
As Trump pushes Texas takeover in fight for House, Democrats plot their counterpunch
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his political team have begun privately shaping a legally risky — and likely expensive — strategy to redraw House maps in several Democratic-controlled states, according to Democrats briefed on the effort. They are exploring their plans in California, New York, New Jersey, Minnesota and Washington state in hopes of flipping at least a handful of Republican seats next November.
It's a clear attempt to retaliate against the GOP's aggressive redistricting effort to boot out as many as five Democrats in Texas — a move that will get publicly underway this week and one with the potential to give Republicans a major leg up in their fight to keep control of the House.
In an interview at Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington, Jeffries made clear that his party was ready to respond in-kind to the GOP.
'We have a responsibility of making sure that we look at every single state of the union and do what we can to ensure that we maximize fairness in those jurisdictions,' the New York Democrat said. 'Some of the best and brightest lawyers in the country are looking at every single aspect of what's possible in these states.'
It's an extraordinary push from top Democrats, who could soon embrace the kind of GOP tactics that Jeffries described as 'part of a scheme to rig the midterm elections' — especially since the redrawing of congressional maps typically happens only at the beginning of a decade to reflect changing populations and demographics.
Even House Democrats privately acknowledge their emerging plan may all be moot if it's fully blocked in court, according to more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers and campaign operatives involved in the discussions. Others are wary of eschewing their party's decadeslong push for fair voting rights and commissions in states that attempt to draw their congressional boundaries free from partisan politics.
But plenty more Democrats say they have no choice but to try to fight Trump as they face immense pressure from their base and can't risk being relegated to the minority for two more years — especially since only a handful of seats could determine the next majority.
'We got to fight fire with fire, so I support anything the governor [Gavin Newsom] wants to do,' said Rep. Eric Swalwell, who is part of the California delegation that's been meeting privately with Jeffries on the matter. 'We shouldn't just admire the problem.'
Texas Republicans and the Justice Department argue that the move is necessary over concerns that the current maps are unconstitutional and racially gerrymandered.
Asked about Jeffries' accusation that the GOP was attempting to 'rig the election,' Speaker Mike Johnson fired back.
'That's ridiculous. Hakeem Jeffries is also playing political games,' the Louisiana Republican told CNN when asked about the Democratic leader's comments.
In the interview with CNN, Jeffries specifically called out three states: California, New York and New Jersey. But the party is also looking closely at Minnesota and Washington state, Democratic sources said.
And when asked about the push to redraw New Jersey's boundaries, Jeffries said it is 'incumbent upon all of us to take a close look at, how do we ensure that the congressional map, writ large, is as fair as possible in advance of the midterm election?'
Jeffries said he plans to sit down with his governor, Kathy Hochul, sometime in August about the maps in New York. The state just redrew its lines last year without any drastic changes to seven seats currently held by Republicans, but Jeffries suggested that more could be done to help Democrats there: 'Let me just simply say the maps in New York are not as fair as they could be.'
Rep. Greg Meeks, a fellow New Yorker and a Jeffries ally, was blunter: 'You can't go to a fight where they have a gun and you have a knife.'
The Democratic leader and his members have also been in close contact with the California governor, who says he is moving ahead with an expedited push to redraw his state's congressional maps before next November, according to two people involved with the discussions. Behind the scenes, their focus has been on how California can overcome its own law that hands over map-drawing power to a nonpartisan redistricting commission.
It's a hurdle that Democrats face in some blue states across the country: Governors and legislatures have awarded power to independent commissions to limit partisan gerrymandering — unlike in Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott and state lawmakers have full control. Democrats privately acknowledge this is legally complicated and likely extremely costly, but suggest it is not insurmountable.
'If Republicans want to play by these rules, then I think that we shouldn't have one set of rules for one and the other set of rules for another. I think we need to even the playing board,' New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CNN.
Such discussions in Democratic circles all began in the last two weeks after Abbott declared that he would move forward with asking the state legislature to redraw Texas' maps, at the request of the White House. Trump and his team have said they believe they can squeeze five more seats out of the state — something he conveyed to the Texas GOP delegation last week. (Republican leaders believe it is more likely they can get two or three, according to two people familiar with those discussions.)
New seats in Texas — plus an additional two or three seats that could come out of the GOP's separate map-drawing effort in Ohio — may be enough to hinder Democrats' chances of reclaiming the House.
Rep. Marc Veasey, who is one of the Democrats being targeted in Texas, told CNN that if Republicans are successful in his state, his party will face an uphill battle to flip the House.
'Obviously it would make it much harder,' Veasey said. 'I think the biggest thing that keeps Trump up at night is losing the majority in the US House of Representatives and having to answer to Democrats and be held accountable.'
The Texas Democrat said his party has no choice but to try to make up ground in California, New York and anywhere else it can: 'Hell yeah, I would encourage us to do that. … I think you have to.'
