US Democrats block vote on Trump-backed Texas redistricting map
The vote could not proceed on Monday afternoon, even as Republican Governor Greg Abbott threatened to remove the fleeing lawmakers from office and suggested that they could face charges. At least 100 legislators in the 150-member chamber needed to be present for the vote to proceed.
It is not clear when the next vote will be held.
The new redrawn map, backed by President Donald Trump, would give Republicans more safe seats to help them keep their majority in the US House in the midterm elections next year.
According to the Texas Tribune newspaper, the Texas House approved in an 85-to-six vote a mostly symbolic measure to track down and arrest more than 50 legislators who left the state. The warrants are only valid in Texas.
The controversy in the conservative-leaning state has dominated the political conversation in the country, more than a year ahead of the November 2026 midterm elections.
Gerrymandering – drawing districts around demographic and socioeconomic lines for partisan reasons – is not uncommon in the US. But Texas appears to have taken the practice to its limits, all but eliminating five seats held by Democrats.
'We're not here to play political games. We're here to demand an end to this corrupt process,' top Texas House Democrat Gene Wu said at a news conference in Illinois on Sunday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump administration subpoenas New York Attorney General Letitia James
The United States Department of Justice has subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had successfully filed a civil lawsuit against US President Donald Trump for alleged fraud in his business dealings. Friday's subpoenas come as the department convenes a grand jury to investigate whether James, a Democrat, violated the civil rights of President Donald Trump and other Republican-affiliated entities. Anonymous sources with knowledge of the subpoenas confirmed their existence to The Associated Press and other news agencies. According to the media reports, the grand jury will not only probe whether Trump's rights were violated by the fraud lawsuit, but the subpoenas will also seek information about a second lawsuit James launched against the National Rifle Association (NRA), an influential gun lobby group. A spokesperson for James's office did not confirm the subpoenas but rejected any wrongdoing. 'Any weaponisation of the justice system should disturb every American,' the statement said. 'We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers' rights.' James's personal lawyer, Abbe Lowell, also said in a statement that her legal team was 'ready and waiting with the facts and the law'. 'Investigating the fraud case Attorney General James won against President Trump and his businesses has to be the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign,' Lowell said. A history of in-court clashes The reports on Friday revealing the subpoenas have fuelled criticism that Trump is increasingly weaponising the Justice Department to settle scores. Trump faced numerous legal challenges, both civil and criminal, during his period out of the White House from January 2021 to January 2025. He is the first US president to not only face criminal charges but to be convicted. James, meanwhile, was among the officials who spearheaded civil proceedings against him. She took office in January 2019 and has since filed several lawsuits against Trump and his policies. But one of the most high-profile has been the 2022 case in which she accused Trump of inflating the value of his assets — including his real estate properties and golf clubs — to defraud banks and lenders. In February 2024, Trump and his sons were ordered to pay $454m in the case, though the president continues to appeal that ruling. Trump has argued his financial statements actually under-valued his assets. Separately, James successfully filed a lawsuit against the NRA and its founder, Wayne LaPierre, for misusing millions in funding for the group. Trump maintains close ties to the anti-gun control lobby group. Revenge on political adversaries? For years, Trump has alleged that he is the subject of a political 'witch hunt'. Those who prosecuted him, he argues, have abused their office for political gain, in an alleged effort to dampen his popularity among voters. Trump has expressed particular ire towards James, calling her a 'horrible person' and a 'total crook' in May. That month, the Justice Department, under his authority, opened an investigation into James's real estate holdings, alleging she misrepresented her property records to obtain more favourable loans. Trump has also argued that statements James made on the campaign trail indicate her political bias against him. While running for office in 2018, for instance, James called Trump 'illegitimate', 'incompetent' and 'ill-equipped to serve in the highest office of this land'. Friday's subpoenas come on the heels of other investigations that critics perceive as retribution from Trump against his political adversaries. Just this week, the Department of Justice also announced it would open an investigation into members of the administration of former President Barack Obama, a longtime target of Trump's criticisms. The probe centres on intelligence community reports examining whether Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won. The reports concluded that Russia sought to sway the election through disinformation, though no votes were tampered with. They also suggested that Russia favoured Trump over his Democratic rival, something Trump has since described as an effort to delegitimise his victory. Trump has since accused Obama of 'treason', although no evidence has emerged of wrongdoing. The Department of Justice has also recently sought to purge career employees who worked on two federal criminal cases filed against Trump after he left office in 2021. The first related to classified documents Trump took from the White House after his 2020 election defeat. The second was connected to Trump's efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump signs order authorising military action against cartels: Reports
