Congressman Jeff Hurd has been vocal about when he’s willing to break with his party, but he says voters deciding whether to send him back to Washington, D.C. this fall should be mindful of his ability to work with Republicans as well.
“Being an effective legislator requires standing up for your constituents, standing up for your principles, but also being smart in how you fight,” Hurd told Colorado Matters Senior Host Ryan Warner, adding that “Not every battle can be the Alamo.”
Hurd, an attorney from Grand Junction, was elected in 2024 to represent Colorado’s sprawling 3rd Congressional District, which includes the major population centers of Mesa County and Pueblo County, while also stretching up to Craig and down to Durango. He faces Democratic challenger and former Aspen City Councilman Dwayne Romero in the November election.
In his campaign for a second term, Hurd has been outspoken about times he’s voted against the Trump administration, notably on tariff policy and a vote that would have extended now-defunct subsidies for health insurance.
But, he said, there’s still value to the 3rd Congressional District in having a Republican in office.
“Having a relationship with the administration, with the White House is important if you want to have that channel of communication open, if you want to be effective for your constituents,” Hurd said.
Notably, Hurd helped to unfreeze a $40 million grant that was meant to help fund a water rights purchase on the Colorado River that would benefit his district. The Trump administration froze those funds and held them in limbo for more than a year.
While the incumbent Republican has differed with the Trump administration on issues like tariffs, he has been a supporter of the administration on policies like the SAVE America Act, which would add new requirements around voting, and the Iran war, which has driven up fuel costs.
“The high cost of energy hurts working families in many ways. And I know I'm committed to doing everything I can to lowering those costs long term, but obviously there are going to be external events, military actions, the war in Iran that are going to prevent that or make it more difficult,” Hurd said
Hurd spoke with Colorado Matters about how the Iran war is going, his priorities for the district and whether he supports Victor Marx as the Republican candidate for governor of Colorado.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Ryan Warner: When you took office, gasoline in Colorado was around $2.80 a gallon. Diesel, important to your district, was around $3.50. What happened?
Jeff Hurd: Well, there's only so much that a Congress or a president can control when it comes to energy prices, the cost of gas, the cost of diesel. A lot of it depends on external markets. And with the disruption that we've seen — particularly in the Middle East — the United States may be energy dominant, we may be producing more energy than we consume, but we are subject to influences and prices and markets that themselves depend on international events overseas. And I think we've seen some of those events causing upward pressure, both for the price of gasoline and the price of diesel. And that's something that I certainly take seriously as somebody that represents people that are impacted by those costs of electricity and cost of energy.
Do you draw a line between the president's policies and that disruption?
Hurd: Well, particularly the disruption that we see in the Strait of Hormuz is going to have an impact on global markets, without a doubt. One of the things that this actually has highlighted for me also is that there are other global pinch points that we need to be careful of when it comes to military action and also the potential for adversaries to take military action. The Strait of Malacca is another one where an adversary much in the same way that we've seen with the Strait of Hormuz can rapidly close a choke point and we could see increasing costs in all sorts of things. So yes, the action in Iran, the military action in Iran, has resulted in disruption of flows out of Strait of Hormuz, and that has an impact on global oil markets and energy markets, absolutely.
Don't you think that Republicans, including yourself, were sent to office on lowering costs and that this flies in the face of that promise?
Hurd: Well, one of the things that we are trying to do in Congress is making sure that we focus on the fundamentals in the economy — creating a regulatory environment within which we can have low-cost, reliable energy and gas and diesel. The vagaries that we see, the incidents that happen overseas can have an influence on that. We can only control so much, but what we can do is control the fundamentals and work hard to make sure that when these disruptions abate, that we can put all of the circumstances in place where we can have low-cost, reliable and affordable energy and as inexpensive as possible.
You use words like “vagaries” and “disruptions.” It feels removed a bit from how U.S. foreign policy right now is a pretty direct impact on the cost of things.