Many California Democrats feel the same.
'I don't take anything off the table,' former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN, adding that the state can get its voters to approve the change. 'We would not have any majority in the Congress without that big, vast number [of Democratic seats in California], but we always want more, so one way or another. So I don't take anything off the table.'
Rep. Lou Correa of California said the stakes are 'too high' not to try to squeeze out more seats, adding: 'It's gonna be a knockout midterm election like you haven't seen in a long time.'
But there are some members — particularly progressives, who have long championed voting rights — who are uncomfortable with the Democratic push.
'I think it is unacceptable and dangerous for essentially what people marched during the Civil Rights Movement for,' Rep. Greg Casar, a Texas Democrat who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told CNN when asked whether states like California and New York should consider the same approach as his own state.
And some Democrats who sit in swing districts worry about the fallout.
New York Rep. Tom Suozzi, a Democrat whose district includes parts of Long Island, said changing the maps now is 'probably not' a good idea.
'Traditionally people do this every 10 years after the census, so that seems like the normal thing to me,' Suozzi said.
But Jeffries predicted that it's the Republican push that is a risky one, contending that changing solidly red districts in Texas — in order to make Democratic districts more competitive — could have the effect of putting more swing voters in GOP strongholds.
'We believe it may actually backfire, and that they may draw lines that endanger their Republican incumbents, who we will have a better chance of defeating in the 2026 midterm election,' Jeffries said.
So far, Texas GOP leaders and the White House have shared few details about their soon-to-be-unveiled maps with the state's House delegation. That will change in the coming days, with the state legislature returning for a special session this week to consider them.
Texas Republicans are now largely on board with the White House's plan, though one member of the delegation told CNN last week that there is a real fear the White House may overreach and end up creating ultra-competitive seats that Democrats can win.
Texas Rep. Pete Sessions — who lost his seat in Trump's first midterm in 2018, just before state Republicans redrew their map to better protect GOP incumbents — is taking a cautious approach. He's been in touch with the White House personally, though he declined to share details of those conversations.
'As you recall, New York did this a year or two ago,' Sessions said, referencing the Democratic effort that ended up costing their party seats after the map faced legal challenges. 'Just because the legislature does something, it's still subject to the law.'
Other Texas Republicans are encouraging Trump's team to be even more aggressive.
'I support the governor in his effort because we need to make sure we keep the House. We got to keep the House,' Rep. Troy Nehls told CNN. 'If we can get five, let's get five. Yeah, I'd like to try to get six.'
Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina, who leads the House GOP campaign arm, said he's staying out of the redistricting fight. But he acknowledged that it could bolster his party's chances of keeping the chamber next year.
'Any seats that we gain before Election Day would be nice,' Hudson said. While he said any Democratic gerrymandering effort would be 'out of my control' he also stressed that states like California have vastly different laws than Texas.
'I'll deal with the battlefield that I'm presented, and right now it looks really good for Republicans.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gold Pares Gains After Kremlin Confirms Meeting With Trump
(Bloomberg) -- Gold pared gains as markets weighed prospects for a truce in Ukraine after the Kremlin confirmed Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would hold talks in the next few days. All Hail the Humble Speed Hump Mayor Asked to Explain $1.4 Billion of Wasted Johannesburg Funds Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Major Istanbul Projects Are Stalling as City Leaders Sit in Jail PATH Train Service Resumes After Fire at Jersey City Station Bullion traded near $3,373 an ounce after earlier rising as much as 0.8%. Russia's announcement came a day after Putin met with Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, for almost three hours as the US pushed for an end to the Ukraine war. Bloomberg earlier reported that the Kremlin is considering options including an air truce, falling short of committing to a total ceasefire. Any easing of geopolitical tensions can curb demand for haven assets, pulling gold prices down. Traders are also watching US relations with global trading partners — marked this week by tariff hikes on Indian goods — and the likely nomination of a temporary Federal Reserve governor who may be more aligned with Trump's monetary agenda. Lower rates typically boost gold, which doesn't pay interest. Bullion has climbed almost 30% this year, though the bulk of those gains occurred in the first four months as geopolitical and trade tensions rattled the market. Spot gold rose 0.1% to $3,372.70 an ounce as of 12:05 p.m. in London. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slipped 0.1%. Silver and palladium gained, while platinum fell. The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie Russia's Secret War and the Plot to Kill a German CEO AI Flight Pricing Can Push Travelers to the Limit of Their Ability to Pay A High-Rise Push Is Helping Mumbai Squeeze in Pools, Gyms and Greenery Government Steps Up Campaign Against Business School Diversity ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Miami Herald
16 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
First Texas, now Florida? DeSantis threatens a showdown with redistricting idea
