Jeff Hurd, the freshman Republican from Colorado’s Third Congressional District, says he supports the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) efforts to cut federal spending, especially cuts to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) efforts.
Hurd doesn’t know how many of his constituents have lost or left their jobs during these cuts, but says there are some he wishes hadn’t.
“I know there are hardworking land managers on the ground in the Third Congressional District who have lost their jobs that should be in those jobs and who should be working,” said Hurd. “Fortunately, we haven't had any firefighters – public lands right away is where I go to, but certainly this is broader as well – we haven't had any firefighters cut. But we have had some of the support services for those firefighters cut.”
Meantime, more than a million low-income Coloradans are enrolled in Medicaid, which includes 30 percent of Hurd's district, which includes Grand Junction, Pueblo, and the western slope. He said he believes any cuts shouldn’t affect families who rely on Medicaid.
“I think we need to preserve Medicaid benefits for Coloradans, particularly those in the Third Congressional District, and we need to deploy those dollars in a smart way,” said Hurd. “I think there are efficiencies to be gained in all areas of government. I think everyone would acknowledge that, but I do believe that it's important to make sure that individuals and families who rely on Medicaid benefits in the Third Congressional District continue to have those benefits.”
Hurd also wants the Bureau of Land Management back in Colorado for good, and condemns the flashing of the Nazi salute from people in his party.
Hurd sat down with Colorado Matters Senior Host Ryan Warner.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity
Ryan Warner: Checks and balances question to start– blame the political science major in me. Is the Department of Government Efficiency under Elon Musk an unchecked power?
Rep. Jeff Hurd: Well, I mean, I think some of what DOGE is doing is going to be subject to court review, and I think we're going to need guidance from our federal courts to see what the appropriate scope and breadth of that is.
But fundamentally, I think the idea of government efficiency is a good one. It's certainly something that I know I campaigned on, a number of other Republicans campaigned on, the President campaigned on, and I am certainly encouraged by some of the reforms and some of the efficiencies we're seeing, concerned with some others, but I think ultimately the constitutionality question, the limit and scope of that authority, is something that I expect will be challenged and that we will see the contours of that resolved in the courts in the coming weeks and months.
Warner: Congress holds the purse strings and yet the executive is making calls about funds that the legislative branch has already appropriated. It sounds like you're deferring to the courts, but your own branch has some power here, so what sort of precedent does this set?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I'm not sure it's a precedent, Ryan. I mean, President Biden did the exact same thing when it came to building the border wall, so this is not like it's the first time we've had a president that has issues with appropriated money. So I think to say that this is unprecedented I think would be a bit of an exaggeration there.
Certainly, Article I gives Congress the power of the purse. That's something that we need to take seriously. We need to make sure that we are guarding that constitutional authority. The scope and limit of it I think is something that we're going to be seeing, but I would just fundamentally say this idea of efficiency and reigning in waste and unnecessary spending is something that I support. Now, we do need to be smart about it though, Ryan. We can't just be using a meat cleaver, so to speak, to cut through programs that I think affect people in my district specifically, so we need to be careful and strategic in how we address those cuts.
Warner: I will ask you about some concerns around DOGE in a bit, but you've said there are actions it's taken, that you support, that you're encouraged by. Will you name one of those?
Rep. Hurd: Sure. I think ending some of the DEI programs are something that I think is a waste. A lot of times what's happening is Congress will appropriate these monies to agencies and then the agencies, the executive branch will spend those monies in ways that I don't think Congress always has oversight on, and you know, that's to Congress's discredit. I mean, I think we need to do a better job of supervising how these dollars are spent.
Warner: DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. Our Washington, D.C. correspondent, Caitlyn Kim has a story at cpr.org about a farmer in your district. Michael Nolan is president of the Mancos Conservation District and he says his district's loss of a natural resources grant was like having the rug pulled out from underneath them and that it means…
Michael Nolan: “... cut hours, potential furloughs, potential layoffs. It’s a big hit to our conservation district. At the end of the day, we believe the funding was pulled because of two phrases in it. One was ‘equity’ and one was ‘underserved communities.’”
Warner: Is that good governance?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think it depends on the specific programming. One of the things that I think the government should be doing is looking at how these dollars are spent. I mean, in the abstract, dollars going to worthy programs, particularly in the Third Congressional District, that's something that I would support.
So cherry picking an example at random without the full context, I'm not sure that I can intelligently answer that question, Ryan.
