Reading Time: 5 minutes

It’s boom times for Wisconsin’s congressional delegation: Most members have seen their personal wealth substantially rise since arriving on Capitol Hill, according to a NOTUS analysis of congressional financial disclosures.

That surge in their financial portfolios is primarily driven by real estate, retirement accounts and, in one case, a well-placed billboard, NOTUS’ analysis indicates. In all, five of Wisconsin’s 10 delegation members reported median net worths of more than $1 million in 2024, the most recent year covered by federal disclosures.

Overall, the Wisconsin delegation is much wealthier than the average Wisconsinite, who has a median net worth of about $76,000, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Republican Sen. Ron Johnson’s median net worth nearly tripled in recent years, from $24 million in 2010, when he was first elected to the Senate, to $64.9 million in 2024.

One of the assets driving the uptick in Johnson’s median net worth is an industrial building he and his wife own in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The property was worth between $1 million and $5 million in 2010. In 2024, Johnson valued it at between $5 million and $25 million, according to his latest financial disclosure.

In a decidedly political twist, part of Johnson’s wealth is tied up with his own reelection campaign committee. Federal Election Commission records indicate Johnson’s campaign owes Johnson more than $8 million from personal loans he’s made to the committee. In his 2024 personal financial disclosure, Johnson lists these loans as assets, valuing them between $5 million and $25 million.

Johnson’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Therein lies a major challenge in pinpointing lawmakers’ net worths: They are only required to publicly disclose the value of their assets and liabilities in broad ranges. So if an asset increased from $4.9 million to $5.1 million, it grew 4%, but the category range (going from $1-$5 million to $5-$25 million) would have increased 400%.

Lawmakers also aren’t required to disclose the value of several assets including personal property, vehicles or their personal residence, although they do have to declare the value of their mortgage as a liability along with other debts including credit card balances and student loans.

To best estimate lawmakers’ wealth, NOTUS calculated the median of their minimum net worth — minimum total assets minus maximum liabilities — and maximum net worth — maximum total assets minus minimum liabilities.

Johnson is hardly alone among Wisconsin lawmakers whose personal wealth has grown substantially while they earn a $174,000 annual salary.

Among the others: Republican Reps. Glenn Grothman, Bryan Steil, Scott Fitzgerald and Tom Tiffany, as well as Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan.

Steil, elected to Congress in 2018, and Grothman, elected in 2014, have both become millionaires since they entered Congress.

Grothman’s median net worth has more than doubled, from $885,000 in 2014 to more than $2.2 million in 2024. Several accounts Grothman disclosed owning in 2014, including state retirement accounts and two individual retirement accounts, steadily increased in value. And the value of a condominium he owns in West Bend, Wisconsin, greatly increased, from a reported minimum value of $15,001 in 2014 to $100,001 in 2024, according to his financial disclosures. The condominium could be worth as much as $250,000, according to Grothman’s latest disclosure.

Grothman’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Steil’s median net worth more than doubled from 2018 to 2024, from $812,000 in 2018 to nearly $1.9 million in 2024, according to his financial disclosures. Several of Steil’s brokerage and retirement accounts jumped in value, including Vanguard Target Retirement, Mid Cap Growth Index Fund and Strategic Equity Investor accounts. He also added a Vanguard U.S. Growth Fund account worth between $250,001 and $500,000 that’s now among his largest assets.

Steil’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Fitzgerald’s median net worth increased from $3.5 million in 2021, his first year in the House, to $6.3 million in 2024. His financial disclosure report from 2020, the year he was elected, is blank and has not been amended.

A spokesperson for Fitzgerald did not return a request for comment.

Fitzgerald’s wealth spike is primarily driven by real estate investments. The minimum disclosed value of his Wisconsin farm increased from $500,001 to $1 million over those three years, and he disclosed a property in Watertown, Wisconsin, in 2024 that’s worth at least $250,001. He also disclosed a Big Horn, Montana, property worth between $1 million and $5 million, although the property’s value range did not change between 2021 and 2024.

