President Donald Trump has been in office for just six weeks but is doing his best to upend the status quo, at home and abroad. His policy effort has prompted many Oregonians including some in Bend to take to the streets in protest.

Oregon’s Congressional delegation, which includes mainly Democrats, has likewise criticized the president on a range of policy issues, from federal workforce cuts to the escalating trade war with Mexico and Canada. But among the state’s representatives in Washington, D.C., there’s a lone voice of support for Trump in Eastern Oregon. Congressman Cliff Bentz, who represents the 2nd Congressional district — including parts of Central Oregon, plus Eastern and Southern Oregon — has fallen in line with Trump’s agenda. Mostly.

The following is a portion of an interview Bentz gave to The Bulletin. Bentz is not on any committees that oversee U.S. foreign policy but did respond to questions related to Ukraine, Gaza and other issues of national and global importance. The questions and responses were edited for length and clarity.

Q: What’s your assessment of the new administration after six weeks of what most would agree is a lot of change?

CB: That’s kind of a broad question. I would say that the means of trying to reduce the workforce in the federal government is extremely difficult and that much of what has been done to this point is going to be revisited in court. We’ll have a better idea of the most efficient and effective and legal way of approaching this once that’s sorted out.

I fully support the president’s efforts to reduce spending in the sense that we have to if we’re going to address this. One of the biggest dangers we face, which is this huge debt and the huge amount we’re spending each year more than we have coming in, that problem must be addressed.

As far as what I would have done differently, I think there are many ways you can critique these kinds of efforts, but I’m just happy that somebody finally is stepping up and trying to get this out-of-control spending situation under control. Thank goodness, because most of the time people are just too scared, politicians and others, to do the things that absolutely have to be done, and that means spending less money.

Here’s the problem. Almost every government agency is doing something good. So when you try to stop spending money, people are immediately going to attack you saying, hey, you’re stopping something good. I’m sorry, but we don’t have the money to keep doing this, and that’s why it’s so difficult, so challenging.

But anyway, the short answer is I’m happy it’s happening. I’m not going to second-guess how they’re doing it. That’s for the executive branch, and then we’ll keep trying to do our job here in Congress, which is to also shrink spending.

Q: Are you concerned about rising unemployment caused by the federal job cuts? Does paying for unemployment benefits create its own problems?

CB: Well, you pay in unemployment for this exact reason, so you have that insurance as a safety net. So the system’s working exactly the way it’s supposed to. And I’ve heard some people say that because they were fired, they somehow are not entitled to unemployment. That’s a complete lie. They are entitled to unemployment.

The great news is we have an extremely low unemployment rate, and that means that jobs abound everywhere. This is a great opportunity for people who had these jobs to go find others, particularly in Central Oregon. And frankly, across my district (Eastern Oregon), there are jobs everywhere.

So the good news for those who have been laid off is that there’s an opportunity for them to become reemployed fairly quickly.

Q: What are your thoughts on recent events related to the Ukraine war? Who started this war and what is needed to end it?

CB: So Russia started the war based upon my reading from four or five years ago. Russia’s concern was that Ukraine was going to join NATO, and they did not want a member of NATO immediately against their border. They wanted a buffer. And so when it occurred to Russia that Ukraine was going to make a serious play for becoming a member of NATO, they decided to invade Ukraine.

I’m very, very happy that President Trump is doing his best to negotiate a settlement of it, because … people have died because of what Putin has done, and the war needs to end. It’s one of those situations where hopefully they can negotiate a permanent end to this war.

Q: What’s your opinion on Trump’s recent actions toward Putin and Russia compared to Zelenskyy and Ukraine?

CB: What I do in this situation is reach out to retired generals and to former ambassadors to Europe, and I talk to them about what should be done when it comes to Ukraine because I am not an expert in that space. I’m certainly not an expert in negotiating with somebody like Putin.

I would say that what you are watching play out in real-time is Trump’s attempt to try to bring Mr. Putin, a dictator, to the table and try to get something settled. A huge, huge, huge challenge. But the concept is that trying to get this done without the war becoming one that involves taking our people into it, which we want to avoid, period.

Q: Where do you stand on President Trump’s idea to remove Palestinians from Gaza so it can be turned into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”

“Well, it’s kind of an interesting one. To bring Hamas back into Gaza so they could start shooting rockets back into Israel, again, doesn’t make much sense. Rebuilding an enclave for people to attack Israel, again, doesn’t make much sense. Putting billions of dollars into rebuilding for terrorist organizations doesn’t make much sense.

So the real question is, how in the world do we set up something that’s worthy of investing money in? If we’re going to be part of that exercise, it better be built on something far more permanent than that which existed prior to the extraordinarily sad situation we’re facing now. So good on President Trump for trying to think of something that’s longer term than just rebuilding the status quo, which was not acceptable, I think, to anybody.

I think it’s one of those things where, thank goodness, the local countries, Egypt and Jordan, are stepping up to try to figure out what to do. But I don’t think anybody wants to rebuild Gaza, only to have to go through all this again.

Q: Israel’s neighboring countries said they will not take the Palestinian people in Gaza, and the Palestinians there have not signaled any interest in leaving. Do you think it is realistic to have these people all removed?

CB: It’s extraordinarily complicated, unbelievably complicated. To that end, I’m just reviewing some of the literature and books so that I would better understand the situation. The book I’m reading right now is “Power, Faith and Fantasy, America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present.” It’s written by Michael Oren, an American-Israeli diplomat.

I would just tell you that it’s extremely complicated, and to suggest what’s good or bad or what might work, might not, requires somebody with far more knowledge about it than me.

Q: What is your opinion of the 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada? What will be the impact on Oregonians?

CB: I think prices will increase. That’s the nature of a tariff. But I would also say that in the long run, tariffs if done appropriately, usually because they’re reciprocal, is something that’s done many times to balance trade.

In the long run, that works out to the benefit of U.S. businesses. It’s my hope that these devices (tariffs) are used as negotiating instruments. I think that’s President Trump’s general approach.

I did meet with some people (on Feb. 28) who are heavily involved in the potato industry, and they’re very happy with the fact that there might be a tariff on the flood of agricultural products coming out of Mexico into the U.S., driving onion farmers and potato farmers and produce farmers out of business.

So tariffs have their place, and it’s my hope that they work to the benefit of all of us. But in the short run, the prices may go up. I think they will. I hope they don’t, because I go to the grocery store often, and the prices are really high. But on the other hand, you’ve got to have a long-term outlook.

Q: Do you agree with President Trump’s efforts to restrict transgender rights? On his first day in office, he signed an order recognizing only two sexes. That would, for example, impact transgender people who may want a passport that has what they believe is their gender identity. Can you talk a little bit about what President Trump is doing and if you think that’s appropriate for the people of Oregon?

CB: So I don’t think that men should be playing women’s sports, and I think about 85% of Americans agree with that. And so I think that’s what he was trying to address, and I think he’s going to succeed in that regard. I think the transgender situation has placed Title IX in severe jeopardy, and for the sake of all women that want to play sports, and by that I mean biological females, this is a good thing.

But beyond that, do you think that transgender people should be recognized by the gender of their choosing?

CB: I don’t generally get into that kind of conversation. It’s enough for me to say that I don’t like seeing men trying to play in women’s sports.