Hurd: Let me be direct. The military action in Iran, which I support, which I think is important, it's critical for National Security both to prevent the greatest state sponsor of terrorism from having nuclear weapons, from deploying them or also disabling the ballistic missile shield system that they were building around them is something I support. And that is, to me, a very serious threat and I supported the president's actions with respect to neutralizing that threat. Obviously, the repercussions of that military action are ongoing and one of the disruptions that we see that's having an effect on energy prices is the shortage of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz.
What's the end game in Iran? It doesn't seem like regime change is on the horizon.
Hurd: I think it's essential that we ensure Iran has no access to nuclear weapons, that they're not on the cusp of developing or deploying nuclear weapons, and also that the ballistic missile shield that they're preparing to protect that nuclear weapons program cannot be reconstituted.
Are we there, yet?
Hurd: We're making progress, but I will tell you one of the things that we've learned is war is difficult. It's complicated. There are certainly, in terms of degrading Iran's capacities, we have taken tremendous steps, but the disruption that we've seen in the Strait of Hormuz is certainly something that is affecting global markets and therefore constituents like those of mine here in Colorado's 3rd District.
Do you have confidence that this administration has an exit strategy?
Hurd: I think in terms of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon and degrading its ability to protect them with the ballistic missile shield, absolutely. I think when it comes to the workarounds in the Strait of Hormuz, I think we've seen some progress. The prices that we're seeing in Colorado, we haven't seen since 2022, since the Biden administration, and they were high then. We need to make sure that we do everything we can to control those costs because in many ways the costs that we're talking about are costs that are paid for by our farmers, by our ranchers, as well as working families just getting to work. The high cost of energy hurts working families in many ways. And I know I'm committed to doing everything I can to lowering those costs long-term, but obviously there are going to be external events, military actions, the war in Iran that are going to prevent that or make it more difficult.
You mentioned Mr. Biden there in saying that gas prices had been high at points during his administration, but you began by saying that a president has limited control. Does a Democratic president have more control over gas prices than a Republican president?
Hurd: I think it depends. If we're talking about long-term policies and creating policies that further energy independence and energy exports, absolutely. If we're talking about canceling, for example, the Keystone XL pipeline, I think that's something that was well within the authority of the Biden administration that actually increased energy costs for Americans. Now, there are certain things that we can do within our regulatory structure here in the country to incentivize low-cost, reliable, affordable energy, gasoline, diesel, but it is very true that at the end of the day, there are going to be external events that also have a say as well. So, part of it is under the president's control, part of it is under Congress' control, those fundamentals, but there are always going to be some external events that can complicate that energy cost picture.
Here's something that seems to be entirely under this administration's control. We reported recently that Xcel Energy has spent at least $4 million keeping a portion of the Craig power plant running. This is to appease the Trump administration. And that is likely only a fraction of what's being spent to keep it operating and yet producing very little power. Craig is in your district. Are those expenses being passed along to your constituents?
Hurd: We're going to see exactly how that rate structure and how that recoupment works. It's possible that it could go through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and that it might be paid for by customers that are relying on that capacity. Ryan, that power plant was brought online earlier this year because there's a shortage of electric generation capacity in the Rocky Mountain region in the West. I will tell you that there's an opportunity to recoup those costs even more, to make more money. As a former electric utility lawyer, I can tell you that if there was an ability for Craig to sell that power and sell that capacity on the market in a longer-term horizon, there could be ways to minimize the cost or also increase the amount of revenue that's coming in and actually save customers. We need to find that right balance. One of the complications is section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act, which is keeping that power plant open, can only operate in 90-day windows.
That window is oftentimes hard to sell in the electric capacity markets. And so it's a complication that we have to deal with and part of that solution might be just opening up that window and giving power plants like Craig a longer window to be on the market generating power and selling that capacity and earning more money.
And earning more money and presumably generating more power as a result. So I just want to understand that you support fundamentally the administration's plea to keep Craig running.
