The GOP's redistricting dissenters
President Donald Trump's mid-decade redistricting push is running into serious concerns from some GOP factions, Lisa Kashinsky and Meredith Lee Hill report.
Plenty are backing the president's gambit to protect the GOP's House majority. But a growing number of Republicans are airing their qualms publicly:
— Blue-state lawmakers: These are among the loudest GOP defectors. Democratic governors are threatening to redraw or outright erase their districts in retaliation for Trump.
New York Rep. Mike Lawler blasted the Texas redistricting effort as 'wrong,' while California Rep. Doug LaMalfa said it would 'start a grass fire across the country.' House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, the Maryland delegation's lone Republican, said his party 'should probably shy away from mid-cycle redistricting.'
— The wrong-timing crew: Some GOP resistance is centered on the timing of the redraws.
Utah Rep. Blake Moore, who previously co-chaired an anti-gerrymandering group, called redistricting outside of the usual 10-year, Census-driven cadence 'a step too far.' And Florida Rep. Randy Fine isn't sure how it could legally be done in his state given a law prohibiting lawmakers from redrawing the map to help incumbents or a particular party.
California Rep. Kevin Kiley, who's spearheading a bill to ban mid-decade gerrymandering, insisted in an interview that there's a 'very strong majority for taking our foot off the accelerator on this.'
— Govs on the fence: While Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is pushing full steam ahead at Trump's behest — with Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe seemingly ready to follow suit — others are hesitant. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun has been noncommittal even after the White House's pressure campaign. New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte ruled out pursuing any changes because 'the timing is off.'
Nonetheless, Trump's team is determined to steamroll over the internal criticism, believing their party has the upper hand in an all-out redistricting battle. The GOP is angling for 10 additional seats across Ohio, Texas, Missouri and Indiana — and even more through Florida, though any new map wouldn't be ready in time for 2026. Democrats, meanwhile, are looking at adding five new blue-leaning seats in California, plus more in Maryland, New York and beyond.
GOOD THURSDAY MORNING. Email us: crazor@politico.com, cdumay@politico.com and bguggenheim@politico.com.
THE LEADERSHIP SUITE
Funding problems pile up
The chances of Trump coming to an agreement with Democratic congressional leaders in September to keep the government open are looking bleaker by the day.
Trump told reporters Wednesday he'd meet with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on the issue, but said 'it's almost a waste of time.'
'They never approve anything,' Trump said. 'They are led by insane people. … I don't believe that anybody is capable of making a deal with these people.'
'I call it a waste of leadership for Trump to have no plan to lower costs for hardworking Americans, or stop cuts to health care, veterans, and Social Security,' Schumer fired back on X.
Meanwhile, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed Trump a win Wednesday as he moves to 'impound' — that is, refuse to spend — congressionally approved funds. Humanitarian groups cannot challenge the president's impoundment of foreign aid grants, the court ruled. Under federal law, that role is limited to the U.S. comptroller general, who leads the Government Accountability Office. GAO monitors how the federal government spends congressional appropriations.
The administration's impoundments have been a sore spot in Congress' negotiations over government funding.
Trump's DC takeover poised for clash with Congress
Trump's plan to keep Washington police under federal control could be on a collision course with Schumer and Senate Democrats.
The president said Wednesday he'll ask lawmakers to pass 'long-term extensions' so he can maintain control over city law enforcement beyond the Home Rule Act's 30-day limit. Those extensions could be filibustered by Senate Democrats. But as Gigi Ewing reports, Trump also said during a Kennedy Center event that he's willing to bypass Congress.
'If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress,' Trump said. 'If I have to, I will.'
Separately, House Freedom Caucus Rep. Andy Ogles said Wednesday he'd introduce an amendment to the Home Rule Act to allow Trump to 'extend this emergency as long as it takes.'
That proposal would also require some Democratic support to pass through the Senate, and Schumer recently characterized the police takeover as nothing but 'a political ploy and attempted distraction from Trump's other scandals.'
Sen. Lindsey Graham also announced Wednesday the White House 'is working on a package' to fund Trump's Washington efforts that he and Sen. Katie Britt will shepherd through Congress. It's unclear what would be included and whether it would be part of any government funding process, or if Graham would try to move it as a standalone bill.
POLICY RUNDOWN
MORE HEALTH CARE CUTS IN MEGABILL 2.0? — Brian Blase of the Paragon Health Institute, one of the chief proponents of undertaking sweeping health care cuts in the first GOP megabill, will address House staffers at a 10 a.m. Republican Study Committee briefing on potential policies for a second party-line package, Benjamin and Meredith scooped.