President Donald Trump has secretly signed an order directing the military to take action against drug-smuggling cartels and other criminal groups from Latin America, according to a report in The New York Times. The newspaper's report on Friday appeared to confirm statements earlier in the week from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who signalled the US military had approval to take aggressive action against cartels. 'It allows us to now target what they're operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever … to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it,' Rubio said on Thursday. 'We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organisations, not simply drug-dealing organisations.' The news, however, has spurred concern that the military could be deployed within the US and abroad to combat sanctioned criminal groups like the Sinaloa Cartel, Tren de Aragua and Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13). The Trump administration has designated such entities as 'foreign terrorist organisations', putting them in the same category as groups like al-Qaeda, ISIL (ISIS) and Boko Haram. But a US government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the news agency Reuters that no military action appeared imminent. Mexico responds to intervention fears Still, during a Friday morning news conference, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum faced questions about the risk of US intervention on her country's soil. She acknowledged that her government had received information about the coming order from the Trump administration. But Sheinbaum denied that the result would be the US military operating on Mexican territory. She emphasised that her country is not at risk of US intervention. 'There will be no invasion of Mexico,' Sheinbaum said. 'We were informed that this executive order was coming and that it had nothing to do with the participation of any military personnel or any institution in our territory.' The Mexican leader has previously warned that any US military activity on Mexican territory would be a serious violation of the country's sovereignty. The possibility, however, has been raised in the past, particularly by politicians on the US right. In 2023, for instance, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis — then a candidate for president — repeatedly pledged to authorise use of force against drug cartels on Mexican soil. Other Republican politicians, like Representative Dan Crenshaw, also proposed legislation to greenlight military action against the cartels. Such claims have been met with anger in Mexico, where a long history of US intervention has contributed to a strong belief in the need to uphold national sovereignty. Still, in May, Trump confirmed that, earlier this year, he offered to send US troops to help combat drug trafficking in Mexico. For her part, Sheinbaum said she firmly rebuffed the idea. 'I told him, 'No, President Trump, our territory is inviolable, our sovereignty is inviolable, our sovereignty is not for sale,'' she said at the time. Wide consequences for the region Trump's heavy-handed approach has also caused frustration in other parts of Latin America, as well as thorny legal and ethical issues. Since taking office for a second term in January, Trump has repeatedly stretched the bounds of executive power by claiming that the US faces an 'invasion' of criminal immigrants, thereby authorising him to take extreme action. But legal experts say it is unclear what the US military might be able to do within the constraints of domestic and international law. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from being used as a domestic policing force. Local and federal law enforcement are, therefore, the entities that helm operations on domestic soil to disrupt and arrest gangs. International laws, meanwhile, restrict military actions abroad except in instances of self-defence. The United Nations charter, for instance, includes language that calls on its members to refrain from 'the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state'. Attacking people outside of combat situations might also infringe upon international humanitarian law. Critics have also questioned the efficacy of taking such a strong-armed approach to gangs, drug cartels and other groups. After Trump designated many such groups as 'terrorist organisations', human rights groups pointed out that civilians who live in gang-controlled territory could inadvertently be sanctioned, as they are often forced to pay the gangs through coercion. Reports that Trump signed the authorisation for military action also come at a tense time for US-Latin American relations. The US president recently placed high tariffs on Brazil, in an effort to end a trial against his right-wing ally Jair Bolsonaro over his alleged involvement in a coup plot. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva called Trump's actions 'unacceptable' and described them as an effort to interfere in the sovereignty of another country.