What I would tell you is that I know from not just folks in Southern Colorado, but throughout the district, there is some concern about some of the grant funding that has been frozen, but my expectation is that programs that are worthy of being funded, that are delivering results on the ground, I expect that those dollars will begin flowing. But I'm sympathetic with the administration's view that we should be careful about the dollars that are going out the door and making sure that they're deployed strategically, that we're using hard-earned taxpayer dollars thoughtfully.
Warner: Should funding be cut off simply because it contains words like “underserved communities?”
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think you need to look at what it's doing. I would probably say a categorical approach would be something that we'd want to look at. There are probably a number of worthy projects deserving of funding that should be funded, but we need to look at them on a case by case basis, and I expect that's what's happening. A lot of the funding has been frozen and the evaluation is happening on a more reasonable basis. That's something that I've told my communities, county commissioners, water districts, tribal nations as well in the Third Congressional District, to let me know what those programs are that are being funded, and let's see what we can do to make sure those dollars are ultimately allocated and paid.
One of the things I would say is contracts have been made by a number of these governmental entities, tribal entities, water conservancy districts. When there's a commitment that's been made based on an expectation that federal dollars will flow, that's something that I do think those projects should probably be funded. I don't think it is good for our communities, for our governments to not know with certainty what contracts they can enter into or not. So that's another issue that we need to address, certainly on a case by case basis.
I just hesitate to say unilaterally, all good or all bad. I think it requires a little bit more individualized analysis and a careful look.
Warner: But if there are worthy programs, is this a bit of a “shoot first, aim later” approach? In other words, you're stopping the funding, first. You're sort of assuming that it's unworthy and then you've got to prove it's worthy. That does add some uncertainty, no?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I guess I respectfully push back on your premise. I'd say the default assumption is not that it's unworthy, it's just that we don't know, and I think from my perspective, I'm just seeing it on the other end, how these grants are being frozen and how these dollars are potentially in the balance, and so I want to make sure that we look at those and see where were they supposed to go, and then working with the administration, working with our executive agencies to say, “Hey, this project is one that's worthy of being funded that is appropriately funded. This is not waste, and that we should allocate those dollars to that conservancy district or to that community or to that tribal entity as well.” That's another issue that we have in the Third with our two tribes.
Warner: Given that you're on the House Transportation and the Aviation Subcommittee, are you concerned about how federal workforce cuts affect air safety? And I'll just say that's not just traffic controllers, but the forecasters who track what sort of weather we're flying into?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I think it depends on where those cuts are made. One of the concerns I would have, and I think this might apply more broadly, but I'll just start with the Forest Service, which is something that I know a bit more about. We have six national forests in our district. I've heard from officials who are familiar with the forest service that there is a lot of bloat. There's a lot of efficiency that can be gained in that department. We just need to be smart about where we employ those savings and net gains.
It's not going to be in the individuals that are on the ground who have the government, the GS-4, GS-5, GS-6, those are sort of the more boots on the ground, lower paying jobs, it probably doesn't make as much sense to cut those. Let's look at some of the cuts higher up in the bureaucracy. And so I think just generally, if we're talking about aviation, if we're talking about other parts of government, people in government will tell you, Ryan, most they will tell you there are efficiencies to be had here. Absolutely. We just need to be smart about where they are, and I think that's probably going to be the case for the FAA as well.
Warner: Okay, so when you talk about GS, those are pay grades in the federal government, but the offer to resign was an awfully blunt instrument compared to the nuance that you are calling for, no?
Rep. Hurd: You're raising a really important issue here, Ryan. What I think we've seen happen is the government is cutting in areas where the employees don't have the longstanding civil service protections, which I think if you talk to most fair-minded people, they will tell you that our civil service system needs reform and that it is almost impossible or nearly impossible to remove civil service employees that are not doing their job well, that have the sort of instantiated position within these government agencies. And so I think what you saw with the offer to resign was an attempt to encourage individuals that would otherwise have civil service protections that would essentially prevent them from being fired even if they're doing terrible job, even if they're not contributing to the agency's mission, even if they're not contributing to making lives better for the citizens that they're serving.
My understanding is that might be a way to account for the fact that we have a civil service system that makes it nearly impossible to fire bureaucrats who aren't doing their jobs provided they've just been there long enough. To me, that is a system that is broken, and I think there's consensus that there is a change that needs to be made there. What we're seeing is the cuts that are therefore happening are at those levels where those individuals don't have that civil service protection, which is unfortunate, and I don't believe those are the right places to be cutting.