Republicans are expected to discuss the expiration of enhanced tax credits for Affordable Care Act premiums and proposed changes to Medicare Advantage, among other policies. Demetrios Kouzoukas, director of Paragon's Medicare Reform Initiative, and Gabrielle Minarik, a program manager, will also brief attendees.
Benjamin and Meredith also report that GOP leadership asked committee chairs before August recess to compile a list of potential policies and pay-fors to include in a second party-line bill. However, one person close to leadership noted there's no set timeline yet on getting the asks together.
'On one hand they are starting the process,' the person told Benjamin. On the other hand, the ask 'reflects that they don't really know what the second package would look like yet.'
PRESSURE GROWS AROUND A STOCK TRADING BAN — Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called Wednesday for a ban on single-stock trading by members of Congress, Gregory Svirnovskiy and Meredith report.
It's just the latest development that could force Republican leaders to take action on the issue, with Rep. Anna Paulina Luna also saying this week that she plans to compel a vote in September on legislation that would ban congressional stock trading.
Luna wants to move legislation by Rep. Tim Burchett through a discharge petition, which would require the signatures of a majority of members of the House to force a floor vote. But petitions are highly frowned upon by the majority party's leaders, and Johnson is already staring down the barrel of another discharge petition this fall from Rep. Thomas Massie on the Jeffrey Epstein files.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has struggled to resolve differences between several competing stock ban bills, including legislation from Reps. Chip Roy and Seth Magaziner.
Best of POLITICO Pro and E&E:
THE BEST OF THE REST
With midterms more than a year away, a record number of lawmakers are eyeing the exits, from Stephen Fowler at NPR
Maryland Congress members visited ICE again. This time they got in, from Brenda Wintrode at The Baltimore Banner
THE CARRYOUT A recess spotlight on lawmakers' Capitol Hill food recs
For Sen. Ben Ray Luján, it depends on the mood.
'I get a chicken noodle soup heavy on the broth from Dirksen with a salad,' Luján said. 'If I'm feeling adventurous, then I'll get a grilled cheese with tomato bisque.'
What's your go-to Hill lunch when you're feeling adventurous? Email crazor@politico.com.
CODEL CORNER
CODEL TO COLOMBIA — Sens. Ruben Gallego and Bernie Moreno will be in Colombia Thursday and Friday.
The first two Colombian-Americans elected to the Senate are visiting to 'strengthen bilateral relations' and discuss 'organized crime, the business climate and China's growing influence on the country.'
CAMPAIGN STOP
FIRST IN INSIDE CONGRESS: SHERROD BROWN STILL HAS A CRYPTO PROBLEM — The crypto industry super PAC that spent more than $40 million to defeat Sherrod Brown in 2024 is once again a looming cloud over his comeback bid for Ohio's Senate seat.
Fairshake has replenished its war chest with more than $140 million ahead of 2026, and it's signaling Brown could be a target, Jasper Goodman reports this morning.
'Last year, voters sent a clear message that the Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren agenda was deeply out of touch with Ohio values,' spokesperson Josh Vlasto said in a statement to Jasper.
Brown — who outran Kamala Harris by more than seven points in the state last year — is seen as Democrats' best chance to win back the Ohio seat. The threat from cryptocurrency companies is the latest sign of how the industry has come to play an outsized role in American politics.
MORE MEGABILL PROTESTS — Republican lawmakers continue to face angry crowds and tough questioning from constituents while they're home over August recess. Protesters interrupted events hosted by LaMalfa and Rep. Brad Finstad of Minnesota this week to criticize the GOP megabill.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY
Sen. Bill Hagerty … Rep. Mark Pocan … former Reps. Tom Campbell and Robin Hayes (8-0) … Lynne Cheney … Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner and AEI … POLITICO's Peter Canellos … Erik Sperling … Dan Sena of Sena Kozar Strategies … David Ellis … WaPo's Lori Montgomery … Paige Decker … White House's Paige Willey … Josh Freed … BGR Group's Bill Viney … Matt Lauer of Qorvis … Eric Wohlschlegel … Sean Miles of the Mayfair Group … Jessica Pavel … Denise Feriozzi of the Pipeline Fund
TRIVIA
WEDNESDAY'S ANSWER: Kent Watkins correctly answered that Grover Cleveland attempted to retract the original treaty annexing Hawaii.
TODAY'S QUESTION, from Kent: Under which president did the inauguration date change from March to January 20, and which three presidents held theirs on the 21st instead?
