Following an eventful week in the U.S. House of Representatives, KLIN News was able to speak with Nebraska’s 3rd District Rep. Adrian Smith by phone for a 10-minute interview on Wednesday, July 9, 2025.
The long-time rural representative offered his thoughts and reactions to a range of topics, including his ‘yea’ vote on President Donald Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, last week’s announcement that the Curtis Medical Center in Smith’s district would be closing due to federal cuts to Medicaid, U.S.-Japan relations, and more.
Below is a lightly edited transcript of the interview conducted by KLIN Reporter Chase Porter. *Notes of clarifications are provided where necessary.
KLIN: Thank you for your time today Congressman. Our immediate audience is mainly based in NE-01 and NE-02, but the 3rd District is very unique. It is one of the largest non-at-large districts in the country, covering nearly 65,000 square miles, two time zones and 80 counties. Its often quipped that your district has more cattle than people. You’ve held your seat for nearly 20 years, since 2006. What is it like to represent a district like yours? What are the challenges and the perks when comparing your seat to colleagues that represent more urban districts?
Smith: When you look at the three districts in Nebraska, even though each district is different one from another, it is important that we work together. I’ve joined efforts in supporting UNL projects that might be outside of my district, but I still think the entire state can benefit. Likewise, Rep. Mike Flood (NE-01) and Rep. Don Bacon (NE-02) have been supportive of projects and efforts in the 3rd district, realizing that we’re in this together. In a relatively small state, it’s important that we work together and certainly as it relates to very important things like helping feed the world and helping grow our economy.
I imagine your constituent outreach efforts are unique compared to your colleagues. What is it like to build relationships with your constituents, who might be hundreds of miles apart?
I love to meet folks where they are. Now, it does require a lot of time. It requires some windshield time as well, reaching so many communities across the 80 counties of the 3rd District. But this is something that I think is important, and I’m glad to say we’ve traveled the district very vigorously, and I’m always anxious to visit communities over time because dynamics can shift, dynamics can change. I know we’ve got a changing economy all of the time and new technologies. It’s really fascinating to see, say, a small manufacturer that has the latest and greatest in terms of innovation and technology. Their agriculture, we know, is important. We also have a very vibrant manufacturing sector across Nebraska, certainly in the 3rd District. I find it interesting but also important to visit these sites whenever I can. When we’re not in session in Washington, I’m generally somewhere around the 3rd District visiting businesses and constituents one-on-one.
Last week the House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. You were one of 218 House Republicans to vote ‘yea’ on the bill. What are your overall thoughts on the measure? Are there any parts of that bill that you did not support?
No, the bill, I think, is a very positive step in the right direction. Certainly as it relates to taxes, tax policy, I’ve been very involved on this issue starting from the 2017 bill that literally took years in formulation. To get that done in 2017, some of which ended up being temporary, we needed to revisit the issue and tax policy right now. But it was so important because we know now that what we did in 2017 was the right thing to do. It increased revenues. Now, rules sometime confine the Congressional Budget Office, and others, to produce numbers that aren’t always based on economic realities. But the economic reality is that in 2017 we grew the economy, and when you can grow the economy we can grow revenues to the government.
We do need to bend that curve of spending to address our debt. That’s why the growing economy can increase revenue. Bending the curve on spending is important so that we can address the debt. That cannot be stated with enough emphasis. We need to get a better handle on that, and I think this is a good first step. We know that with today’s technology, we can more efficiently deliver Medicaid for folks who need it the most. We, I think, find it very important to have work requirements to receive benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), for able-bodied individuals without dependents, for example. They need to be working or volunteering and meeting those requirements to have access to those benefits. Ultimately, that strengthens the program, whether it’s SNAP or Medicaid, making sure that the folks who need it the most have the access and making sure that others who don’t need it would be expected to find care through another means. I think we’re in a good spot, very modest. Honestly, I think we could have gone a lot further than we actually did in the Big Beautiful Bill, as it’s become named. But our modest approach, I think, is good for folks in need. It’s good for our economy. It’s good for workers. And I think we are in a very good place right now.
What is your reaction to those figures from the Congressional Budget Office that project the Big Beautiful Bill would add over $3 trillion to the deficit?
Well, they are confined to a set of rules that lead to the numbers that they produce. I get that. You know, they really underestimated the cost to taxpayers as it relates to the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. I mean, they really missed it, that number and the projections. So moving forward, looking at 2017 as well for instruction on what we should expect this time, what we did in 2017 actually resulted in increased revenues because the economy grew. Supporting policies that can grow our economy generally leads to an increase in revenues, and that’s important so that we can look at ultimately addressing our debt with a growing economy and at the same time taking that spending curve and bending that even just slightly can get us to a better place.
*Note: The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) was initially forecast to cost taxpayers around $370 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). However, recent estimates from private firms and think-tanks like Goldman Sachs and the Cato Institute suggest the actual cost could be significantly higher, ranging from $936 billion to $1.97 trillion over 10 years. Such institutions could be said to have political motivations for those estimates. In the IRA, clean energy and climate-related subsidies were not subject to a cap on spending, potentially leading to the discrepancy. As for deficit reduction, the IRA was initially estimated to reduce the deficit by about $238 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO. But other estimates suggest the actual deficit reduction could potentially exceed $500 billion over a longer period according to the Center for American Progress—another institution possibly subject to political influence. Ultimately the real financial impact of these massive spending bills is not certain and subject to change over time.