Tiffany’s median net worth ticked up slightly from $230,000 in 2020 to $296,000 in 2024, according to his latest disclosure.

Some of his income comes from on high: He owns a billboard in Oneida, Wisconsin, worth between $1,001 and $15,000 that consistently generates between $5,000 and $15,000 each year, according to his disclosures.

Tiffany’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Pocan’s median net worth has also risen, from $541,000 in 2012 to $778,000 in 2024.

Most of his net worth comes from Budget Signs & Specialties, a printing company Pocan fully owns. It sells custom signs, awards and apparel, as well as campaign materials to Wisconsin Democratic candidates, and is valued between $500,001 and $1 million. It was valued between $250,001 and $500,000 in 2012.

Political candidates and committees have paid Pocan’s Budget Signs & Specialties more than $1.2 million since 2004, according to FEC data. That includes about $12,700 so far during the 2026 election cycle, with $7,600 collectively coming from Pocan’s own congressional campaign committee and the committee of Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Baldwin’s campaign committees and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin are among Pocan’s biggest political customers over the last 22 years, FEC filings indicate.

The state Democratic Party has paid Pocan’s company more than $500,000 for materials such as yard signs and T-shirts since 2008. Committees for Baldwin’s House and Senate campaigns have collectively spent $171,000 since 2004.

In addition, Pocan’s campaign committee has paid his business more than $91,000 for printing and copying services and signs since 2018, according to FEC filings.

Pocan’s office declined to comment on the congressman’s net worth increase and business.

Baldwin’s median net worth has dipped slightly from $623,000 in 2012 to $588,000 in 2024, according to her financial disclosures.

Baldwin’s office said in a statement that the Wisconsin Democrat has “no knowledge of where her assets are invested or the composition of her portfolio” and communicates with her trustee through the Senate Ethics Committee.

One of the delegation’s wealthiest members is also its newest.

Republican Rep. Tony Wied, whose median net worth is nearly $10.1 million, arrived in Washington in 2024 after selling his chain of dinosaur-themed gas stations and convenience stores.

Wied holds between $50,000 and $100,000 in Black Hills Corp., an electric and gas utility in the West, and at least $250,000 in companies that produce tractors, trucks and automotive parts, including an investment in the Canadian National Railway.

That’s notable because Wied sits on the House Agriculture Committee and House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, where he serves on the subcommittee for rural development, energy and supply chains. These committees have oversight jurisdiction for the industries in which Wied personally invests.

Wied reports his stock trades each month to the House Ethics Committee in compliance with current law and guidelines, spokesperson Aidan Strongreen said.

“Congressman Wied’s investments are managed solely through an independent financial adviser, and he has no role in any of their decisions,” Strongreen said.

Only two members of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation have net worths below the Wisconsin household median, according to a NOTUS analysis of their annual financial disclosures: Republican Rep. Derrick Van Orden and Democratic Rep. Gwen Moore.

Van Orden’s median net worth is -$88,000, while Moore’s is also in the red, at -$75,000, according to their most recent financial disclosures.

On her most recent disclosure, Moore reported no assets. She disclosed a mortgage balance on her home in the range of $50,000 to $100,000. Lawmakers are not required to publicly disclose the value of their personal residence, and most do not.

Moore’s net worth has dropped almost $100,000 from $24,000 in 2008, according to her disclosure.

Van Orden does have some assets, primarily a Navy Mutual Whole Life policy valued between $50,001 and $100,000, his disclosure shows. But his overall net worth is pulled down by a mortgage and a “revolving charge account,” a category that includes credit cards and home equity and personal credit lines.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Here’s how much the wealth of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation has changed since going to Washington is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

A Wisconsin court has dismissed Democrats’ efforts to get the state to redraw its congressional maps.

The three-judge circuit court panel said it did not have jurisdiction to decide whether the state’s congressional districts have been gerrymandered along partisan lines, leaving the matter to the state’s Supreme Court.

“This Panel is not endorsing the current congressional map. Rather, we, as circuit court judges, do not have the authority to read into a Wisconsin Supreme Court case an analysis that it does not contain,” the judges wrote.