President Donald Trump set Texas lawmakers on a blatantly partisan course of action to redraw the state's congressional districts so Republicans can win more seats and keep control of the U.S. House next year. The political showdown this has created — with Democrats fleeing the state to stop a vote on the new maps — is exactly the type of political fight the president thrives in, but it ignores what's truly best for voter representation. In Florida, the state constitution prohibits elected officials from manipulating congressional maps for political gain. That's for good reason: Voters should pick their members of Congress, not the other way around. Yet Gov. Ron DeSantis is already floating the idea of lawmakers redrawing districts, though he hasn't followed through with it. Redrawing the maps now would be unusual and wrong if it's done for mere partisan gain. It's been only three years since Florida lawmakers passed the latest maps, which already gave the GOP an advantage. The maps were drawn by DeSantis in an unusual move given that's normally been the job of lawmakers. The Legislature is not due to draw new seats until the 2030 U.S. Census is released. GOP legislative leaders so far have been silent about DeSantis' redistricting proposal. A top Republican, Rep. Alex Andrade of Pensacola, told the Orlando Sentinel that the governor is 'not in a position to force us to do anything that we don't think is a good idea. All we'd have as an impetus for this is partisanship.' Let's hope lawmakers' silence indicates they know that although gerrymandering is an unfortunate American tradition, going back to Tallahassee with marching orders to draw more GOP-leaning congressional seats would cross a line. It would also draw legal challenges, and the state would likely lose in court if lawmakers act with obvious partisan intent. Worse, building congressional maps to favor a party dilutes the voice of voters who are grouped into districts with the sole purpose of making a certain election outcome more likely. If Republicans are afraid of losing the House in the 2026 midterms because of Trump and the passage of the unpopular One Big Beautiful Bill, rigging the system shouldn't be the answer. Florida legislative leaders like House Speaker Daniel Perez, R-Miami, should continue to exert their independence from DeSantis as they did during this year's session. DeSantis hasn't committed to a rare mid-decade redistricting but said 'this is obviously something that we're looking at very seriously,' the Herald/Tampa Bay Times Tallahassee Bureau reported. Perhaps foreseeing potential legal challenges, DeSantis has been careful not to explicitly say his goal is to help Trump and himself. Ending his tenure as governor with new congressional wins — or avoiding any losses in the Sunshine State — would be a bonus if he runs for president again in 2028. DeSantis is raising concerns about the 2020 U.S. Census, which helped Florida get one extra congressional seat because of population growth. The U.S. Census Bureau later released a report showing that Florida was undercounted, and DeSantis said Trump is considering a mid-decade census. DeSantis refused requests that the state help with the 2020 count, saying he didn't want to spend state dollars counting non-citizens. Whenever the next Census happens, DeSantis said he would want to exclude foreign nationals, even though the point of the Census is to count everyone living in the country. The count is used to decide how many seats each state gets in the 435-member U.S. House and to distribute federal funds. DeSantis' ambition likely means he'll continue to push for the redrawing of Florida's congressional seats. Lawmakers would be wise to balk, as they did many times this year. Florida doesn't need to be Texas. Let's spare ourselves that embarrassment and stand up for what's right for Florida voters.


Fast Company
16 minutes ago
- Fast Company
How crypto billionaires took over Trump's political machine
Last week, President Donald Trump's super PAC revealed that it has an unsettling amount of cash on hand for a president who is, his occasional musings to the contrary notwithstanding, constitutionally ineligible to run for a third term in office. According to a midyear report filed with the Federal Election Commission, MAGA Inc. is sitting on nearly $200 million, a sum that includes a shade over $175 million collected just in the past six months. Unless collections fall off a cliff in the second half of the year, Trump should enter 2026 with well over a quarter-billion dollars to spend on the midterm elections—a war chest that would make him not only the Republican Party's unquestioned standard-bearer but also perhaps its deepest-pocketed financier for the foreseeable future. Many of the donors to MAGA Inc. would likely donate to any Republican president: real estate developers, oil and gas companies, firearms manufacturers, Wall Street banks, allegedly crooked mortgage brokers, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, and so on. Others made what proved to be prudent investments in their relationships with Trump, who has long viewed the presidency as a tool for rewarding loyal friends and punishing perceived enemies. A Florida personal injury attorney nominated by Trump as the U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, for example, gave $500,000; an investor who now serves on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board gave $250,000. Longtime Trump donors Jeffrey Sprecher, whose company owns the New York Stock Exchange, and his wife, former Georgia Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler, gave a cool $2.5 million apiece in June. In a wild coincidence, Trump announced that he would appoint Loeffler to lead the Small Business Administration six months earlier. But the most notable collection of names—and some of the biggest numbers—are associated with the cryptocurrency industry, which has, in another wild coincidence, netted Trump and his family hundreds of millions of dollars since he took office in January. Foris Dax, which does business as gave MAGA Inc. $10 million. Tools for Humanity, better known as World Network or Worldcoin (and cofounded by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman), chipped in $5 million, as did Venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, whose