In regards to Medicaid, cuts to the program are producing some anxiety, especially in communities in your district. The bill is set to cut federal spending on the program by approximately $793 billion over ten years. In light of this, The Community Hospital in McCook announced last week that it will close the Curtis Medical Center in Curtis, winding down its services over the next several months. Further, as many as six Nebraska hospitals said they could be forced to close if the bill passed. I know you’re aware of this, but roughly 121,000 people in your district are Medicaid enrollees, nearly half of those being children. What is your reaction to this worry? What is your message to Nebraska that are scared of losing their access to medical care?
I’ve been in communication with CEOs of some rural hospitals and we’ve had great conversations. They understand some of the challenges that we face across the board, and it’s my sense that they think they can make this work. I’m glad to hear that, I mean, that was that was my sense even before the bill was passed. But I want to stay in close contact with our providers, whether it’s a hospital or physician or nurse, a lot of folks are involved in health care in America so I want to stay in close contact with folks from the district as much as I can moving forward… and uh, realizing that, you know, you take illegal immigrants who have access to Medicaid… that’s not what Medicaid is for. We have other folks who really would otherwise have access to, say, an employer-provided health care plan but have found some Medicaid benefits available. Again, that’s not what Medicaid is for. I realize that, starting with President Obama and maybe even before that, there is an emphasis of having more and more people on Medicaid. When we know that even Medicaid benefits, reimbursements are not as strong as, say, your typical private insurance reimbursement would be. So let’s work together to get folks enrolled in private health insurance. That would be a good thing. Not just good for taxpayers, but I think that would be good for patients as well, especially when we see a lot of providers won’t even take Medicaid in some cases. There are some concerns about Medicare in that same realm as well. But let’s work on very modest, common sense reforms that can actually make things like Medicaid stronger and be able to help folks in need in the most efficient manner possible.
*Note: In Nebraska, undocumented immigrants are only eligible for emergency Medicaid if they meet all the other income and residency rules, and such coverage would not include services like regular doctor visits or chronic condition care. Full Medicaid coverage is only available for citizens, legal residents, and a few very specific immigrant categories. Undocumented persons may only receive emergency Medicaid, which is limited to urgent, life-threatening situations like emergency room care or labor and delivery—and only if they meet all other eligibility rules, including income and residency. However, several states have implemented state-funded, Medicaid-like programs that extend full or near-full coverage to undocumented immigrants. These programs use state-only money, as federal funds cannot be used for this purpose.
I understand that you and your colleagues have sent a letter to the Trump administration regarding ongoing negotiations with trade partners. What was that letter about?
Looking at how important trade is, we want to move forward looking at trade agreements whenever possible. I know the President has taken a very aggressive posture at leveling the playing field, and I think that’s important. Personally, I’m not a huge fan of tariffs, but the president did campaign on this strategy, and he got elected, and he’s carrying that out. I can’t fault him for that, and I actually appreciate the fact that the president is bringing other countries to the table. We know that for a fact. I hear from other countries as to that, and that’s a good thing. Not so long ago, the U.K., for example, wanted to just not include agriculture in any negotiation on trade. I suggested that wouldn’t work, and now with the president’s efforts to level the playing field, we have the U.K. already opening up, proposing to open up on beef and ethanol, just as two examples. So we are headed in the right direction. I am very appreciative of that. I think landing the plane, so to speak, on trade policy, once we get that landed—and now we’ve landed the plane on tax policy and some other regulatory policy—we can be in a really good place heading into next year.
I often consider it a “fun fact” that you co-chair of the U.S.-Japan Caucus with Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas. What has been Japan’s reaction to the Trump administration’s approach to trade? Where are negotiations at with Japan?
I don’t have the details on what those discussions are right now, but I think Japan is a country that is a friend. We share many of the same values. Let me be very honest with you, Japan is a really tough negotiator. I don’t fault them for that. I think their expectation now is that President Trump is a tough negotiator as well. We have a lot more Japanese-made products in our economy, speaking most specifically on automobiles, than, say, some Fords and Chevys being driven in Japan. There are a lot of different dynamics surrounding that… but Japan is very quick to remind me that they import a lot of corn. They import a lot of our beef, even though they themselves produce beef, they also buy a lot of our beef. That’s a good combination, and I think we should celebrate that moving forward. I think there’s room to level the playing field on other aspects of trade as well.
As someone who is actively engaged in those relations, can you talk about the connection between Japan and a place like Nebraska?
Well, looking at, say, the Kawasaki plant in Lincoln. I’m proud to say that a family in Gearing, my hometown, brought the Kawasaki products to the U.S. I think they might have been the first ones to bring Kawasaki products to the U.S., starting back in the 1950s, very different dynamics then. They were the distributors for many years of Kawasaki products. Then we saw the plant get built in Lincoln, in 1974, and we’ve seen the production out of the Lincoln plant really evolve into rail cars and various other vehicles that are not only important to the local economy, but to the national economy as well. That’s just one example of Japan and their role in our economy. But looking at Japan as a friendly customer to our products, that’s important. Japan is in a neighborhood close to China, for example, where China tries to influence in ways that are not positive. We need to be mindful of that, realizing that our relationship with Japan should never be taken for granted and that we want to do things to continue to strengthen our partnership with Japan.
One final question Congressman, the USDA announced today (Wednesday) that agricultural producers who suffered eligible crop losses due to natural disasters in 2023 and 2024 can now apply for $16 billion in assistance through the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP). How will this impact Nebraska farmers?
We want to make sure that there is an appropriate and effective safety net. We also want to make sure we’ve got technology in place so we can make sure those resources get to the folks who need it the most and we don’t have fraud in the system. We want to be very vigilant on that. But also time is of the essence, and we want to make sure that these resources are spun out to places where they’re needed the most. So ultimately agriculture operations can move forward in a way that is ultimately good for consumers as well.
Congressman, thank you for your time this morning.
Likewise.