Warner: I think I hear you saying that under this approach there are people losing their jobs, severing from the federal government, that you wish weren't. Can we put that plainly?
Rep. Hurd: That is absolutely true. I know there are hardworking land managers on the ground in the Third Congressional District who have lost their jobs that should be in those jobs and who should be working. Fortunately, we haven't had any firefighters – public lands right away is where I go to, but certainly this is broader as well – we haven't had any firefighters cut. But we have had some of the support services for those firefighters cut.
So yes, Ryan, there have been cuts made that I think were better left in place, and we are working with the administration to see what we can do to make sure that those individuals have jobs that are able to maintain our forest, maintain our trails, take care of our public lands, and deliver the services that all of us rely on.
Warner: Do you know how many people in the Third District who worked for the federal government no longer do?
Rep. Hurd: I don't have specific numbers about what the number of individuals that have lost their jobs in the Third Congressional District in the last month is. I do not know.
Warner: That surprises me that you don't have that information. I mean, job opportunities were so central to your campaign. You spoke at length about the loss of coal-related jobs in Moffat County and how youth flee to urban areas for employment. So any shrinkage of employment, be it public or private, would seem central to your mission in Congress, no?
Rep. Hurd: Well, I guess I would say I wanted to create opportunities that families could stay and live and thrive in rural Colorado, and certainly it's creating a regulatory environment for businesses to want to invest and to stay in business. One of my biggest concerns, Ryan, the reason that I ran was not that we were potentially losing government jobs or making government more efficient, but that bad public policy was pushing private industry out. Our coal miners were losing their jobs, our natural gas workers were losing their jobs, our tech sector was being decimated by bad public policy and lack of affordable housing and things like that. I am concerned about the cuts.
One of the things I also said, Ryan, was I want to gain all the facts as many of the facts as I can before weighing in on things. And one of the difficulties with our vast federal bureaucracy, sometimes it's difficult to see what is happening at any given moment.
So I don't have the specific numbers. I know that they're happening in the Third Congressional District. Part of this is there's no, to my knowledge, there's no one central depository of, “Hey, here's the absolute number.” You have to go department by department, agency by agency, and given the vast size of our federal bureaucracy, it can be a chore and a lot of work to assemble all of those numbers. And it's also varying some of those positions. Has somebody been detailed to another position? It's not always clear to say absolutely black and white what a job loss number is.
But again, going back fundamentally, creating opportunities for rural Colorado to thrive is the reason that I ran. And that includes good government jobs too, because good government jobs help create those circumstances for private industry and for citizens to succeed and thrive.
Warner: I'd like to spend the remainder of our time, at least some of it, talking about Medicaid. So along with every House Republican but one, you voted for the budget resolution this week and it paves the way for the Trump tax cuts to continue. And indeed the debate from here undoubtedly will include the future of Medicaid. For some context, more than a million low-income Coloradans are enrolled. I learned a third of births here are covered by Medicaid. Just plainly, should the program be cut?
Rep. Hurd: I think we need to preserve Medicaid benefits for Coloradans, particularly those in the Third Congressional District, and we need to deploy those dollars in a smart way. I think there are efficiencies to be gained in all areas of government. I think everyone would acknowledge that, but I do believe that it's important to make sure that individuals and families who rely on Medicaid benefits in the Third Congressional District continue to have those benefits.
Warner: There's talk of cutting the program by potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. It sounds like that scale is not something you'd welcome.
Rep. Hurd: Well, it's hundreds of billions of dollars over 10 years. Medicaid, I believe, on the federal level is hundreds of billions of dollars every single year. So when we're talking about gaining in efficiencies, those big numbers that you're talking about over the course of the budget, those are spread out over 10 years. So I think we need to have a little bit of perspective here as well and look at, there's a program that is hundreds of billions of dollars that's being spent every single year. If we're looking at efficiencies, we're not talking about realizing any efficiencies over the course of one year. They would be spread out over the course of 10 years and making sure, again, that we are delivering benefits to people who need them is absolutely a priority for me.
Warner: Can you get specific with us about efficiencies? On the surface, that makes sense. I don't think anyone wants inefficiency.
