Dave Brat, Australia’s freshly confirmed U.S. ambassador, didn’t need to learn another language to qualify for his new gig. But he’s coming into the job fluent in a niche dialect that could give him a big advantage.

“He can speak Trump,” James Braid, President Donald Trump’s director of legislative affairs, said in a recent interview. “He can understand Trump, and he’s recognized as a longtime Trump ally. And I think that will really help him facilitate Aussie-United States relations.”

This dynamic could be key as Brat gets to work in Canberra, where political leaders have been rattled by the Trump administration’s aggressive trade agenda resulting in the implementation of a 12.5 percent tariff on Australian goods.

A longtime economist and academic, Brat is an avowed free trade advocate, which could quell some nerves on the ground. But Brat has also defended the Trump administration’s tariff regime as a kind of reset of the U.S. economic relationship with the world, telling a local news outlet in his home state of Virginia last year that “these tariffs are an attempt to bring some balance.”

At the same time, he has the ear of the White House, having earned Trump’s trust and respect long ago as a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 2014 to 2019. There, Brat was a member of the House Freedom Caucus — a contingent of conservative hard-liners known for taking uncompromising positions on federal spending — and in 2016 he embraced then-presidential candidate Trump as other more establishment Republicans turned their noses.

“The president hasn’t forgotten that,” said Braid, who was policy director of the Freedom Caucus during that period.

The Freedom Caucus was, as it is now, perpetually at war with party leadership on Capitol Hill, but the group harnessed Brat’s affable disposition and deft touch in high-stakes policy negotiations. He was obsessed with making sure that the group’s goals would be understood both by negotiators across the table and the public — something his former colleagues expect him to bring to the international stage.

Justin Ouimette, a former longtime executive director of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview that Brat’s approach has always been, “here’s the message and here’s where it is coming from” — a tactic that “tends to lower the temperature.”

“He was one of those guys that’s typically dispatched to disagree without being disagreeable,” Braid agreed. “Brat is really effective at stating a position, being firm while also collaborating to reach an outcome, and so that that experience will serve him well in his new diplomatic post.”

There’s hope among some in Washington that Brat’s views on trade, coupled with his ties to the Trump administration, could help soothe existing tensions and result in a positive working relationship between the U.S. and Australia. That optimism is shared by Virginia’s two Democratic U.S. senators, Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, who supported Brat’s nomination.

“He will be very focused on commerce, trade, and economic opportunity. You know, things that are good for the U.S. and good for the Australian economies,” said Kaine, who as governor once relied on Brat’s contributions to a bipartisan economic advisory panel to build the state’s budget.

“He’ll be very mindful of the commercial relationship, and I think that’s something that will be viewed positively by the Aussies,” Kaine added.

He noted that Virginia’s massive naval base would now have an advocate in Brat amid the continued implementation of AUKUS, a trilateral security pact among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. in 2021 aimed at helping Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines.

Warner was less effusive, saying he has “disagreed with Dave on a lot of issues,” but acknowledged he also was “a smart guy” he supported for the ambassadorship.

Brat also has long been vocal about the competitive threats to the U.S. posed by China, a concern shared by Australia in its diplomatic engagement with the Pacific region. Ouimette speculated that “his clear-mindedness and alignment with the administration on that particular issue weighed in his favor” as the White House was making its ambassador selection.

There are still some unknowns, however, including whether Brat will be living in Canberra full time and how he’ll handle staffing issues at the U.S. Embassy.

“I understand that Mission Australia’s current staffing and facilities are insufficient to meet the demands of our expanding Alliance activities,” Brat said in a written response to U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat, as part of his confirmation proceedings. “Our investment in diplomatic infrastructure reflects our commitment to this vital partnership.”

Brat’s arrival heads a wave of new senior appointments at the embassy including Robert T. Koepcke as deputy chief of mission and Jonathan A. Habjan as counselor for political affairs.

A slew of new military postings at the embassy includes Col. Richard Bush as defense attaché; Col. Pete Roongsang as Army attaché; and Col. Kabir Rao as chief of MILGROUP, which manages security cooperation, foreign military sales and defense relations with the Australian Armed Forces.

Brat also hasn’t spoken publicly or at length about how or why he was recommended for this particular posting, though he said during his confirmation hearing that he “loved the Australian people I have met in my life and appreciate their decency, wit and sense of humor” — as well as being a “tennis fanatic” eager to engage in “sports diplomacy across the board.”

Australian Prime Anthony Albanese is also a keen tennis player, known to invite dignitaries and journalists to play on the court at his official Canberra residence, The Lodge.

“I’m very much looking forward to having a hit of tennis with David Brat,” Albanese told POLITICO, adding that he believes Brat’s appointment will “bolster” the existing alliance.

