trump administration simply by asking the question of what the racial effects and gender effects are of particular legislation,” Raskin said of Massie.

“Do you think the attorney general will even be able to write the report that you’re talking about? Will she be allowed to publish it, given the war on so-called DEI and race and gender discussion and description?” Raskin asked.

The committee approved the bill unanimously, without objections from any of the Trump allies on the panel, including Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH). None of them seemed concerned about whether the bill might clash with President Trump’s Day One executive order ending all “illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

“This isn’t because I’ve gone woke,” Massie joked at one point during the session, although he was referring only to a provision that asks about both “sex” and “gender” separately. (He said it was because the background check form had used both terms over the years.)

Congressional Republicans are loath to criticize Trump publicly, but in minor votes and little-watched committee meetings, bipartisan bills keep advancing that don’t quite align with his agenda — or, at least, with his chainsaw-wielding approach.

There was the bill that unanimously passed the House this week to authorize new National Science Foundation grants (despite Trump’s attempt to freeze National Science Foundation grants) aimed at encouraging schools to modern their STEM curricula (despite Trump saying that the federal government should get out of the education business).

Or the measure, introduced by Puerto Rico’s Democratic non-voting House member, to require that any intelligence information gathered by the Department of Homeland Security be “shared, retained, and disseminated consistent with the protection of privacy rights, civil rights, and civil liberties.” If enacted, the bill could theoretically slow Trump’s deportation campaign, which has repeatedly targeted American citizens in alleged violations of their civil rights and liberties.

The bill requires that any DHS intel be reviewed by the agency’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, which would also be charged with providing civil rights training to intelligence personnel, adding new statutory responsibilities for an office that Trump is trying to shut down. The measure was unanimously approved by a Republican-led subcommittee this week. (The panel also approved an AI bill by the subcommittee’s GOP chairman, which also accorded new responsibilities to the civil rights office.)

Another curious addition to the House schedule this week: the Clean Energy Demonstration Transparency Act, which would require the Energy Department to submit semiannual reports on the status of projects managed by its Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. That office was created under the Biden administration; it received the bulk of its funding from the Biden-era infrastructure package and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Trump has signed an executive order halting the disbursement of all funding provided by those two packages, which he collectively refers to as the “Green New Scam.” Does that mean this House bill was aimed at portraying how all the Biden-era spending was really a wasteful boondoggle that should be stopped?

No. It was actually an attempt to ensure that the Biden-funded projects continue apace. When the measure was initially introduced, Rep. Brandon Williams (R-NY) declared that it would “help us achieve our goals of a cleaner, more sustainable future.” He added: “By bringing greater accountability and transparency to the Department of Energy’s management of clean energy demonstration projects, we can ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used to their fullest potential.”

The measure was included on the Republican leadership’s list of 10 House bills expected to be fast-tracked for approval this week; it was one of only two that did not end up receiving a vote. (I reached out to House Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s office to ask why, and whether the bill would be considered next week, but I have not yet received a response.)

However, another GOP-authored clean energy bill did receive House approval this week: the Innovative Mitigation Partnerships for Asphalt and Concrete Technologies Act. (Call it the IMPACT Act for short.) The measure amends the Biden infrastructure package to create a seven-year Energy Department program to support the production of low-emissions cement, concrete, and asphalt.

The cement and concrete industries make up almost one-tenth of global carbon emissions; the text of the Sierra Club-backed bill says that one of its goals is to “achieve measurable greenhouse gas or directly related copollutant emissions reductions in the production processes for cement, concrete, and asphalt products.”

Sounds like a classic “Green New Scam,” exactly the type of project Trump has paused across the government! The measure passed 350-73, with opposition coming from most of the chamber’s most ardent conservatives. That means it received more votes from Democrats than Republicans, always a notable occurrence in a chamber where Republicans oversee the floor schedule.

The point here isn’t that Republicans are staging some sort of anti-Trump revolt. They aren’t. The party is still largely in lockstep with the president, and none of these bills are major packages. But it is important to pay attention to what members of Congress are doing when they assume no one is watching.

When the TV cameras are trained on them, most congressional Republicans express their complete support for Trump’s agenda. But when only C-SPAN is left recording, the same lawmakers are continuing to churn out bills expanding — in small ways — programs that Trump is trying to end fully.

No more DEI? Or federal intervention in education? Or CHIPS Act funding? Or civil rights at DHS? Or clean energy initiatives? Not according to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives this week.

While small, these bills show that many of the government programs Trump (and Elon Musk) are trying to cut in a sweeping manner still have congressional support, especially when the benefits redound to lawmakers’ districts. “In Ohio alone, [the cement and concrete industry] has an economic contribution of $4.6 billion to the State,” Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), the IMPACT Act sponsor, noted on the floor, bragging about the economic investments his legislation would bring home.

Of course, this type of support only matters if members are willing to go to bat for the funding they approve; so far, many Republicans have tried to do this on a case-by-case basis, when it impacts their constituencies, rather than forcing a comprehensive defense of the legislative process. But Republican-passed bills will be harder to ignore than Democratic ones, especially if Trump is the one who signs them into law. Even if the bills never get that far, the bills suggest a buy-in on the part of some Republicans towards targeted government programs, rather than complete agreement with DOGE’s efforts.

That these sorts of measures continue to pass suggests it won’t be easy for Republican leadership to force through a package codifying DOGE cuts, as the party is considering. Trump and Musk may view much of federal spending with disdain — but to congressional Republicans, it’s the bread-and-butter of things they try to bring back to their districts, a more parochial focus that clashed this week with Trump’s blaze of cuts in interesting ways. Congressional Republicans don’t appear sold on DOGE’s vision of a government as minimalist as possible — at least, not when it gets in the way of working on their individual priorities.

These bills also show Congress, away from the spotlight, still occasionally working the way it used to: through the committee process, across the aisle, and in pursuit of shared interests. The committee part is especially important here: committee chairs play a key role shepherding these sorts of low-profile bills to passage, which gives them a sense of ownership that could push some to confront the Trump administration when they feel it’s treading into their jurisdiction.

Already, we saw signs of that this week: Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-MS), with his Democratic ranking member, sent a bipartisan letter calling for an investigation of the Signal leak; Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME), with her Democratic counterpart, sent one accusing Trump of illegally using a pot of emergency spending. Republicans with oversight of Social Security also do not seem happy with changes at the agency.

This week’s activity reflect a subtle tension between the types of efforts members of Congress perceive they have a political interest in pursuing, and the types that Trump does. For now, lawmakers seem content to approve these bills quietly, away from Trump’s radar, almost like a DOGE-skeptical “deep state” keeping its head down and continuing to churn out funding, right in the halls of the Capitol. Eventually, though, these are the sort of minor disconnects that could grow into major headaches for Trump if left untended.

---

These sorts of bills — passed by lawmakers when they think no one is watching — are sometimes referred to as the work of “Secret Congress.” But, as I’ve written before, I don’t believe anything your representatives are doing with your taxpayer dollars should be a secret.

That’s why I spend time each week combing through the Congressional Record to find you bills like these, to let you know what members of Congress are working on away from the spotlight. Look up almost any piece of legislation covered in today’s newsletter and you’ll find zero media coverage about them — even though some of them have an interesting story to tell about divides in the GOP.

If you appreciate my work researching and reporting on under-covered legislation, I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber to support Wake Up To Politics: