She told Trump the Smithsonian needs changing. He's ordered her to do it.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Boston mayor to Bondi on ‘sanctuary' threats: ‘Stop attacking our cities'
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) struck back Tuesday at the Trump administration's legal threats over her city's immigration policies with a blistering letter asserting Boston won't 'bow down to unconstitutional threats or unlawful coercion' from the federal government. 'The U.S. Attorney General asked for a response by today, so here it is: stop attacking our cities to hide your administration's failures,' Wu wrote in a social media post linking to her formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Bondi sent letters last week to 32 state and local governments that have been deemed ' sanctuary jurisdictions,' including Boston, warning that they could lose federal funds or face legal action if they do not assist with President Trump's sweeping immigration enforcement efforts. 'For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,' Bondi wrote to Wu and other local letters. In her formal reply to Bondi, Wu lauded safety measures Boston has taken to tackle crime, often in partnership with federal authorities. 'Our City's longstanding and productive partnership with state and federal law enforcement to protect the people of Boston far predates your tenure,' Wu wrote to Bondi. 'The Boston Police Department, the first municipal police department in the United States, works closely with state and federal agencies to address counterterrorism threats, protect our airport and our harbor, combat drug and human trafficking and hold perpetrators accountable for crimes.' She blasted the Trump administration for lobbing 'false and continuous attacks on American cities.' 'On behalf of the people of Boston, and in solidarity with the cities and communities targeted by this federal administration for our refusal to bow down to unconstitutional threats and unlawful coercion, we affirm our support for each other and for our democracy,' Wu wrote. 'Boston will never back down from being a beacon of freedom, and a home for everyone.' The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment. The Trump administration has taken aim at cities and states — mostly ones led by Democrats — that have high crime rates or have not aided the mass immigration arrests and deportations that Trump has pushed. The president last week declared a public safety emergency in the District of Columbia and seized control of the Metropolitan Police Force (MPD) and sent members of the National Guard and federal law enforcement agencies in a sweeping crime crackdown in the nation's capital. Trump deployed Marines and National Guard troops in Los Angeles in June amid protests over Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
There is a solution to America's gerrymandering problem
The redistricting war going on across the country began with the president asking — or, as some see it, directing — Texas to redraw its congressional map to give the GOP as many as five additional House seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Given that the party that holds the White House typically loses House seats in the midterms, and with a thin GOP majority after the 2024 election, the president is looking for any advantage to hold the House. This action has elicited outrage among Democrats, pushing the most populous state, California, to redraw its map. Several other states, including Ohio, Florida and Indiana, are also investigating the possibility of redrawing their maps, in an all-out gerrymander fest to squeeze every last seat out of Congress. Yet the maps drawn after the 2020 census were already well gerrymandered. Of the 435 total seats, just 36 were deemed competitive in 2022, defined as winners determined by a margin of victory below 5 percent. In 2024, the number of competitive seats jumped to 43. Though the problem appears to be the gerrymandering of congressional maps, the real problem is how representation is determined. The popular vote in each congressional district determines its winner, but the way the population of each state is dissected into discrete districts partitions the popular vote across each state. Since each district seat is represented by a winner-take-all vote, the design of each state's congressional map effectively determines how its voters are represented in Congress. Take, for example, Massachusetts. Its nine congressional seats are all represented by Democrats. In the 2024 election, five of the seats were uncontested. Among the four contested races, the closest margin of victory was 13 percent. Yet in the presidential race, 36 percent of the votes cast were for Donald Trump, the same percentage that voted for the Republican candidates in the four contested seats. This begs the question: Should these 36 percent of voters have some GOP representation? A similar situation occurred in Oklahoma, with all five of its congressional seats held by Republications, even though 32 percent of the votes cast were for Kamala Harris. Given that computational redistricting can draw House maps that are either maximally gerrymandered, provide sensible voter representation, or anything in between, there is no need for maps to be drawn by redistricting commissions, whether they are independent or made up of partisan legislators. The necessary mapping criteria specified by state laws can now be incorporated into mapping algorithms. Examples of such criteria include compactness of districts or preserving communities of interest. The only role for redistricting commissions is to specify the desired bias of the map. Gerrymandered maps demonstrate that we no longer have representation of the people but of the parties, making Congress a de facto House of Mis-Representatives. At the core, the problem is how members of the House are elected, and indirectly, the Electoral College. As long as voter preferences are packed into discrete ongressional district seats, the current gerrymandering wars will continue to discount and ignore voters. In fact, Trump told a group in 2024 during his campaign that they would not need to vote again if he were elected. Despite not knowing precisely what he had in mind, he may indeed be correct, given that representation of voters is mostly predetermined. Is there a solution? Continue to hold elections with congressional districts. However, the number of seats won by each party should be allocated by each party's state popular vote. Then the top vote getters, either in absolute number or in percentage of votes won, across all the districts from each party are assigned seats, up to the number of seats won by the party. This means that all the representatives in each state would be at-large, representing all the people of the state. A formula for rounding would be needed to determine which party gets the partial seat fraction, much like how congressional apportionment is used after each census to determine the number of House seats in each state. With such a system, in Massachusetts, Republicans would have won two congressional seats and Democrats would have won seven. In Oklahoma, Republicans would have won four seats and Democrats would have won one. Such a process would neutralize the impact of gerrymandering, since each state's haul of seats would be determined by the state popular vote, giving every eligible voter the added incentive to cast their vote. The net effect of such a system would likely not yield a difference in the overall number of House seats held by each party. It would, however, redistribute party representation across all 50 states. Most importantly, it would neutralize the benefits of gerrymandering to the parties, since each state's popular vote would determine representation. —Such a new system would require a change in the Constitution something that is highly unlikely in this vitriolic political environment. Yet without such a change, gerrymandering will continue to erode the influence of voters and elevate the power of parties. Texas's actions to redraw their congressional map midterm has unleashed a war on democracy. More accurately, it has taken gerrymander politics to unprecedented levels. The final outcome will be less voter representation and more partisan party politics. What the Texas 'seat steal' effort demonstrates is that, in the eyes of parties, voters are no longer relevant. Every voter in the 2026 midterm elections who is disgusted with such disrespect should write in an unnamed candidate, 'Other' — if such a name won a seat, it will send a strong message that gerrymandering is no longer acceptable, that the current toxic mapping system is shattered beyond repair, and a new model for earning representation is needed. Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. He is the founder of the .
