N.H. Governor Ayotte is ‘holding her breath and hoping for the best' on Trump's Canadian tariffs
And, on Monday, she was
absent from
Advertisement
Ayotte is one of two Republican governors in the region; the other, Phil Scott of Vermont, has long governed from the center and voted for former vice president Kamala Harris
in 2024, leaving Ayotte as the lone governor with MAGA ties.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Most of the president's domestic agenda aligns well with the early months of Ayotte's leadership:
But Trump's tariffs — a cornerstone second term
policy — have strained
a desire not to cross the White House.
Advertisement
Canadian tariffs have threatened to
Tariffs have also cast uncertainty on the import and export of billions of dollars of goods across the state's northern border. Canada is among New Hampshire's most prominent trading partners, accounting for
Tourism, New Hampshire's second-largest industry, has also taken a hit. Canadian visits to the state
Ayotte's office did not respond to a request for comment.
The governor has acknowledged the uncertainty tariffs are imposing on New Hampshire's businesses, of which
26 pounds of fentanyl have been
In May, Ayotte
Advertisement
Ayotte is 'between a rock and a hard place,' said University of New Hampshire politics professor Dante Scala.
'She doesn't want to ally herself with the Democratic governors of New England, who are basically part of the Trump resistance. And who knows whether that would even really help New Hampshire in the long run,' said Scala.
Ayotte's approach to dealing with Trump is in contrast to her popular predecessor Chris Sununu, who was no stranger to
'That's just not Kelly Ayotte. She would never say, or probably even think, the things that Chris Sununu came up with,' said Bill O'Brien, a Republican in state party leadership and former New Hampshire Speaker of the House. 'She would rather talk about policies and address these issues on that basis rather than on an ad hominem basis.'
Steve Duprey, a former Republican national committeeman from New Hampshire and a close friend of Ayotte's, said her
understated response to tariffs is a reflection of her pragmatic governing style.
'The president's been pretty clear since he first came into office that he values loyalty and isn't receptive to outspoken critiques or criticism. Wise and prudent negotiators keep that in mind in their dealings with him‚" he said, adding that Ayotte's strategy of keeping her head down and focusing on state issues is 'the smart thing, politically, to do.'
But some New Hampshire Democrats interpret Ayotte's position on Canadian tariffs as a capitulation to Washington rather than a careful political calculation.
Advertisement
'It's a huge failure of courage,' said state Representative David Paige of Conway in northeast New Hampshire. 'There is no reason, in my mind, that she cannot be part of this bipartisan group of governors that's looking to open up these subnational channels for dialogue. We've got Phil Scott right next-door joining this contingent.'
For Steve Marchand, the former Democratic mayor of Portsmouth, the concern about New Hampshire's relationship with Canada isn't just economic, but cultural.
'A lot of Canadians are somewhere between surprised and hurt on a personal level' by the disruption of 'this
special relationship between Canada and the US that goes beyond the exchange of money,' said Marchand, who was born to Canadian parents and holds dual-citizenship.
But, Marchand warns, if a trade agreement isn't reached with Canada and tariffs continue to roil the New Hampshire economy, 'a moment may arrive where [Ayotte] will either have to join in on the criticism of the tariffs or she will end up de facto defending the tariffs. In the eyes of voters, if they're very mad about something and you don't join them in that anger, then the silence will be taken by many as complicity.'
New Hampshire governors serve two year terms, so
Ayotte will be up reelection next year. Scala said Ayotte needs to keep New Hampshire's MAGA base happy, especially since
Ayotte is essentially 'holding her breath and hoping for the best' on tariffs, Scala said. 'In a year's time, if things go poorly, she realizes that Democrats may have an issue, or maybe more than one issue, to run against her on.'
Advertisement
In 2016, when Ayotte was a senator seeking
a second term, she chose not to endorse Trump after the release of the
Ayotte has a 'tortured relationship,' with Trump said Christopher Galdieri, a politics professor at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. 'She paid dearly at the ballot box for it once and I think she's really worried about that happening again.'
Stephen Stepanek,
called Ayotte's 2016 stance on Trump 'unfortunate,' but, 'that's water under the bridge,' he said. 'Going forward, Kelly walks a fine line, and she hasn't really done anything to, shall we say, upset the president, but she hasn't done anything to really embrace the president either.'
Although New Hampshire has exclusively elected Democrats to Congress in its recent political history, Republicans have consistently controlled the state government.
Tim Egan, vice president of the
Advertisement
'We're very much a purple state, New Hampshire, and I think that's a challenge for the governor,' said Egan. 'She has to balance the economics, the optics, and the politics. It's not an easy job.'