Hurd: I support the president's order keeping the Craig Power Plant online, yes. I think the market has also shown that we need that capacity. I will also tell you, Ryan, what happened over in Pueblo with the Comanche Power Station Unit 2, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission on its own recognized the importance of keeping that generating unit on as well. We are in an electric capacity crunch here in this region and making sure that we have reliable, dependable base load and dispatchable generation is critical to our economic security and keeping the lights on.
Meanwhile, in places like China and Pakistan — this is fascinating: Lahore, Pakistan, I learned has one of the highest rates of solar adoption in the world right now. Pakistan's solar power has increased by five times in the last five years. Are we in the dark ages by burning coal?
Hurd: The argument that I would make is one of displacement. If you genuinely care about reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, if this issue is genuinely a global issue, we can displace some of the more carbon-intense, higher CO2 emissions from other countries by generating electricity more responsibly here in the United States. And that includes some of the power stations like Craig, like Comanche. So I think it's a little bit too simplistic to say we should just take all base-load generation, all legacy fossil fuel generation offline here in Colorado. We need to also account for the carbon intensity of that generation and the environmental standards that we have here. And they're much better than I think what you would see in other places. I would tell you, though, that I do believe in all-of-the-above, best-of-the-above energy, Ryan, which includes renewables like wind, like solar, like nuclear, like geothermal.
That's one of the major bills I passed out of the House of Representatives was, I think, the largest geothermal permitting reform bill in the country's history. Those are examples of good energy policy that don't limit us to only legacy generation or to only renewables, but that have an all-of-the-above, best-of-the-above approach. And I think that's good public policy.
You talk about the benefits of producing energy from fossil fuels here versus abroad. And yet this is an administration that, for instance, conducted an incursion into Venezuela and seems to be pushing for more oil development in South America. Can you square those with me?
Hurd: Well, the global market for oil is one that we are subject to and ensuring that there's an adequate supply of oil on the market is something that matters to Americans who have to fill up their gas tanks or the farmer that's having to fill up diesel in his tractor. And so ensuring an adequate supply globally is something that matters to us here. We may be producing more energy than we've ever produced before, but we are still subject to that global market.
Is a vote for Jeff Hurd this November a vote for Donald Trump?
Hurd: I think a vote for Jeff Hurd is a vote for a representative who has worked hard to be effective and who's independent, has shown his independence, has gotten the attention of the White House because of his independence, but who has reflected his district and has worked hard to get results, whether it's the Shoshone water right that we are able to secure, whether it's the disaster funding that we're able to secure for Aspen Acres for the Gold Mountain fire, whether it's support for rural veterans that need transport in Huerfano County. I think I've shown and I've exhibited a track record of independence and effectiveness that I hope will be the measure that voters use to decide whether or not they'll reelect me in November.
It's fascinating you invoked Shoshone. Donald Trump froze about $40 million in grant funding for that water rights deal. Indeed, you helped unfreeze that. Are you a hostage negotiator?
Hurd: No. I think I was an advocate for my district and talked with the White House and let them know just how important this was, not only to my district, but to our state and also to the negotiations that are happening in the Colorado River Basin. There are 40 million Americans that rely on the water that flows through this river basin and 70% of the water that's in the river basin comes through Colorado's 3rd District. I think all of those things together, my leaning on the White House, letting them know how important this was to me personally, but also to the Colorado River Basin was ultimately what got this across the finish line. But it was a difficult and tough process, but it was bipartisan too. The initial legislation that authorized this funding came from Sen. (Michael) Bennet, in particular. Sen. (John) Hickenlooper was also supportive of it.
The funding was frozen and we were able to get it through in the end, which is a good result. And I'm proud to have had an important role in making sure that we deliver that win for Western Colorado.
I mean, aren't you saying you're proud of fixing a problem your own party created?