eponymous Silicon Valley firm has invested heavily in crypto projects (including Tools for Humanity), combined to donate $6 million. The Winklevoss twins and their crypto exchange, Gemini Trust Company, donated a total of nearly $4 million. (Tyler donated about $15,000 more in his name than his brother, Cameron, which is how you can tell them apart.) All told, crypto and crypto-adjacent interests have contributed at least $40 million to MAGA Inc. so far this year. This figure does not include $5 million from Elon Musk, whose companies hold crypto assets worth billions of dollars. Despite his extremely funny public falling-out with Trump, Musk evidently still knows what's best for business: On June 27, he ponied up $5 million to the man who more or less just gave him the boot. The steady flow of cash to Trump's political machine is a peek at the struggle for control of the movement Trump created—not necessarily now, when he is both president of the United States and the leader of the Republican Party, but over the next 24 months or so, as his term winds down and he prepares to return to Mar-a-Lago for good. Everyone involved here understands that it is not only the current White House that is for sale, but also the future of a party that has really not had an identity apart from Trump, a 79-year-old man who is decompensating before our eyes, for a decade now. Many of the people who are giving to MAGA Inc. are roughly analogous to investors racing to get in on the ground floor of a promising startup: For anyone who can foot the bill, the chance to own even a sliver of one of this country's two major political parties is too valuable to pass up. And because the first six months of Trump's second administration have been so good for the crypto industry, its wealthier-than-ever luminaries have been among the most aggressive early buyers of (even more) political influence. They envision the country as a nascent Silicon Valley plutocracy, and themselves as its leaders—equal parts fabulously wealthy oligarchs, industry-friendly regulators, and currency revolutionaries on the verge of making fiat money obsolete. Wealthy people have always been able to buy power in Washington, D.C., but rarely have they been this comfortable being this obvious about it. Part of the challenge with gauging the value of these investments is that there is basically no precedent for them. Super PACs have only been around since 2010, after the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates to unlimited political spending by megacorporations and the billionaires who run them. As a result, President Barack Obama is the only other term-limited president who has ever raised money under the same circumstances, and at the time his supporters plainly did not perceive the same value in continuing to write checks: Again, over the past six months, MAGA Inc. has raked in around $175 million. As The New York Times notes, during the same period in 2013, the primary super PAC affiliated with Obama raised a grand total of $356,000. Generally, candidates from the same party as a sitting president face a tougher road to victory in the midterm elections that follow—a dynamic that is especially salient when a president whose approval rating was already dropping is also trying to fend off persistent questions about the nature of his friendship with the nation's most famous child sex abuser. But the fact that Trump will be the GOP's de facto kingmaker in 2026 will make it very challenging for Republican candidates to break with him on the campaign trail, to the extent that any Republican candidates would have interest in doing so in the first place. If you want to win a primary, you cannot afford to pass up Trump's money—or, worse yet, to do something to make him angry, such that he starts giving to your more enthusiastically MAGA opponent instead. What I am saying here is that the Republican candidates trying to win in purple districts next fall—and, in all likelihood, the serious contenders vying for the GOP presidential nomination in 2028—are not going to be traditional conservatives trying to appeal to swing voters with promises of limited government and lower taxes. They are going to be Trump acolytes steeped in X clips and manosphere content who promise to do his and his donors' bidding. Trump's dominance of the modern GOP has also come at the expense of what remains of the Republican establishment, whose leaders on Capitol Hill are now dealing with the consequences of having long ago ceded control of the party to a made-for-TV businessman who has never cared about its long-term success outside the context of his own political and financial fortunes. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a super PAC dedicated to electing Republicans to the House, had around $33 million in cash on hand as of June 30, and the GOP-affiliated Senate analogue came in just behind it, at $29.7 million. If you're doing the math at home, this means that the combined spending power of the Republican lawmakers trying to preserve their majorities in the House and Senate is about one-third the spending power of the party's outgoing president. The only group with anywhere close to as much money as MAGA Inc., The Times reports, is Fairshake, a super PAC backed by—you guessed it—the crypto industry. In other words, Republican candidates can take crypto industry cash funneled through MAGA Inc., or directly from its super PAC. But they are taking that money either way, and dealing with whatever strings come attached to it. For several years now, there has been an open question about what will happen to the Republican Party once Trump, for one reason or another, is no longer in control of it: whether it will revert to the establishment conservatives Trump has rendered all but irrelevant, or whether it will continue as a cult of personality propped up by a coalition of bigots, billionaires, and billionaires who are also bigots. MAGA Inc.'s massive fundraising haul yields a grim answer: As venal as Trump is, the next generation of party leaders will be even more transparently for sale to the highest bidder. Those who can afford it are already spending accordingly.