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
California regulators back moves to boost zero-emissions vehicles as feds take on state's standards
California regulators on Tuesday vowed to strengthen their commitment to slashing harmful vehicular emissions as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to overturn the state's pollution policies. 'Clean air efforts are under siege, putting the health of every American at risk,' Liane Randolph, chair of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), said on a Tuesday press call. 'California is continuing to fight back and will not give up on cleaner air and better public health — we have a legal and moral obligation,' she added. Randolph spoke alongside the publication of a new CARB report that outlined ways the state could fight back: by accelerating zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption via increased private investment, government incentives and changes in ZEV fuel pricing. The report, submitted to Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), identified these specific priority action areas and others relating to state regulations and ZEV procurement, as requested by the governor in a June executive order. Chief among the CARB report's priorities was ensuring that private investment continues to support the ZEV market. To do so, the agency recommended sustaining California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, a program designed to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels, decrease petroleum dependency and achieve air quality gains. As far as government incentives are concerned, CARB suggested that the governor and the legislature consider backfilling federal clean vehicle tax credits, which are set to expire at the end of September. Those credits could take the form of point-of-sale rebates or vouchers and could be scaled to match state policy goals, per the report. The agency also proposed creating an education pipeline for high-paying jobs in the clean transportation industry, as well as investigating opportunities to reinstate high-occupancy vehicle lane access for ZEVs. Regarding infrastructure, CARB identified a need for collaborative buildouts of charging and refueling infrastructure. As for the price of fuels, the agency suggested implementing an electric bill crediting system for EV charging, while support Western grid regionalization and leveraging private investments to bring down the cost of hydrogen. In the regulations area, the agency recommended advancing ZEV consumer assurance measures and working with local air districts on reducing 'indirect sources' of pollution, such as warehouses or railyards. The final priority, procurement, would benefit from the purchase of ZEVs for state fleets and support for doing so in local governments, according to the report. The recommendations, Randolph said, serve to steer near-term actions and 'ensure the state stays on track to meet its air quality and climate goals.' Newsom's June executive order — which mandated the CARB report — occurred after President Trump signed three congressional resolutions revoking California's previously approved emissions rules. That approval had come from the Biden administration, which granted California a waiver to set stricter-than-federal rules via the 1970 Clean Air Act. One such rule was the Advanced Clean Cars II standard, which sought to require that all cars sold in California would be zero-emissions by 2035. A second was the Advanced Clean Trucks rule, requiring 7.5 percent of heavy-duty vehicles to be emissions-free by 2035. A third, the Omnibus Regulation, focused on slashing nitrogen oxide releases. Just last week — in an about-face on compliance with the Golden State's standards — four major truck manufacturers sued California regulators over the latter two rules. Soon after, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that a voluntary ' Clean Truck Partnership ' between the companies and the state was 'unenforceable.' Then, Friday, the Department of Justice declared its intent to sue California about the same partnership, in a bid to 'advance President Donald J. Trump's commitment to end the electric vehicle (EV) mandate.' Later that day, CARB only said that it would not comment on pending litigation. On Tuesday, however, Randolph said that regardless of federal government's waiver revocation, California is continuing 'to fight hard for the emissions reductions that can easily be achieved in the heavy-duty sector and are already being achieved.' Referring specifically to the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, she noted that 'the actual adoption is way ahead of the compliance obligation in that regulation.' 'The market is there, and the market is moving,' she said. Randolph also told reporters that CARB is already working on updating Advanced Clean Cars, with the idea that rulemaking processes can take two to four years. By starting now, she explained, the rule might 'be ready, ideally, for a more receptive U.S. EPA.' Slamming the current federal administration for 'choosing to quit the race,' she stressed that 'California is still in.' 'The world is accelerating forward toward cleaner vehicle technologies and is going to watch the U.S. fade into the rearview mirror,' Randolph added.