The first person to correctly guess gets a mention in the next edition of Inside Congress. Send your answers to insidecongress@politico.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though President Trump's recently signed tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
Boston Globe
8 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ukraine tries to understand why Trump suddenly abandoned idea of cease-fire
Trump called on social media for a direct peace agreement without securing a cease-fire first, claiming that Zelenskyy and European leaders had agreed on the point. His statement was a stark shift from the 'principles' agreed upon earlier in the week by Trump, Zelenskyy and his European allies, which called for refusing to discuss peace terms until a cease-fire was in place. Advertisement Russia has long pushed for a direct peace deal that would address a broad range of issues and impose onerous demands on Ukraine, including territorial concessions. Avoiding a cease-fire would allow Russia to continue pressing its advantage on the battlefield in the meantime. Advertisement An official briefed on the call between Trump and Zelenskyy said the Ukrainian leader's trip to Washington would aim to seek clarity from Trump. Kyiv does not understand why the American president suddenly dropped the demand that a cease-fire precede negotiations. In a statement, Zelenskyy seemed to tread carefully, trying not to openly contradict Trump. 'We need to achieve a real peace that will be lasting, not just another pause between Russian invasions,' Zelenskyy said. But he added that 'the killings must stop as soon as possible, and the fire must cease both on the battlefield and in the air, as well as against our port infrastructure,' suggesting that he was still prioritizing a cease-fire. In statements of their own, European leaders made no mention of having agreed to abandon their demand for a cease-fire. At the same time, the fact that the statements did not include a demand for a cease-fire, as in previous remarks, suggests at the very least an attempt not to antagonize Trump. Trump's move to aim for a direct peace deal could bring to failure a week of frantic diplomacy in which Kyiv, with European support, had lobbied the U.S. administration to insist that a cease-fire should come first and that Ukraine should not be undercut in the negotiations. Trump's social media post caused a feeling of whiplash among some Ukrainians, who quickly reversed their early assessments of the Alaska summit. Oleksandr Merezhko, chair of the foreign affairs committee in the Ukrainian parliament, had initially expressed some relief, saying that 'the situation could have been worse' if Trump and Putin had struck a deal behind Ukraine's back. Advertisement He said that a scenario in which 'Trump and Putin started together to pressure Ukraine into surrender' could not have been ruled out given Trump's history of deference to Putin. But after Trump's post on Truth Social, Merezhko changed his view. 'In fact, Putin and Trump are starting to force us into surrender,' he said. Trump also proposed security guarantees for Ukraine inspired by the collective defense agreement between NATO member countries, which states that any attack on a member is an attack against all, according to Giorgia Meloni, Italy's prime minister. Under such guarantees, Ukraine's NATO allies would be 'ready to take action' if Russia attacked again. But Merezhko and other Ukrainian allies said such a formulation was too vague. 'Which countries will agree to consider an attack against Ukraine as an attack against themselves?' Merezhko asked. 'I'd like to believe that we will find such countries, but I'm not sure.' Trump, in an interview with Fox News after the meeting with Putin, also addressed the idea of territorial swaps, saying they were among the points 'that we largely have agreed on.' Trump had said several times over the past week that territorial concessions would be part of a peace agreement, drawing pushback from Zelenskyy. Zelensky, however, has not entirely ruled out possible land swaps, telling reporters this past week that this is 'a very complex issue that cannot be separated from security guarantees for Ukraine.' Merezhko, who like many Ukrainian officials was left on tenterhooks by the Alaska meeting, watched the post-meeting news conference live from Kyiv at around 2 a.m. local time. As both Trump and Putin offered only vague statements, Merezhko said it had become clear that no concrete deal had been reached. Advertisement He noted that Putin had again said that any end to the fighting must address the 'root causes' of the war, which is Kremlin parlance for a range of issues that include the existence of Ukraine as a fully independent and sovereign nation aligned with the West. 'I think it's a failure because Putin was again talking about security concerns and used his usual rhetoric,' Merezhko said as the press conference came to an end. 'I don't see any changes.' In Kyiv, some emerged Saturday morning from a sleepless night following the news with the sense that the war was likely to continue unabated. After the Alaska summit wrapped up, the Ukrainian air force said Russia had continued its assault on Ukraine, launching 85 drones and one ballistic missile overnight. These figures could not be independently verified. Tetiana Chamlai, a 66-year-old retiree in Kyiv, said the situation with the war would change only if Ukraine was given more military support, to push Russian forces back enough to force Moscow to the negotiating table. 'That's the only way everything will stop,' she said. 'I personally do not see any other way out.' But Vice President JD Vance made clear this past week that the United States was 'done' funding Ukraine's defense against the Russian invasion. The Trump administration, however, is fine with Ukraine buying American weapons from U.S. companies, and Zelenskyy announced this past week that Kyiv had secured $1.5 billion in European funding to purchase U.S. arms. This article originally appeared in