Wisconsin’s current district lines trace back to the 2011 congressional maps, which attorneys for the Democrats said were gerrymandered by the Republican-controlled Legislature. Gov. Tony Evers vetoed Republican-drawn 2021 maps, which then prompted the state Supreme Court to order new maps drawn that made the “least change” to the existing district lines from 2011.

This lawsuit was part of a wave of redistricting suits filed by Democratic-aligned groups across the country, but it’s unlikely to yield new maps before the midterm elections.

Republicans represent six of Wisconsin’s eight congressional districts, though statewide partisan elections are often competitive and only won by a slim margin. Sens. Ron Johnson and Tammy Baldwin — a Republican and a Democrat, respectively — won their most recent elections by a percentage point or less. Evers won reelection by more than 3 percentage points in 2022.

Attorneys in the redistricting case may appeal the panel judgment to the state Supreme Court. Another redistricting lawsuit, which argues that Wisconsin’s congressional maps favor incumbents, is pending before its own three-judge circuit court panel.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Wisconsin court dismisses Democrats’ attempt to redraw congressional map is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Small businesses that paid President Donald Trump’s tariffs have been largely left to fend for themselves as they navigate the administration’s refund system.

In Washington, the lawmakers calling for small businesses to be first in line to receive their share of the $166 billion paid in tariffs say that, for the most part, their hands are tied.

“I’m fighting for that to happen, but most of it’s going to end up playing out in court, but it really matters to our small businesses in particular,” said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.

Baldwin said she met with the owners of a local textile company that laid off staff to afford tariffs on imported fabric — and now they wonder if they’ll get their money back.

In Wisconsin, importers paid $3.5 billion in tariffs from March to December 2025, according to the small business coalition We Pay The Tariffs. More than a dozen Wisconsin companies, including Milwaukee Tool and Kohl’s, have sued the Trump administration for tariff refunds.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol is currently updating its duty payment processing system to issue refunds at scale. Officials must review more than 53 million entries filed by importers that include emergency tariff payments.

The development of the CBP system’s new functions to receive, process and refund these duties was mostly complete as of last week, according to court filings.

Once the process is set, it becomes a question of who has the resources and know-how to navigate CBP’s refund system. The Trump administration is requiring business owners to file their own claims.

CBP’s updated system will require importers to file a declaration detailing their payments of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, according to an affidavit filed in trade court earlier this month.

“It’s incumbent on smaller importers to do what they need to do to get their money,” said Chris Duncan, a former CBP attorney who currently works as a tariffs and customs lawyer.

Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, said that puts small businesses at a disadvantage.

“Small businesses do not have teams of legal and financial experts to submit their forms. Small businesses do not have the time to navigate this convoluted system,” Markey said in a call with business owners last week. “Small businesses need their refunds, and they need them now.”

Markey and 19 other Democratic senators sent a letter to CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott on Friday demanding the agency automatically refund IEEPA tariffs through its existing system rather than the updated one.

“There is no principled reason for the Trump administration to conduct the refund process this way,” reads the letter, reviewed by NOTUS. “CBP already has the payment records it needs to issue refunds.”

Markey — along with Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeanne Shaheen — also introduced a bill that would require CBP to issue full tariff refunds with interest and prioritize returning money to small businesses.

Without buy-in from Republicans, however, Democratic senators say it will be up to the local communities to pressure the federal government.

“What is going to be most helpful is to create enough pressure in communities, particularly small communities,” Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said.

Rep. Mark Pocan, a Democrat who represents the Madison area, expressed concern about the “dysfunction” that could arise from companies trying to navigate the intricacies of the CBP’s refund system and answer to consumers who shouldered price increases.

“Bottom line is, we never should have done illegal tariffs to begin with. Congress should have stood up, as Democrats had asked for, for our constitutional authority around tariffs, and now we’re going to wind up creating all kinds of dysfunction for businesses and individuals,” Pocan said.

Following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down his emergency tariffs in February, Trump said he would continue his tariff agenda using alternative legal authorities and imposed a 15% global tariff, which Congress must vote to extend later this year.

