By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
I am frustrated by politicians who wait until they leave office—or decide not to run again—to tell us what they really believe. I want that honesty while they still have the power to act, not afterward in a memoir or farewell interview.
Locally, I have more opportunities to talk with elected officials and candidates, ask questions and hear their explanations. I have fewer opportunities with state representatives and very little direct access to members of Congress. With congressional seats on the ballot, their public statements, votes and campaign conduct have become especially important to me.
I want every candidate to stand up for what they believe—not simply say what keeps things on an even keel. Agreement is not my test. Honest judgment and the courage to act on it are.
Sen. Thom Tillis’s disclosures bring that concern into focus.
The retiring North Carolina Republican calls his vote to confirm Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth the “biggest regret of my career.” He also says he “should’ve stopped” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from becoming health secretary. In his new book, Tillis explains that he did not want to be “the lone voice in the wilderness” blocking President Trump’s nominees.
Sometimes that is exactly what the job requires: standing alone when your judgment tells you something is wrong.
Yet Tillis also opposed Trump’s major tax-and-spending legislation because he believed its Medicaid provisions would hurt low-income North Carolinians. Trump threatened a primary challenger. Tillis then announced he would not seek reelection. His consequential disagreement preceded his departure announcement.
Both parts matter: the votes he regrets and the stand he took. I wish the independence he demonstrated on Medicaid had guided the decisions he now regrets.
Tillis also writes that at least 30 Republican Senate colleagues expressed private reservations about presidential actions but offered public praise when reporters appeared. That is his account, not proof that every Republican secretly disagrees with Trump. But it makes me wonder whose judgment constituents were hearing.
I recognize that dissent carries costs. Threats against officials and their families are serious, and protecting them is essential. But fear of violence and fear of losing an endorsement are different pressures. Neither should be treated casually, and they should not be confused.
I ask the same of incumbents and newcomers, Republicans and Democrats: explain what you believe, listen to constituents and accept responsibility for your choices.
Incumbents have votes we can examine. Newcomers have experience, public statements and campaign conduct. Do they answer difficult questions? Explain changes of mind? Disagree openly when their convictions require it?
Supporting Trump does not itself prove compromised judgment. Nor does automatic opposition establish independence. I want reasons, not reflexes—and evidence that a candidate can withstand pressure from their own side.
If a president demanded support for a policy you believed would harm your constituents, what would you do? What would you say publicly? What experience shows you can make that difficult choice?
Keeping the peace is not always leadership. Sometimes leadership means challenging your allies, disappointing supporters and explaining why you cannot go along.
I do not want to learn years later that someone I helped elect privately opposed decisions they publicly supported. Convictions can change; when they do, explain why. But do not hide them merely to avoid disagreement.
Whatever their party, I want leaders who stand for what they believe while their decisions still matter. Their courage should not begin with their farewell.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel and former federal civil servant who writes about civic education, public accountability and national security. He lives in Fredericksburg.
