I've seen a couple of friends lament that they feel their feeds have become "echo chambers," and that they feel the need for "balance." Balance is not always a good thing. The question is, what things are you going to balance between?
Balance is a good thing if it is between two plausible, morally valid positions. It is not a good thing if you attempt to "balance" between a morally valid position and an immoral one. You don't want to be "sympathetic" to a Nazi, or a Stalinist, nor do you want to behave in a way that they would find acceptable.
If you were alive in Italy in the 1920's, would it distress you if you had no friends who supported Mussolini? Certainly not. History occasionally forces us into a time of dividing. I believe this is one of those times.
There are legitimate, valid sources of the Conservative position. The Wall Street Journal comes immediately to mind. National Review often has excellent work. But there are no morally valid perspectives from a deeply immoral movement like Trumpism. It is a totalizing movement, that sees truth as something entirely at their will and whim. Such a worldview makes honesty undesireable. Maybe impossible.
Not every Trumpist is a sexist, a racist, or the sort of person who wants to take away the health care of vulnerable people or take food from old people and schoolkids. But they have decided to support a movement that that does support all those things. That is a moral decision, and whether you want to be associated with those who have made that decision is a moral decision, too. It's not an easy decision, but it is an important one. Choose wisely.