Trump backs Texas plan to redraw voting maps to benefit House Republicans
Republicans currently hold a 220-212 majority in the 435-seat House, with three vacancies in strongly Democratic districts. Incumbent presidents' parties typically lose House seats in midterm elections, but Trump argued that redistricting Texas could improve its chances.
"I think we get five," Trump told reporters at the White House. "And there could be some other states where we're going to get three or four or five. Texas will be the biggest one.'
House districts are typically redrawn every 10 years following each U.S. Census, to account for changes in population. Republicans currently hold 25 of Texas' 38 House districts.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican and strong Trump ally, earlier this month added redistricting to the agenda of a special legislative session on July 21. He said he was doing so "in light of constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice."
Abbott announced his decision days after receiving a letter from Harmeet Dhillon, U.S. assistant attorney general of the civil rights division, expressing concern that four majority-minority Texas congressional districts won by Democrats were unconstitutionally drawn along racial lines in 2021.
The move is not without risk for Republicans as redrawing some Democratic-held districts to make them more winnable for Republican candidates would make existing Republican districts more competitive.
Representative Marc Veasey, a Democrat whose Fort Worth-area seat is one of the four targeted by the Justice Department, labeled the redistricting effort a "craven power grab" and a "coordinated political stunt" between Trump and Abbott.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, in a joint press conference in Washington on Tuesday with several Texas Democrats, said: "Donald Trump, House Republicans here in Washington, and Governor Abbott are conspiring to rig the Texas congressional map as part of an effort to disenfranchise millions of people in Texas."
Asked whether he was concerned that Democratic-leaning states like New York and California could launch redistricting efforts of their own, Trump said he was not concerned.
"Well, that's fine too," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
34 minutes ago
- Reuters
OPEC+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike, sources say
LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in September, two OPEC+ sources said on Sunday as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 1100 GMT, amid fresh U.S. demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh EU sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more oil. OPEC+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000-bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. OPEC+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday.
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump is wrong to pick a fight with Powell – but is right about interest rates
Visiting Scotland last week, Donald Trump used a joint press conference to mock Keir Starmer. He castigated Labour's policies on immigration, energy and much else. The Prime Minister sat awkwardly, sporting his trademark rictus grin. Trump has lately dished out plenty of public humiliation – not least aimed at Jerome Powell, chairman of the Federal Reserve. The president has put huge pressure on the Fed to lower interest rates, to boost US growth and ease interest payments on America's massive $36trn (£27.6trn) national debt. This jars badly with the conventional wisdom that central banks should be independent, allowing technocrat economists to set interest rates to bear down on inflation. That's far better for the economy in the long-run, but this precious independence is jeopardised when vote-hungry politicians seek to keep borrowing costs too low. Such independence has become an almost sacred policy concept over the last half century. And no central bank matters more than the Fed, which sets the course for monetary policy across the globe. Yet Trump, astonishingly, has lately called Powell a 'numbskull', a 'stubborn mule' and worse. On a recent Fed visit, he rebuked him over the cost of a refurbishment project – a potential pretext to sack Powell, which may not be legally possible, but which Trump often floats regardless. Between September and December last year, the Fed's committee of twelve rate-setters voted to lower the US benchmark interest rate three times from its post-Covid-peak of 5.25pc-5.5pc, in increments down to 4.25pc-4.5pc. But much to the president's frustration, rates have since stayed put. The Bank of England, meanwhile, has cut rates four times since last summer, including as recently as May, while the European Central Bank has enacted no less than eight eurozone rate reductions over the same period, the latest in June. Having held rates since the start of 2025, the Fed just did so again when governors met last Wednesday (although two Trump-appointees voted against, the biggest intra-Fed rate disagreement in thirty years). Fed policymakers are rightly worried about price pressures, with headline inflation hitting 3.7pc during the year to June, up from 2.4pc the previous month and well above the 2pc