Trump meets with candidates for four-star general in break with tradition, White House acknowledges
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
41 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Limited options for Democrats to retaliate if Texas Republicans redraw congressional map
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Republicans move to redraw legislative maps in red states to pad their narrow House majority in Washington, some Democrats are rethinking their embrace of a nonpartisan approach to line-drawing that now complicates their party's ability to hit back before next year's midterm elections. In many Democratic-controlled states, independent commissions rather than the state legislature handle redistricting, the normally-once-a-decade task of adjusting congressional and legislative districts so their populations are equal. Parties in the majority can exploit that process to shape their lawmakers' districts so they are almost guaranteed reelection. The commission model limits parties' ability to game the system, leading to more competitive districts. Not all redistricting commissions were created at Democrats' insistence. And, like Republicans, the party has exploited line-drawing for its own gain in the handful of states where it controls the process. But unlike Republicans, many Democratic Party leaders have embraced the nonpartisan model. That means Democrats have fewer options to match Republicans, who are redrawing the U.S. House map in Texas at President Donald Trump's urging to carve out as many as five new winnable seats for the GOP. That could be enough to prevent Democrats from winning back the majority next year. Democrats have threatened payback. During a gathering Friday in Wisconsin of Democratic governors, several of them said they wanted to retaliate because the stakes are so high. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who has pushed for a nonpartisan redistricting commission in his state, said Democrats must 'do whatever we can' to counter the Republican efforts to redraw congressional maps. 'When you have a gun against your head, you've got to do something,' he said. Despite the ambitious talk, Democrats largely have their hands tied. Democratic states have limited ability to redistrict for political edge California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature will try to redraw his state's congressional map. But they would need to repeal or defy the 2008 ballot measure creating an independent redistricting commission. Voters extended its authority to congressional districts two years later. Newsom supported the constitutional amendment at the time, when he was mayor of San Francisco. The Texas redistricting, which is expected to pass the Legislature next week, led him to modify that position. 'We can act holier than thou, we can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,' Newsom said earlier this month. In New York, which also has a commission, the state constitution bars another map this decade. Democrats have moved for a change, but that could not happen until 2027 at the earliest, and then only with voter approval. In other states where Democrats control the governor's office and legislature, including Colorado and Washington, the party has backed independent commissions that cannot redraw, let alone rig, maps in the middle of the decade. Democrats say 'foundations of our democracy' at stake When the redistricting cycle kicked off in 2021, after the last census, independent commissions were in charge of drawing 95 House seats that otherwise would have been drawn by Democrats, but only 13 that would have been created by Republicans. In a marker of the shift among Democrats, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the party's redistricting effort and has called repeatedly for a more nonpartisan approach, seemed to bless his party's long shot efforts to overrule their commissions. 'We do not oppose – on a temporary basis – responsible, responsive actions to ensure that the foundations of our democracy are not permanently eroded,' Holder said in a statement last week. In states where they weren't checked by commissions, Democrats have redistricted just as ruthlessly as Republicans. In Illinois, they drew a map that gave them a 14-3 advantage in the congressional delegation. In New Mexico, they tweaked the map so they control all three House seats. In Nevada, they held three of its four seats in November despite Trump winning the state. Even in states where they have a lopsided advantage, Democrats are exploring ways to maximize it. On Friday, Maryland's House Majority Leader, Democratic Del. David Moon, said he would introduce legislation to trigger redrawing of the congressional lines if Texas moves forward. Democrats hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats. 'We can't have one state, especially a very large state, constantly trying to one-up and alter the course of congressional control while the other states sit idly by,' he said. Commissions promote 'fair representation,' advocates say Advocates of a nonpartisan model are alarmed by the shift among Democrats. They say the party would redistrict just as aggressively as the GOP if not held in check, depriving voters of a voice in districts whose winners would essentially be selected in advance by political leaders. 'We're very desperate — we're looking for any port in a storm,' said Emily Eby French, Common Cause's Texas director. 'This Democratic tit for tat redistricting seems like a port but it's not a port. It's a jagged rock with a bunch of sirens on them.' The group's director of redistricting, Dan Vicuña, said using redistricting for partisan advantage — known as gerrymandering — is highly unpopular with the public: 'This is about fair representation for communities.' Politicians used to shy away from discussing it openly, but that has changed in today's polarized environment. Trump earlier this month told reporters about his hopes of netting five additional GOP seats in Texas and more out of other Republican-controlled states. He has urged new maps in GOP-controlled states such as Indiana and Missouri, while Ohio Republicans are poised to reshape political lines after neutralizing a push to create an independent redistricting commission. Democrats are divided over how to respond to Texas In a sign of the party's divide, Democrats have continued to push for a national redistricting panel that would remove partisanship from the process, even as some call for retaliation against Republicans in defiance of state limitations. 'No unilateral disarmament till both sides are following the law,' said Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, like Newsom a possible 2028 presidential contender, wrote on X. Gallego's post came a day before his Democratic colleagues gathered to announce they were reintroducing a bill to create the national commission. An identical bill died in 2022 when it couldn't overcome Republican objections despite Democrats controlling Congress and the presidency. It has no chance now that the GOP is in charge of both branches. Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 contender, didn't express regret over past reforms that have implemented independent redistricting boards in Democratic states, saying the party 'should never apologize for being for the right thing.' But he added that Republicans 'are operating outside of the box right now and we can't stay inside the box.' 'If they're changing districts in the middle of the 10-year cycle, we have to do the same thing,' he said. That approach, however, hasn't caught on across the party. 'We shouldn't stoop to their tactics,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said. 'It's an ideal that we have accurate and fair representation. We can't abandon it just because Republicans try to manipulate and distort it.' ___ Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles, Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York, and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Maryland, contributed to this report.
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. The President is traveling to Scotland. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NEW YORK — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' Deepti Hajela And Hillel Italie, The Associated Press
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
It's Trump's U.S. economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
Anthony Matesic works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange in New York, Monday, July 14, 2025. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig) WASHINGTON — For all of U.S. President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared to last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's economic plans are a political gamble Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38 per cent of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. Recent economic reports suggest trouble ahead The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the past three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6 per cent over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2 per cent in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture, and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3 per cent during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8 per cent growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump's Fed attacks could unleash more inflation Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Trump didn't listen to the warnings on 'universal' tariffs Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.' Josh Boak And Christopher Rugber, The Associated Press