Brat did not respond to POLITICO’s requests for interviews.

But Braid made clear that sending Brat to Australia is not a vanity posting or just a favor for a longtime Trump loyalist, calling Brat “a serious lawmaker with serious chops.” He conceded that while Brat “comes from a political tradition that may be a little bit unfamiliar to the Australians,” he brings relationships and experiences to the table a career foreign service officer could not.

“This is a serious person,” Braid said.

Billions of dollars in infrastructure funding are flowing into cities and towns nationwide, nearly three years after Congress passed a $1.2 trillion bipartisan bill approving the cash.

And some vulnerable House Republicans are tacitly taking credit for the local funds, despite opposing that bill.

Those moves will test how much voters care about federal dollars' ability to create local jobs and investments and how much credit they’re willing to give lawmakers who are playing both sides of the issue.

Only 13 House GOP lawmakers voted for the 2021 law to fund roads, rails and bridges, a deal shaped in large part by Senate negotiators whom conservatives mistrust. Some of those 13 left Congress after facing threats from the right and vociferous criticism from former President Donald Trump, who said they should be “ashamed of themselves.” The vast majority of Republicans opposed the bill due to the huge price tag, and many simply didn’t want to give President Joe Biden a win.

But almost three years later, the slow-moving machinery of the federal purse is kicking into gear. Highway projects in Iowa have already opened, more than a billion dollars have been pledged for a power plant upgrade in California and millions have been slated for a public transit project in South Carolina. There’s still a ways to go on most projects, but announcements and preparations have started across the country.

Those battleground Republicans who opposed the law are careful not to tout their personal involvement in it on Capitol Hill — instead, they’re showing up at opening ceremonies and praising the actions of local leaders.

“Since House Republicans have no record of accomplishments, they are trying to falsely take credit for ones that aren’t theirs,” said Viet Shelton, a spokesperson for House Democrats’ campaign arm. “This is exactly the sort of hypocritical behavior that the public hates, and the DCCC will be sure to remind voters of Republicans’ do-nothing agenda between now and November.”

Two years ago, at-risk Democrats feared voters wouldn’t care about one of their signature legislative accomplishments, since most projects funded by the bill were still years from breaking ground. Now that more efforts have solidified, Biden's party is enraged to see Republicans trying to reap the benefits — and GOP members are hoping voters might credit them without delving too deeply into their voting records.

Here’s a breakdown on the infrastructure funds flowing into districts of some of the most vulnerable GOP members who opposed the bill:

Mariannette Miller-Meeks: Iowa District 1

Nearly $470 million in investments have been promised to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ (R-Iowa) district from the bipartisan infrastructure law, which she voted against. Miller-Meeks is also one of the most vulnerable House Republicans, winning her 2022 race by only six votes.

She has touted that money, from attending a ribbon cutting for a key highway interchange to touting the modernization of locks and dams on the Mississippi River in her district, which she called “critically important” to Iowa’s economy — thanking the Army Corps of Engineers for their work.

“We all agree that the country is in a dire need of a clean transportation bill that addresses failing infrastructure. The bill would have had large bipartisan support had Republicans been allowed to be engaged in the process and if it was not vastly overloaded with pet projects,” Miller-Meeks said in a statement to POLITICO.

“Although I was unable to support the massive partisan legislation as a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, I do support Community Funding Projects, which goes through regular Appropriations Committee order with bipartisan input,” Miller-Meeks added. “I will always fight to ethically bring federal dollars back to my district.”

Nancy Mace: South Carolina District 1

Rep. Nancy Mace’s (R-S.C.) district will receive $34 million from the infrastructure law, which she called a “socialist wish list” and a “fiasco.”

But she celebrated the announcement of a nearly $26 million federal grant for a public transit project in her district in 2023, which was made possible by the infrastructure measure.

David Valadao: California District 22

In addition to money slated specifically for Rep. David Valadao’s (R-Calif.) district, the Biden administration also allocated $1.1 billion to California’s last remaining nuclear power plant as part of the infrastructure law’s $6 billion fund for nuclear energy.

The Diablo Canyon plant, which supplies a significant amount of power statewide, is not in Valadao’s district, but the move to prevent its closure won his praise. In a social media post, he called it an “all-of-the-above approach to energy production and use, including nuclear,” that he touted as “lowering costs, creating jobs, and strengthening our national security.”

Michelle Steel: California District 45

Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) celebrated an $8.3 million funding allocation for Newport Harbor dredging as “long overdue and will improve the safety of our community while protecting our homes and businesses.” She even name checked the infrastructure bill, which she voted against, in her press release.

She had advocated for the project as a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors before her time in Congress. Redistricting shifted the coastal project into a different district that Steel currently represents.

Jessie Blaeser contributed to this report.