target. And Trump's era-defining slew of tariffs – taxes on imports into the US – means we could see a lot more inflation yet. With the President's three-month moratorium expiring this weekend, and tariffs now set to bite on some of America's largest trading partners, the Fed is understandably concerned. Powell insists the US economy is strong enough for the Fed to wait before further rate cuts, as we see if Trump's tariffs really do aggravate inflation. And last week's GDP numbers – a 3pc expansion from April to June – was certainly way above consensus forecasts, reversing a 0.5pc contraction during the first three months of the year, the worst quarterly performance since early 2022. This January to March shrinkage, though, was largely due to the huge rise in US imports as buyers sought to get ahead of Trump's expected tariff onslaught. And since 'liberation day' in April, when the President unveiled his tariffs on the White House lawn, imports into the US have plunged. This artificially boosted April to June GDP growth as the first-quarter trend unwound. Yes, consumer spending rose 1.4pc during the second quarter, outpacing the 0.5pc increase over the previous three months, supporting Powell's argument the economy is coping without further rate cuts. But 'final sales to private domestic purchasers', a key demand metric that the Fed watches closely, grew just 1.2pc over the latest quarter, slower than the 1.9pc increase between January and March. High mortgage rates are also holding back the housing market and related construction, as Trump relentlessly points out, with residential investment down 4.6pc during the second quarter. But that's part of a broader investment slump as business leaders look to see how the president's tariffs play out. For now, the market consensus is that the US economy is showing resilience, but more rate cuts may be justified as long as inflation isn't further provoked. So Trump's attacks on Powell are based on legitimate economic analysis. Yet his language is way over the top. Some say the president is picking headline-grabbing fights with the Fed chair to detract from mounting criticism over his handling of the Epstein files. I suspect he simply wants lower rates and, for now at least, Powell stands in his way. Ironically, it was Trump who appointed Powell in 2017. But having repeatedly called for him to resign, the president seems certain to replace him when Powell's term expires next May. In the meantime, Trump's ceaseless undermining of central bank independence is deeply damaging. Yes, the Fed has a 'dual mandate' to pursue both price stability and full employment, unlike the solely inflation-focussed aims of most other central banks. But while Trump's arguments may be technically valid, it should absolutely not be him making them, nor anyone else near the top of government. Given the tone he has set, though, Powell's successor will be seen as the president's lackey. And with US and global inflation far from tamed, that could end up being a serious problem. My general view is that central bank independence is far more important than any individual central banker. Andrew Bailey, for instance, has shown seriously bad judgement at the Bank of England – endlessly insisting post-Covid inflation would be 'transitory', for instance, while deriding those of us who correctly predicted otherwise. His appointment was a mistake, but he should stay, free from the threat politicians might remove him, until his term expires in March 2028. The same applies to Powell and far more so – he should serve his full term.
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
After 2024 wipeout, Democrats shadow 2028 primary has begun
But the 60-year-old can't help and leave bread crumbs out for supporters, such as when she hinted in her announcement that she will be "sharing more details in the months ahead" about her future. More: Kamala Harris' decision kickstarts the 2028 Democratic presidential primary: 5 takeaways "That's leaving more than the door ajar, that's pushing the door wide open," Michael Feldman, a former senior adviser to Vice President Al Gore, told USA TODAY. "I understand the optionality that creates for her: she shut a door, she's opening another. And by the way, nobody wants to foreclose their options and their opportunity." 'A contested primary' ahead If Harris does enter the fray for a third try at the presidency it will certainly stir the 2028 pot. She brings the highest name ID of any suspected contender and an even broader donor network with established relationships to boot. But campaign experts and strategists warn that no one should expect a red carpet to the nomination this time around. "There will be a contested primary," Feldman said. "There will be a large field of people who feel like it's their time and it's their moment." More: Town halls, f-bombs and Elon Musk: How Democrats are waging a new messaging war As the Democratic reboot continues, White House hopefuls such as Harris are tiptoeing into an earlier than usual shadow campaign that political observers say they believe will be among the party's most consequential presidential primaries in decades. "More is riding on this pre-primary race than in most years because the party's brand is in the