Trump allies in Congress say the president’s tariffs, which are unpopular among voters, are short-term pain for the long-term gain of balancing the U.S.’s trade relationships and attracting foreign investment.

Nevertheless, when asked if tariff refunds should be passed on to consumers, Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican who represents suburban and rural areas west of Milwaukee, expressed openness to the idea.

“If it’s something that they could actually draw, like a clear line or a bright line. You know, we had a lot of companies where the tariffs had a direct effect on aluminum out of Canada or textiles out of Vietnam, or — you know, it was all part of the manufacturing process,” Fitzgerald said.

“So I’m not sure how that would shake out either, if it was one element of a larger manufacturing versus, like, a straight retailer who was selling some type of consumer goods.”

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Lawmakers are worried small businesses will get left behind in Trump’s tariff refund system is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race could have spurred another bank-breaking election cycle. Instead, national super donors have kept their pocketbooks closed, and with only a month until the election, the liberal candidate appears to be sailing ahead in contributions.

Wisconsin Court of Appeals Judge Chris Taylor, the liberal candidate, has raised more than $3.8 million over the past year, compared to the $438,000 conservative candidate Maria Lazar, who is also an appellate judge, has brought in. 

The low-key nature of this year’s race is a sharp reversal from the 2025 state Supreme Court contest, in which the candidate campaigns, political parties, outside interest groups and mega billionaire Elon Musk combined to spend a record $144.5 million on the contest. Brad Schimel lost to Susan Crawford, maintaining the liberal majority on the court.

But the financial landscape of the election is not a done deal, both camps say.

“We can’t take anything for granted on our side,” said Sam Roecker, a Taylor adviser. “We know that there are supporters of (Lazar’s) who have the capacity to dump a lot of money in this race, and we saw what happened last time around when tens of millions of dollars got poured in.”

And as more voters start paying attention to the race, Lazar has a “window of opportunity” in the weeks leading up to the April 7 election, Republican strategist Bill McCoshen said.

“The truth is a lot of folks on the conservative side thought that our candidate wasn’t going to have a very strong chance a month ago. Now we think she could actually win,” McCoshen said.

Without big spending, this year’s state Supreme Court campaigns aren’t breaking through to voters like they did in 2025. Just 6% of voters said they had heard a lot about the election, compared to 39% at the same time last year, according to a Marquette Law School Poll released last month.

Despite Taylor’s wide fundraising advantage and outsize TV advertising, about two-thirds of voters are undecided, the same poll found. Taylor polled 5 percentage points higher than Lazar among voters who have made a decision, narrowly outside the margin of error.

“The real point is it’s not getting through to voters, or voters haven’t tuned into it. But you know, that’s more than a six to one greater awareness a year ago than it is today,” said Charles Franklin, the director of the Marquette Law School Poll. “I’m not saying that we’ll go into election day without anybody having heard anything, but it was an earlier campaign last year and with more resources behind it.”

Generally, liberal candidates have an advantage in spring judicial elections, Franklin said. College graduates and older voters, who have shifted leftward over the past several decades, are the primary voting blocs in spring court elections.

The stakes are different this cycle. The court’s liberal majority is secure. The winner will replace retiring conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley. Still, losing this race would make it even harder for conservatives to regain power on the state’s high court. If they lose this year, they would have to retain the seats held by conservatives Annette Ziegler next year and Brian Hagedorn in 2029 and then flip seats held by liberals Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky in 2028 and 2030.

“Last year’s was to determine which ideological faction will have control of a majority of the court, and this year’s won’t change that. This year’s is to replace a conservative on a court that leans liberal already,” said Jeff Mandell, the co-founder of the progressive organization Law Forward.

Janine Geske. a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, said that liberal voters have been galvanized to turn out for judicial elections by hot-button national issues like abortion and gerrymandering that have taken center stage in the state’s highest court. 

“Those issues became really the issues on the ballot versus the candidates themselves. As a result, I think we had more progressive candidates,” Geske said.

It’s a playbook that was adopted by Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz, who won Wisconsin’s high-profile race in 2023 on a platform of sharing her “values” regarding political issues that were likely to come before the court.