Rep. Hurd: Sure. I would look at things like work requirements. I mean, I think that Medicaid is supposed to help the single mom of two kids in Alamosa who's struggling to make ends meet and get by. It shouldn't be for the 29 year old sitting on his mom's couch who just doesn't want to work. What I would say is the budget resolution that we passed yesterday doesn't have any policy in it. The word Medicaid does not appear in it at all. It has instructions to committees in the House to make savings or revenue adjustments. What those look like, we don't know, Ryan. And so anybody that's saying, "Oh, this means X for Medicaid or for this other program," has not read the legislation and is not well-informed in what they're talking about.
And I think what we're going to be talking about, this is the beginning of a negotiation process. We're going to be looking and seeing what these committees are coming up with when it comes to meeting those budget resolution targets.
And one thing I'm going to be looking at is making sure that our Medicaid dollars that we spend in the Third Congressional District are spent in a way that makes sure that people who need them, who rely on them, our federally qualified health centers, our critical access hospitals have those Medicaid dollars to make sure that they stay open.
Warner: Yeah. Rural hospitals indeed and clinics rely very much on Medicaid to keep their doors open. Are there a lot of lazy 29 year olds sitting on couches in your district?
Rep. Hurd: I think if you look at some of the studies, there are efficiencies to be gained and I think work requirements, I don't have a breakdown specifically for the Third Congressional District, but big picture zooming out, the way that we spend money in the government, there are more efficient ways to do it and there is a better way, I mean, talk to anyone in healthcare, Ryan, you've interviewed a whole bunch of people when it comes to healthcare. Tell me if any hospital CEO or anyone that you've talked to has told you that, "We're using our healthcare dollars wisely and there aren't efficiencies to be gained in the system." I would imagine that you would say, "Yes, Jeff. Absolutely. I've heard that." That we can better utilize our healthcare system dollars to more effectively deliver healthcare in our country.
Warner: Your hometown Grand Junction was briefly the headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). That was during Trump's first term, although the office ended up being a scaled down headquarters and then moved back to D.C. under Biden. And one of your first bills calls for moving the headquarters back to the Western Slope. Why is it worth going through that shakeup again?
Rep. Hurd: Well, one of the reasons that I think it's important to do this through legislation is to avoid this sort of whiplash that you get when you have a president, that is, by executive order, moving the headquarters from one location to another. Having the Bureau of Land Management in Western Colorado is important because that's where most of the lands that are being managed are located, is in the West. I had somebody comment to me once that there was a Bureau of Land Management policy official that came out from Washington, D.C. to visit Western Colorado and commented something along the lines of, "Wow, this is like a different planet out here in Western Colorado."
That perspective from somebody that's in charge of governing federal lands is not good. Moving the Bureau of Land Management headquarters to Grand Junction, to where so many of the public lands are managed, I think, is good from a staffing standpoint, it's good from, again, a government efficiency standpoint. It saves the taxpayers money. It also means a staff that is on the ground that is interacting with the people that are affected by those decisions. We don't have a lot of BLM land here in Washington, D.C., and the people that are affected by the decisions that are made don't live here in Washington, D.C.
If you are shopping for groceries, if your kids are going to school with others, farmers and ranchers, and people who recreate in our outdoors and people who rely on energy jobs, if you're among them in Western Colorado, I think that helps give you a valuable perspective, that helps you develop more thoughtful public lands policies. And so I think it's a good thing to have the BLM in Grand Junction, and I trust that this is an issue that is bipartisan and that I think others agree with me on that across the aisle.
Warner: The self-described progressive group, Indivisible Colorado, says it invited you to a recent town hall in Grand Junction, but didn't hear back after multiple overtures. 400 people showed up, meaning they went ahead without you. And I think that was the plan, right? With or without. Why didn't you respond or attend that event?
Rep. Hurd: Well, listen, I'm interested in hearing from my constituents. I am not interested in political theater and I want to have constructive dialogue. I think Indivisible, if you look at the funding sources for these sorts of organizations, left-wing pressure groups, George Soros, I think that they have an agenda that is not about communicating with the elected officials and helping to advance that constructive dialogue. So I certainly expect that I will be having town halls and hearing from my constituents. I would just rather do it in a politically productive way rather than political theater.
Warner: Let's wrap up on a note that I suppose as a Jewish person, I wish we didn't have to, but Congressman, my jaw drops when I see people close to the president, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, flash what looks like the Nazi salute. I mean, we fought a war over this. There was a time when that gesture, even if it resembled that gesture, would've ended a political career. How does this make sense?
Rep. Hurd: It doesn't to me, Ryan. I condemn any antisemitism, flashing of a salute like that. I think there is a very dark history associated with that. I condemn it wholeheartedly.