toilet," said Matthew Dallek, a historian and professor of political management at George Washington University. But Democrats must be cautious about trotting too far to the left based on the outcome of a single or handful of recent elections, some strategists warn. Vice President JD Vance, thought by many to be next in line to inherit the MAGA mantle for populist-minded conservatives, is one of the more effective national communicators for Republicans with sharpened skills as Trump's attack dog. He and other potential GOP figures are ready to dig Democrats a deeper hole. More: JD Vance is now the MAGA heir-apparent. Does that make him the front-runner for 2028? While voting won't commence in the next White House race for 17 more months, that's not stopping a number of sitting governors, senators and other aspiring future Democratic presidents to be making pilgrimages to early voting states. They're also penning memoirs, doing marathon podcast interviews, squirreling away campaign cash and outlining their stances on topics that will be relevant to the progressive base, moderates and eventually independent voters down the line. More: Kamala Harris explores 'drama of running for president' in new book on 2024 bid All of the preliminary jockeying from such a diverse and crowded unofficial field suggests a resilience among rank-and-file Democrats despite abysmal approval ratings that haven't been this low among voters since 1990. "The only way to begin to improve it is through whoever the next presidential nominee will be," Dallek said "The stakes, in that sense, are higher. It's not just the presidency. It's not just the nomination. There's a sense among Democrats that they need to do this, and there's a big debate." Raising brands and saving campaign cash Several 2028 hopefuls have already begun to make strategic moves to keep their name in the mix with the party faithful. About a dozen have visited or have plans to make stops in the early primary states, such as Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, 60, who in April caught attention for delivering a searing speech in New Hampshire aimed at 'do-nothing' Democrats. Sen. Ruben Gallego, 45, of Arizona, whose name has lately shot up on the rumored list of White House candidates, is set to attend two events in the Granite State later this month too, further fueling speculation that he's a possible contender. "I'll be on the ground in New Hampshire... taking on the GOP's billionaire agenda and standing up for working families," Gallego, who was elected to the Senate last fall, said in a July 29 post on X. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, 57, trekked through rural South Carolina in July. He was followed by Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, 47, who talked up flipping red states with union leaders and later Rep. Ro Khanna, 48, D-Calif., who made a four-day tour featuring town halls and visits to Black churches. Former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, 43, may claim he "isn't running for anything" but his May trip to Iowa for a veterans-focused forum focused heavily on existential questions facing Democrats and the country. Buttigieg shot to fame running for president in 2020 as the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and he has been raising his national brand through a podcast tour. Other potential contenders are also taking the podcast route, including Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, 46, who recently lamented how Democrats "gave up on" entire swaths of the country during a July 29 sit-down chat on former DNC chair Jaime Harrison's "At Our Table." "I'm very much am a person of action, and I think as a party we've got to stop being the party of 'no and slow' and start being the party of 'yes and now,'" said Moore, whose name is tossed around despite saying he isn't running for president. More: Harris campaign's embrace of social media influencers is years in the making Nina Smith, a Democratic strategist who worked on Buttigieg's 2020 presidential campaign, said these early moves serve the candidates by creating and maintaining local connections. They also lend to rebuilding the party's brand organically through the excitement of a nominee. "There's some juice, there's some fire, from the perspective of people who want to step up and lead and be the standard bearer for our party," Smith said. "We're kind of spoiled for choices in that regard. That's a good thing." Such an elongated presidential campaign can exhaust resources as much as voters, which may explain why notable 2028 contenders are storing up massive cash reserves. Khanna, whose California district is located in the heart of Silicon Valley, had roughly $14.2 million in his campaign coffers at the end of June, according to the latest Federal Election Commission report. Other congressional Democrats on the 2028 list who can legally transfer their funds to a presidential campaign include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., 35, who had a record-breaking first quarter haul this year and had about $9.8 million in the bank. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., 51, a media maven with possible White House aspirations, holds approximately $10.2 million in his accounts. Big debates on Trump, affordability and Gaza lie ahead One feature of the pre-primary jockeying that is coming into focus is the major differences within the Democratic ranks, such as how best to oppose the Trump administration's bulldozing agenda. An example of that larger debate was on display on Capitol Hill this past week when Sen. Cory Booker, D-NJ, a rumored 2028 contender, blasted his fellow party members for supporting a bundle of proposals backed by the GOP administration that would increase resources and funding to police departments and officers. More: 'It's with a full heart that I share this news': Cory Booker drops out of 2020 race "This, to me, is the problem with Democrats in America right now is we're willing to be complicit to Donald Trump to let this pass through when we have all the leverage right now," said Booker, 56, who ran a short-lived 2020 presidential campaign and has garnered renewed interest since delivering a record-breaking Senate speech. Booker's comment outraged Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., 65, another prospective and former 2020 White House contender, who needled him for missing a committee hearing on the bipartisan package. There are other issues for Democrats to sort out as well, such as navigating the rising populism from the left over cost of living concerns that helped propel Zohran Mamdani's primary win in the New York City mayor's race. Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, 65, a centrist-aligned Democrat who is being urged to run by more moderate voices, has cautioned against Democrats embracing the 33-year-old New Yorker who is hoping Big Apple voters will pick him this November to lead the nation's largest city. "Recognizing that the American dream is unaffordable and inaccessible and that working hard no longer guarantees getting ahead isn't a socialist observation; it's clear to people of all political stripes," Emanuel said in a June 26 op-ed to the Wall Street Journal. More: Rahm Emanuel warns Democrats in 2020 not to play to 'socialist' type "Affordable healthcare, lifetime retirement security and affordable community college are as American as apple pie, but they won't be realized by consulting the Democratic Socialists of America's playbook," added Emanuel, who most recently served as Biden's U.S. ambassador to Japan and previously was an Illinois congressman and White House chief of staff to then-President Barack Obama. Feldman, the former Gore advisor, said there's a lot of energy among the progressive wing of the party that can't be dismissed, but he questions if someone such as Mamdani could be competitive in a national general election. "My argument would be, no, he couldn't be," Feldman said. "So, you know, there'll be an argument between the various factions in the Democratic Party about what policies we want to present to the American people, and can you harness the energy in the electorate." More: Election 2024 recap: 'We accept the results,' Harris concedes Other Democratic thinkers agree these sort of sparring matches are inevitable but that they should be looked at more optimistically in the 2028 context given the presidential field is expected to include uber-progressives, centrists and even moderately conservative. "It's gonna be messy and personal, and it's going to feel bad sometimes in the process, but I think it's going to help us shape as a party, what we believe," Amanda Litman, a former Obama 2012 and Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign staffer who co-founded Run for Something, a progressive group that supports candidates for public office, told USA TODAY. Progressives versus everyone else? Every potential 2028 contender will have to talk about a voter's lived experiences and connect with them on the issues that matter most, according to various Democrats who spoke with USA TODAY. But they will also have to evolve with the progressive base on issues the mainstream party has been fearful to embrace. Former Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., who lost his reelection bid last year, is touting new polling by Data for Progress released in late July that shows of New York City primary voters strongly sympathize with Palestinians. The survey found support for Palestinian rights fueled much of Mamdani's support, including 78% of respondents who said Israel is committing genocide in the region and another 79% who said they support restricting weapons to the U.S. ally. Bowman, who was opposed heavily by pro-Israel groups, pointed out that Khanna stood up early as one of the first members of Congress to call for a cease-fire during the Biden era, saying his former colleague should get "a lot of credit for that." As the 2028 field takes shape, Bowman argued that the party cannot be seen as titling the scales against more left-leaning contenders. He also warned the possible presidential contenders that they should not ignore the shifting tides that populist-minded progressives are causing, especially amid widespread reports of starvation in Gaza. "I expect a robust primary debate," Bowman told USA TODAY. "And I hope that ideas rule the day over special interests and politics where we can see the rise of an authentic, historic leadership."