Hurd: It should not have been frozen. This is one of the struggles that we have just as a Congress in reasserting our authority under Article I of the Constitution. This is why, Ryan, I've also been willing to stand up even when I don't agree with 100% of what funding has gone to. If Congress has made a decision about spending, I think it's up to the executive branch to execute that unless it violates some other law or the Constitution. And so I've shown a willingness to stand up, for example, on the National Center for Atmospheric Research — NCAR — over in Boulder, not in my district. Some of the research that they're doing, I may not feel is the best use of government research and government funding resources, but at the end of the day, Congress made that appropriation. It's up to the executive branch to implement it.
I think if you look through the history of our country, you will see examples of presidents and administrations withholding funding for various reasons. And we saw that certainly in the past two years and where that's happened, even if I don't necessarily agree with 100% of what those dollars are being spent on, I've been willing to stand up and say, "Hey, this is a law. It's up to the executive branch to implement it, not to withhold it." And I did that on Shoshone, I did that on NCAR, and I'll continue to do that on other things as well.
If you look at the timing of Shoshone, I wonder, just as an outsider, how much of the restoration of funding was Jeff Hurd? How much of the restoration of funding was the release of Tina Peters?
Hurd: Great question. I will tell you that we were very close even (before the release). It was a coincidence. It was very close to the decision that Gov. (Jared) Polis made to commute Tina Peters' sentence. I will tell you before that even happened, we were on the verge of making this happen. And I think if circumstances had been different in another week or two, we would have released it as well.
What confidence do you have in saying, or what evidence do you have in saying it's a coincidence?
Hurd: I will tell you direct conversations with the Department of the Interior, with the White House, with individuals at (Office of Management and Budget), which is within the administration. I had been working for a long time with senior leadership within those entities and we were working this funding approval through that process and we were on the verge of getting it already.
You voted to give ICE $70 billion, no strings attached. Is your district getting a return on that money?
Hurd: I voted to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which includes not only ICE, but also the hardworking men and women at the TSA, at the Transportation Security Administration, as well as the Coast Guard funding. And part of that is consistent with my view that it is not a good thing for government to shut down. I don't like when members of either party leverage policy concessions in exchange for keeping the government open. I will tell you, this is something that I have taken a position that's not always popular within members of my own party. I do not believe that ICE agents should be masked as a general matter. I think there are certain extenuating circumstances where that might make sense, but as a general matter, we should be able to identify law enforcement and we should be able to hold them accountable when they have gone beyond what the law allows or what our constitution protects.
And that's a position that I've taken. Working hard to make sure that we implement those changes and pushing for them is something that's important to me, but I did not believe that we should keep the government shut, including the entire Department of Homeland Security shut. I just don't feel like that's good public policy. And so I voted for that bill, but it's not because it's perfect, it's not because I believe that ICE is doing everything in the correct way. I think we need to make some needed reforms in law enforcement just like we have in other agencies as well.
The Gunnison County Sheriff says he's worried that if he makes the wrong decision, ICE will take over his town. In Glenwood Springs, the mayor's fretting that enforcing zoning rules might lead to buses of immigration officers being deployed as retribution. These are elected officials in your district. Are they panicking improperly?
Hurd: First, let me say I would be opposed to any sort of retribution, but we would need to see exactly what the circumstances were. I would tell you that I think some of this is perhaps overstated, the concerns, but if there are evidence or there's examples of any sort of retaliation, I think it's something that we should take seriously in the same way that funding decisions or the withholding of funding decisions purposely by this administration or any administration in exchange for policy concessions is something that we should look at seriously. I know there's a lawsuit that's working its way through federal court in Denver that's on that topic and I've expressed some concerns with that as well. My staff actually gave me a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service detailing disaster funding going back decades and going back decades, you could see that presidents of both parties certainly played politics with respect to some of those decisions.
To me, the potential though that we have an administration that's actively encouraging the cutting of programs and actively calling for it in exchange for policy concessions is something that's different than what we've seen before. And if it's true, which I think we need to let the facts develop themselves, that's something that would be deeply troubling to me.