Julian E.J. Sorapuru can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
WATCH LIVE: Will Cain outlines the Democrats' new plan to play the victim over ICE arrests
All times eastern Making Money with Charles Payne FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Will Cain outlines the Democrats' new plan to play the victim over ICE arrests
Politico
18 minutes ago
- Politico
Judge rules EPA termination of environmental justice grants was unlawful
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that EPA's termination of $600 million in environmental justice grants issued by the Biden administration for low-income areas and communities of color was unlawful. The ruling over the Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program comes as EPA is separately appealing a ruling that its termination of $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants was also unlawful. Congressional Republicans have proposed rescinding funding for both grant programs as part of their reconciliation bills. The Thriving Communities Grantmaking Program was part of a $2.8 billion tranche of funding under the Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act intended for community groups to provide block grants to address pollution that takes a disproportionately heavy toll on communities of color and low-income and rural areas. Announced in December 2023, EPA selected 11 groups to disburse the funds to subrecipients, a setup the Biden administration argued would help the groups cut through red tape and access the money more easily. EPA in February terminated the grants as it sought to end environmental justice work under the Trump administration's move against diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Three of the regional grantmakers sued: the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, which worked in the mid-Atlantic region; the Minneapolis Foundation, operating in the Midwest; and Philanthropy Northwest, which funded programs in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. EPA's termination of these grants violated the Administrative Procedure Act, ruled Judge Adam Abelson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. 'EPA contends that it has authority to thumb its nose at Congress and refuse to comply with its directives. That constitutes a clear example of an agency acting 'in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,' and thereby violating the APA,' wrote Abelson, a Biden appointee. Abelson rejected the argument EPA made in this and similar cases that the grant terminations are effectively contract disputes that must be heard by a special court, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Instead, he ruled that EPA's terminations of the grants because the administration opposes environmental justice efforts were unlawful precisely because Congress intended the agency to spend it on environmental justice activities. 'Congress expressly required EPA to use the appropriated funds for 'environmental justice' programs. By terminating Plaintiffs' grants on the basis that current EPA leadership no longer wants to support 'environmental justice' programs, EPA exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act, and therefore was 'in excess of statutory . . . authority, or limitations,'' under the Administrative Procedures Act, Abelson ruled. Abelson also rejected EPA's argument that the grants were terminated to prevent waste. 'EPA is required to spend the funds that Congress appropriated … and to do so on specified types of projects, and to specifically ensure that such projects benefit disadvantaged communities,' he wrote. EPA said it is reviewing the decision. Ruth Ann Norton, CEO of the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, praised the ruling. 'What the EPA does next, we don't know,' she said. 'But we're super happy for communities that are intended to receive these dollars to deal with many things around environmental quality and public health.' GHHI was prepared to pass through funds to an initial 117 projects across multiple states to address issues like lead contamination in West Virginia, Norton said. 'We hope the EPA doesn't in fact work against its own priorities in a way by wanting to undermine this.' The other groups that brought suit similarly praised the ruling in statements. Minneapolis Foundation President and CEO R.T. Rybak called it 'a win for local communities' while Philanthropy Northwest CEO Jill Nishi said 'communities most impacted by environmental harm deserve access to the resources committed to them by federal law.'
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Supreme Court lets EPA air pollution battles play out in regional courts
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that EPA decisions to reject multiple state ozone pollution plans can be challenged separately in regional courts. Why it matters: It enables more sprawling legal battles over implementation of federal standards for smog-forming pollution that moves across state borders. Driving the news: The unanimous ruling, which sided with Oklahoma and Utah, "holds that EPA's [state implementation plan] disapprovals were not based on any determination of nationwide scope or effect." Justice Clarence Thomas authored the decision and Justice Samuel Alito did not take part. The big picture: It's a win for several red states and conservative lawmakers, who argued the Clean Air Act enables regional challenges to EPA's rejection of 21 states' plans in 2023. And as E&E News points out, appellate courts in Republican-leaning areas are "often seen as friendlier to state and industry interests." The other side: Over two-dozen states including New York and Michigan argued in favor of centralizing the disputes in the D.C. circuit. "Since February 2023, seven circuits have simultaneously reviewed the Rule, which has caused chaos and delay," they said in a joint filing, referring to the 2023 disapproval of 21 state plans. "This wasteful litigation has severely harmed" the states by "prolonging the health and economic harms that flow from interstate pollution—contrary to Congress's intent under the Act's venue and good-neighbor provisions." Yes, but: A separate Supreme Court ruling Wednesday favored D.C. as the place to challenge EPA rejection of small oil refiners' requests for exemptions from biofuels blending mandates. State of play:"EPA's denials of small refinery exemption petitions are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the 'nationwide scope or effect' exception, requiring venue in the D. C. Circuit," it states. This ruling was 7-2 and also authored by Thomas, with Justice Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts dissenting.