Lazar just might find success with that strategy, too, McCoshen said.

“Judge Lazar is doing a better job of at least tipping her hat to what her conservative leanings may be so that voters have a better understanding of what they’re voting for,” McCoshen said.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

One year after Elon Musk’s Wisconsin spending blitz, the state’s Supreme Court race falls quiet is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Rep. Derrick Van Orden stands out among vulnerable House Republicans: He has not softened his rhetoric on President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement tactics, despite public outcry over the killings of two U.S. citizens in Minnesota.

The Wisconsin Republican, whose seat is one of Democrats’ targets in the 2026 midterms, supported an investigation into Alex Pretti’s killing, but said his “support for federal law enforcement” would remain “unwavering.”

Van Orden told NOTUS he is holding firm in his support for the Trump administration’s deportation efforts because of the crime committed by unauthorized immigrants.

He cited a video posted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement last week alongside the caption, “American citizens raped and murdered by those who have no right to be in our country.”

“That’s why I back ICE,” Van Orden said. “Watch that video, and then you would never ask me that question again.”

“If you can look at that thing and see all these people that have been brutally murdered and the families that have been destroyed because of these criminal, illegal aliens, and you’re willing to turn your back to it, that means you have an alternative purpose or an alternative objective,” Van Orden said.

Van Orden’s hard-line position in support of the president’s mass deportation agenda in one of this year’s most competitive races will test the Trump agenda in the very part of the country that helped secure the president a second term in the White House.

His district includes the farmland and exurbs of Minnesota’s Twin Cities, spanning Wisconsin’s border with Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois. Van Orden won by a margin of 2.8 percentage points in 2024. Trump won the district by more than 7 percentage points. In a midterm cycle that favors Democrats, and at a time voters are losing trust in Republicans’ immigration agenda, the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the race as a “toss up.”

“We’re not a border state. It’s not something that was on the agenda prior to Trump. And obviously, people like Derrick Van Orden have taken the most extreme possible positions on an issue that I’m not sure was top of mind for most Wisconsin voters,” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative political commentator and Wisconsin resident.

Van Orden has shown his MAGA bona fides through issues like immigration and trade, where he has defended the president’s actions.

He followed the administration’s lead, expressing support for body cameras on immigration officers, a reform that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said she would implement after Pretti was killed. Democrats want to standardize that policy in a DHS funding bill.

“It allows good cops to be good cops, and it holds police officers that may not be doing what they should do accountable publicly,” Van Orden said. “And that makes the force better, that makes the American population trust law enforcement more.”

He said he will await the results of a full investigation into Pretti’s death, but has laid the blame for the rise of political violence squarely with Democrats, as many in the administration and Trump’s circle have done.

“This is unfortunately true for many Democrats. They’re willing to put those American lives, throw them into the garbage can for political power, which means they have no business being in power,” Van Orden said.

There are issues where Van Orden has broken with the conservative mainstream. In January, he voted to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies to prevent coverage loss, though he is opposed to the program. He has advocated for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which he used as a child, though he voted for cuts to the program in the budget reconciliation bill.

Faced with a frustrated agricultural industry, Van Orden introduced a bill to create a path to temporary worker status for immigrant agricultural workers who self-deport and pay a fine. Wisconsin farms employ a large immigrant labor force.

“He has this interesting dichotomy of picking some of those softer issues that might appeal to independents and some others, versus his very strong pro-Trump issues where, obviously that’s going to settle well with the MAGA voters and the pro-Trump Republicans,” said independent political strategist Brandon Scholz, who formerly ran the Wisconsin Republican Party.

In contrast, other House Republicans facing heated reelection bids this year have moderated their positions on immigration enforcement, calling for a reassessment of the country’s immigration policy.

“Congress and the president need to embrace a new comprehensive national immigration policy that acknowledges Americans’ many legitimate concerns about how the government has conducted immigration policy,” Rep. Mike Lawler wrote for The New York Times.

