A sudden split over tariffs cost Rep. Jeff Hurd a high-profile endorsement while President Trump moved quickly to back a new candidate and to shift the administration’s trade response.

President Trump withdrew his endorsement of Rep. Jeff Hurd, labeling the Colorado Republican a “RINO” and accusing him of siding with foreign interests on trade. The president instead endorsed Hope Scheppelman, described as a Navy veteran and critical care nurse practitioner, to challenge Hurd in Colorado’s 3rd District.

The break came fast after a 6-3 Supreme Court decision blocked the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs. Hours later Hurd posted on X about Congress’s constitutional authority over trade, and by the next day the president had rescinded his support.

“Based on a lack of support, in particular for the unbelievably successful TARIFFS imposed on Foreign Countries and Companies which has made America Richer, Stronger, Bigger, and Better than ever before, I am hereby WITHDRAWING my EndorseMENT of RINO Congressman Jeff Hurd, of Colorado’s 3rd District, and fully Endorsing Highly Respected Patriot, Hope Scheppelman, to take his place in Congress.”

Trump went further, saying Hurd “is one of a small number of Legislators who have let me and our Country down” and accusing the congressman of being “more interested in protecting Foreign Countries that have been ripping us off for decades than he is the United States of America.” Those lines underscored why the endorsement reversal landed so publicly and so quickly.

Hurd’s posted remarks were framed as a constitutional point more than a political attack. He wrote, “The Supreme Court has clarified the scope of IEEPA, and that clarification matters,” and argued that “Article I assigns Congress the authority to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to impose tariffs” while saying “major trade decisions should rest on clear statutory authority, not expansive emergency interpretations.” He wrapped that up by calling for Congress to debate and vote directly if tariffs were necessary.

On paper, Hurd’s observations track with structural law: Article I does assign Congress that role. But in the heat of a political fight over tariffs and a recent court ruling, his choice to air a separation-of-powers lesson looked more like positioning than partnership. The administration was confronting a legal setback, and the timing made Hurd’s comments feel out of step with a president demanding solidarity.

Instead of pursuing legislation to lock in the president’s trade plan, Hurd didn’t offer a clear congressional path to achieve the tariff objectives he described as proper for lawmakers. That mattered because when an executive policy is challenged in court, the most effective response from allies in Congress is to move from commentary to concrete bills or votes supporting the administration’s goals.

Trump himself pivoted from the blocked IEEPA route to another statutory tool and immediately acted. The president announced he would raise the global tariff rate from 10% to 15%, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to do so. He called the Court’s ruling “ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American” and switched legal authorities to keep the policy on track.

“I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff … to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level.”

That move highlighted a gulf of approach: a lawmaker explaining process versus an executive finding a path forward. For Trump, an endorsement is political currency that demands alignment on the big fights, and a perceived lapse on policy defense can erase support almost overnight.

“Taking back an Endorsement is a difficult decision for me. I have only done it once before, with a former Congressman named Mo Brooks, from Alabama… These are the decisions that must be made, however, to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

The president framed his new choice as someone who will back America First trade policies without hesitation. He described Scheppelman as a “distinguished Critical Care Nurse Practitioner, and a brave U.S. Navy Veteran, who knows the America First Policies required,” and closed his endorsement with a blunt vow to voters.

“Unlike RINO Jeff Hurd, HOPE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Public details on Scheppelman remain limited, but the selection follows a pattern: candidates with military or healthcare backgrounds who are portrayed as unwavering allies of the administration. For lawmakers, this episode is a reminder of the practical costs of public distance during a policy confrontation.

The tariff dispute itself will persist. With the Supreme Court narrowing IEEPA, the administration will need either congressional action to shore up trade authority or a sustained legal strategy to defend future executive moves. Republicans who expect to carry the party’s trade priorities through must be prepared to act legislatively or risk losing political backing when the stakes spike.

A request for comment to Hurd’s office produced no immediate response, and that silence has been read as meaningful by observers. The episode may be just one district fight, but it signals how loyalty and timing are being enforced as the administration pushes its agenda forward.