You're not convinced at this point that there is retribution, that there's quid pro quo. I mean, it's pretty clear that blue states have been disproportionately punished.
Hurd: I think one of the things I've tried to be as a legislator, somebody that waits instead of jumping to conclusions and looks to see what the facts are as they develop. Certainly there are some concerning facts that have developed, but ultimately I think we should let the information develop through that case. And I think if it shows that there is indeed this retribution, that's something that we should address as Congress. And again, but the fundamental issue here is the authority that the executive branch has that it's sort of taken from or that Congress has given to it over many decades. And that's something that I think we as Congress need to reestablish our rightful role under Article I of the Constitution.
Someone who is considering whether to send you back to Washington is going to wonder if you haven't made strides enough in those two years to hold onto power, to reclaim power, and may turn to the Democrat or someone else and say, "Let's get a fighter."
Hurd: One of the things I've learned, Ryan, is being an effective legislator requires standing up for your constituents, standing up for your principles, but also being smart in how you fight. You need to fight smart, which doesn't necessarily mean to fight loud. Publicly, I've taken a position that is defending my constituents, defending the constitution where I've seen it appropriate and there are numerous examples of that. I know that that's been well reported, but I will tell you also, behind the scenes, raising issues and concerns is another part of being an effective legislator. Having a relationship with the administration, with the White House is important if you want to have that channel of communication open, if you want to be effective for your constituents. Not every battle can be the Alamo. You need to be selective in which battles you fight and how you fight them. I think that over the course of the last two years, I've shown that I'm willing to stand up for my district, sometimes publicly, sometimes back channel, in a way that preserves the relationships that I have with the administration in order to deliver results for my district, but that also defends the people that sent me here.
And to take tough votes, for example, on tariffs, even though several minutes before I took the vote, I received a message that there could be consequences in my own primary for taking that vote. I took it nevertheless because it was the right thing to do for my district, it was the right thing under the Constitution, and so I've shown a willingness to fight and to do so in a way that's effective, but also still deliver results for my district.
Was the message directly from Mr. Trump?
Hurd: No, it was a Truth Social media post that he had made while the vote was starting on tariffs, and it was shown to me on the House floor as I was about ready to vote. So it was a tough moment, but at the end of the day, you want to know why I voted the way that I did? I heard from manufacturers here on the Western Slope, from the largest steel rail manufacturer in the country over in Pueblo. I heard from the toy store owner in Garfield County. I heard the brewery owner down in Durango. But I will tell you that the one thing I knew, that I was going to be voting against the tariffs when I heard from a potato farmer in the San Luis Valley that these tariffs were hurting farmers and ranchers in that part of the district. I was already leaning in the direction that I would vote against the tariffs, but when I heard that, I thought these are the people that sent me here. These are the people that I'm representing and I'm not doing my job if I don't stand with them.
I want to move to health care. A new industry survey says employer-provided health coverage is going to go up an average of 11% next year. No doubt an impact on small businesses, local governments as well. Is this confirmation that Gov. Jared Polis was right when he said the One Big Beautiful Bill, which you voted for, would drive up costs across the board?
Hurd: No, I don't think it is. I think there's some fundamental drivers, cost drivers in this system that we need to fix and that we need to address. I will say this as somebody that was willing to vote for, I was one of, I think, 16 or 17 Republicans that voted to extend the enhanced premium tax credits to help small businesses in the individual market that were struggling with healthcare costs. I will tell you that subsidies like the enhanced premium tax credits fundamentally are not good policy in the long term. They're just masking an underlying problem in our health care system. The vote that we took in the One Big Beautiful Bill, the changes that we made to Medicaid and to programs that needy constituents like mine rely on like SNAP, I think fundamentally we're moving in the right direction to preserve those systems for those who need them the most.
But our health care system fundamentally is broken and the drivers that are increasing those costs that are causing those premiums to spike are there notwithstanding the One Big Beautiful Bill Working Families tax cut legislation that we passed.