Van Orden declined to comment on other Democratic demands for DHS reforms, which include a ban on masks and identification requirements for immigration agents, until the party funds the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service and the U.S. Coast Guard.

It is these nonimmigration agencies within DHS that Van Orden’s constituents are affected by during the partial government shutdown, which has left some without paychecks and blocked others from receiving their boating licenses to go out on the district’s many lakes, he said.

That message may work with his constituents, Scholz said. While Republican voters in Wisconsin may be concerned about immigration, the issue has not historically been top of mind for them.

“There are other issues for them that may be more critical to making a decision on what they’re going to do, i.e. economic issues,” Scholz said.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Vulnerable House Republicans have softened on immigration. Derrick Van Orden hasn’t. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Republican lawmakers have heard farmers’ concerns about President Donald Trump’s tariff agenda. Their response? Short-term pain, long-term gain.

Farmers faced a shrunken export market and operating costs after Trump enforced steep tariffs on key trading partners and farm materials last year. In response, the Trump administration will begin disbursing a $12 billion bailout to farmers due to “unfair market disruptions” at the end of this month.

Republican lawmakers from Wisconsin, a major agricultural producer, acknowledge the 2025 to 2026 crop season challenges, which resulted in an estimated $34.6 billion in losses for the industry, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation. But they’re arguing that the success of specialty crops and rosier-than-expected economic indicators are evidence farmers can withstand any turmoil the tariffs have caused.

“Our farmers understand that we have to level the playing field. And how do you do that? You do that with these tariffs,” U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden said. “In order to get to the long term, you have to get through the short term, and that’s the reason that this money’s going back to people in the agriculture industry.”

A bipartisan group of agricultural experts said the Trump administration’s policies have “significantly damaged” the American farm economy in a letter to Senate Agriculture Committee leadership this month, as first reported by The New York Times.

“It is clear that the current Administration’s actions, along with Congressional inaction, have increased costs for farm inputs, disrupted overseas and domestic markets, denied agriculture its reliable labor pool, and defunded critical ag research and staffing,” they wrote.

Wisconsin agriculture experts told NOTUS the administration’s bailout is undesirable and insufficient to cover many farmers’ lost revenue this year.

“They don’t solve the long-run problem of higher input costs and low prices; they are a Band-Aid to get us through this short-term problem,” said Paul Mitchell, the director of the Renk Agribusiness Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Agriculture professor and economist Steven Deller, also of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, had a similar view.

“We’re hemorrhaging thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars, and they’re giving us pennies,” Deller said, adding that farmers want “fair markets” and a “level playing field.”

Republicans in the state, however, are standing behind the president’s agenda, pointing to the administration’s stated goal to boost the manufacturing industry through baseline tariff rates for all countries, reciprocal tariffs and tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico.

“Wisconsin, at the end of the day, is going to benefit as we bring manufacturing back to the state,” said U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the likely GOP nominee for governor.

He blamed the North American Free Trade Agreement for sending manufacturing companies packing for cheaper operations in China. Trump replaced NAFTA during his first term in office with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement — a deal Tiffany applauded.

Trump administration officials have defended tariffs in cable television appearances and in congressional hearings as key to transforming the American economy, even as some agricultural industries languish. At a Senate Banking Committee hearing earlier this month, Democratic Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on whether instability in the agricultural markets is a result of Trump’s tariff policies.

“It has nothing to do with the tariffs,” Bessent said.

Still, there are some signs the administration could be responsive to the backlash. The Trump administration is planning to roll back tariffs on some steel and aluminum goods due to concerns the tariffs are hurting consumers, the Financial Times reported.

The soybean industry is one of the hardest hit by tariffs, which temporarily cost farmers the U.S.’ largest soybean trading partner, China. Although China fulfilled its initial purchase agreement last month and has agreed to purchase tens of millions more metric tons over the next few years, American soybean producers withstood an unprecedented five consecutive months without purchases by China.

This story was produced and originally published by Wisconsin Watch and NOTUS, a publication from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Allbritton Journalism Institute.

Republicans are looking past the short-term pain of Trump’s tariffs is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.