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump and the global rise of fascist anti-psychiatry
Despite spending more on psychiatric services and prescribing psychiatric medications at a higher rate than almost any other nation, mental health in the United States over the last two decades has only been getting worse. Rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, overdose, chronic disability due to mental health conditions, and loneliness have all been rapidly increasing. No quantity of psychiatric drugs or hospitalisations appears adequate to reverse these trends. Despite this, the US medical and psychiatric establishment has persistently refused to use its substantial political power to demand the transformation of care by expanding non-medical support systems to address the root social causes of mental illness, such as poverty, childhood trauma and incarceration, rather than focusing on reactive treatment via lucrative medication-centric norms. This failing status quo has created an opening for President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr's emerging plans to remake the nation's approach to mental health, with disastrous consequences now coming into focus. Trump and Kennedy have hijacked legitimate anger at a broken system to justify destroying public care infrastructure, including Medicaid, food and housing assistance, harm-reduction and overdose prevention programmes, and suicide-prevention hotlines for LGBTQ youth, while promoting wellness scams and expanding the police state. They focus on the 'threat' supposedly posed by psychiatric medications and call to reopen the asylums that once confined approximately 560,000 people, or one in 295 US residents, in horrific conditions, until protests against their cruelty led to their closure beginning in the 1950s. Trump invokes false claims about mental illness to demonise immigrants, whom he is now hunting via a mass arrest and incarceration campaign. Last month, he signed an executive order that allows police to arrest and forcibly institutionalise poor Americans who are unhoused, deemed mentally ill, or struggling with addiction, effectively incarcerating them for indefinite periods. Trump's order, which also defunds housing-first programmes and harm-reduction services, while criminalising homelessness and encampments, contains no provisions to protect people from abuse or from the political misuse of psychiatric labels and institutionalisation to target his opponents. This raises concerns about risks to LGBTQ youth and other vulnerable groups. It also threatens groups upon which the administration has shown a eugenicist fixation: transgender people, people with autism, and others with disabilities that RFK Jr and Trump have characterised as a threat or burden on society. The order appears to grant the government the power to deem anyone mentally ill or abusing substances, and to confine them indefinitely in any designated treatment facility, without due process. In a context where there is already a profound shortage of psychiatric beds even for short-term treatment, there are no provisions for new funding or regulatory systems to ensure that facilities are therapeutic or humane, rather than violent, coercive warehouses like American asylums of decades past. Trump's allies, including some medical professionals aligned with ideologies of social control and state coercion, may dismiss this as overly pessimistic. But that requires ignoring the fact that Trump's executive order follows Kennedy's proposal for federally funded 'wellness farms', where people, particularly Black youth taking SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors primarily used to treat anxiety and depression) and stimulants, would be subjected to forced labour and 're‑parenting' to overcome supposed drug dependence. These proposals revive the legacy of coercive institutions built on forced labour and racialised interventions. Kennedy has also promoted the conspiracy theory that anti-depressants like SSRIs cause school shootings, comparing their risks with heroin, despite a total lack of scientific support for such claims. In his early tenure as health and human services secretary, he has already gutted key federal mental health research and services, including at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Given this, it is unclear what kind of 'treatment', other than confinement and cruelty, Trump and RFK Jr plan to deliver in their new asylums. Trump and Kennedy's lies about mental health, cuts to public care and vision for expanding the incarceration of immigrants, homeless people, and anyone they label as mentally ill, worsen mental health while creating more opportunities to profit from preventable suffering, disability and death. These tactics are not new, and their harmful consequences and political motivations are well established. From Hungary to the Philippines, right-wing politicians have deployed similar rhetoric for comparable purposes. In a precedent that likely informs Trump's plan, Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro, attacked psychiatric reformsas leftist indoctrination and defunded successful community mental health services, replacing them with coercive asylum and profit-based models, while advocating pseudoscience linked to evangelical movements. Bolsonaro claimed to defend family values and national identity against globalist medical ideologies, while sacrificing countless Brazilian lives via policies later characterised by the Senate as crimes against humanity. Bolsonaro's record is instructive for anticipating Trump's plans. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Brazil's disgraced former president and their shared political ideologies. Bolsonaro's reversal of Brazil's internationally recognised psychiatric reform movement, which emphasised deinstitutionalisation, community-based psychosocial care and autonomy, inflicted profound harm. Under his rule, institutionalisation in coercive 'therapeutic communities', often operated by evangelical organisations, with little oversight, and similar to RFK Jr's proposed 'wellness farms', skyrocketed. Investigations revealed widespread abuses in these communities, including forced confinement, unpaid labour, religious indoctrination, denial of medication, and physical and psychological violence. Bolsonaro's government poured large sums into expanding these dystopian asylums while defunding community mental health centres, leaving people with severe mental illness and substance use disorders abandoned to punitive care or the streets. This needless suffering pushed more people into Brazil's overcrowded prisons, where psychiatric care is absent, abuse rampant and systemic racism overwhelming, with Black people accounting for more than 68 percent of the incarcerated population. Bolsonaro's psychiatric agenda enhanced carceral control under the guise of care, reproducing racist and eugenicist hierarchies of social worth under an anti-psychiatry banner of neo-fascist nationalism. Trump and Bolsonaro's reactionary approaches underline a crucial truth: Both psychiatry and critiques of it can serve very different ends, depending on the politics to which they are attached. Far-right politicians often use anti-psychiatry to justify privatisation, eugenics and incarceration. They draw on ideas from the libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who argued in the 1960s that mental illness was a 'myth', and called for the abolition of psychiatric institutions. In the US today, these political actors distort Szasz's ideas, ignoring his opposition to coercion, by gutting public mental health services under the guise of 'healthcare freedom'. This leaves vulnerable populations to suffer in isolation, at the hands of police or fellow citizens who feel increasingly empowered to publicly abuse, or even, as seen in the killing of Jordan Neely in New York City, execute them on subways, in prisons, or on the streets. By contrast, critics of psychiatry on the left demand rights to non-medical care, economic security and democratic participation. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, RD Laing and Ivan Illich advocated for deinstitutionalisation not to abandon people, but to replace coercion with community-led social care that supports rights to individual difference. Their critiques targeted not psychiatry itself, but its use by exploitative, homogenising political systems. To oppose reactionary anti-psychiatry, mental health professionals and politicians cannot simply defend the status quo of over-medicalisation, profit-driven care and the pathologisation of poverty. Millions justifiably feel betrayed by current psychiatric norms that offer little more than labels and pills while ignoring the political causes of their suffering. If the left does not harness this anger towards constructive change, the right will continue to exploit it. The solution is not to shield America's mental health systems from critique, but to insist on an expansive political vision of care that affirms the need for psychiatric support while refusing to treat it as a substitute for the political struggle for social services. This means investing in public housing, guaranteed income, peer-led community care worker programmes, non-police crisis teams and strong social safety nets that address the root causes of distress, addiction and disease. Mental health is fundamentally a political issue. It cannot be resolved with medications alone, nor, as Trump and RFK Jr are doing, by dismantling psychiatric services and replacing them with psychiatric coercion. The fight over mental health policy is a fight over the meaning of society and the survival of democratic ideals in an era where oligarchic power and fascist regimes are attempting to strangle them. Will we respond to suffering with solidarity, or with abandonment and punishment? Will we recognise the collective causes of distress and invest in systems of care, or allow political opportunists to exploit public disillusionment for authoritarian ends? These are the questions at stake, not just in the United States, but globally. If the psychiatric establishment refuses to support progressive transformation of mental health systems, we may soon lose them altogether as thinly disguised prisons rise in their place. If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