You invoked SNAP, so food assistance. There's an analysis of the impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill. That 12,000 fewer children are getting that assistance. Should they have been kicked off?
Hurd: No, no child should ever be kicked off of SNAP. The one thing I'm not quite sure yet is the provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill related to the eligibility requirements haven't yet taken effect. So if there are 12,000 children in Colorado, was that in Colorado or was that in my district, Ryan?
I think that's statewide.
Hurd: Statewide. If there are 12,000 children that have been removed from SNAP, I would need to see what the connection is to the legislation that we passed because I don't think anything that we passed would affect that provision of the legislation. The provision of the bill that we passed with respect to SNAP would keep funding at 100%. The federal government would fund 100% of SNAP benefits as long as the state kept its erroneous payment rate below 6%. I think making sure that we incentivize states like Colorado to effectively spend SNAP dollars is good public policy and I'm proud to have the federal government continue to spend all of the SNAP benefits provided that we have states that are administering them properly.
Are you a budget hawk when it comes to children getting food assistance, but not when it comes to a war abroad?
Hurd: We need to make sure that we are spending the dollars that we spend in a way that is wise. I will tell you the fraud, waste and abuse that we've seen, including the overspending, for example, in Medicaid. Ryan, there's reporting that's come out just this week about hundreds of millions of dollars that we are overspending in Medicaid well beyond the budget amounts. I think that suggests that there's a problem that we need to address. We need to make sure that we're taking care of those who need programs like Medicaid the most, that we're doing everything we can to preserve the system for those children, pregnant moms, disabled, low-income seniors who rely on these systems. We need to do the same thing when it comes to the military as well. We need to make sure that we are spending the dollars in a way that keeps our country safe and that's effective.
One of the things I will tell you, Ryan, that's been an eye-opener for me and Congress is the amount of asymmetric warfare that we're seeing across the globe where countries and non-state actors are able to use low-cost or lower-cost weapon systems like swarms of drones or things like that, that our legacy expensive military systems are not always able to address. And so I think when the same sort of scrutiny that we should apply to dollars that we spend on programs for the most needy should be the same scrutiny that we apply to our military systems as well.
You are not just on the ballot this year. You'll be receiving one as well. Does Victor Marx have your support for governor?
Hurd: When it comes to the issues that matter to Colorado, I think we need Republican leadership. We need to make sure that we are providing some balance in our state. We've had, now, well over a decade of unified Democratic rule. I think most fair-minded people would say that having a little bit of balance in government is a good thing. I think we need to work in one of the areas that I know that we've been looking at as well as the state legislature, making sure that Republicans keep their statuses out of the super minority. Part of that is winning elections. And so I'm focused on my election and what I'm working on here in Colorado's 3rd District. I've purposefully stayed out of other elections, including the governor's race, because the message that I'm focused and driving on is for the people of the 3rd Congressional District.
But, certainly, when you look at the business climate in the state, when you look at the cost of living, when you look at the regulations that we're putting on families that are just trying to put food on their plates, we can do a better job than I think Democratic rule has given us in the past decade plus.
Jeff Hurd, that's a lot of words. If the answer is, “Yes, I support Victor Marx.”
Hurd: I'm focused on my race, Ryan. I'm not looking at the governor's race, and I will tell you that's one of the things that I think the people in my district appreciate is that I'm focused on the 3rd Congressional District and making sure that we do everything we can to help the people that live here.
So is it a yes?
Hurd: I'm focused on my race in the 3rd Congressional District.
I think it's so strange that you wouldn't say, “Yes, I support another Republican.” I don't get it.
Hurd: When it comes to the policy, listen, we need to have balance in government. We need to make sure that we are repealing some of the Democratic regulations that I think are hurting small businesses. If you look at our competitiveness in the business climate, there's a huge way to go. I'm focused more on policy than personalities, Ryan. I know that folks in the media don't always appreciate that. They want to try to pin you down and get you to say things that are not focused on your district, but I'm focused on my district.