Education Department clarifies DEI guidance
With help from Rebecca Carballo and Erin Schumaker
HEDGING A BIT — The Education Department late Friday unveiled a new document that appears to soften the agency's stance on programs it could deem illegal after firing off a letter two weeks ago that threatened to pull federal funding from schools with diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
— The Education Department's Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague letter told Pre-K to higher education leaders it was illegal to consider race in all aspects of student, academic and campus life. The letter also gave them just two weeks to examine their programs that could face scrutiny. The agency also launched an 'End DEI' hotline last week to encourage the public to report school programs they believe are discriminatory.
— Friday's question-and-answer document seems to be a little less sweeping than the initial guidance. The department acknowledged that is cannot control the content of school curricula and the agency said the letter does not direct schools to restrict any First Amendment rights.
— Department officials said schools with programs 'focused on interests in particular cultures, heritages, and areas of the world' are not illegal if they are open to all students regardless of race. This includes celebrations like Black History Month, International Holocaust Remembrance Day or similar events, the agency said, 'so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination.'
— But schools cannot have affinity graduation ceremonies, administer or advertise scholarships and other opportunities offered by third parties based on race, or craft admissions essay prompts to require applicants to disclose their race.
— The agency also said whether a school policy or program violates the law 'does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as 'diversity,' 'equity' or 'inclusion.'' Several school districts and colleges have been moving to remove the terms from their policies or scrubbing their websites. But the Education Department also said some schools have 'sought to veil discriminatory policies with terms like 'social-emotional learning' or 'culturally responsive.''
The Education Department said it would continue to update its document.
IT'S MONDAY, MARCH 3. WELCOME TO WEEKLY EDUCATION. Let's grab coffee. Drop me a line at bquilantan@politico.com. Send tips to my colleagues Rebecca Carballo at rcarballo@politico.com, Mackenzie Wilkes at mwilkes@politico.com and Juan Perez Jr. at jperez@politico.com. And follow us: @Morning_Edu and @POLITICOPro.
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
Congress
BIG VOTE AHEAD — Senators are poised to vote today on whether to confirm Linda McMahon to be President Donald Trump's Education secretary. She cleared a key procedural vote last week that advanced her nomination without the support of any Democrats.
— McMahon will likely be confirmed by another party-line vote. But many are bracing for what will come after the vote. The fierce Trump loyalist has promised to carry out the president's agenda, including his request that she put herself out of a job by shutting down the Education Department. The Trump administration has also been working on finalizing plans to dismantle the agency through an executive order.
— While Trump has been vocal about closing the department and his executive order plans have been widely reported on, many believe the administration has been waiting for McMahon to be confirmed before unveiling it. There were concerns that the order could have put McMahon in a difficult position to answer questions about the president's agenda.
— The order is expected to lay out a two-part strategy for shuttering the agency. It would direct the department to craft a plan to wind down its functions using its existing administrative authority and then examine the set of laws needed to delegate the department's powers to other agencies. Then the agency would close.
— But Trump and McMahon need congressional buy-in to shutter the department and reshuffle its core functions. McMahon, during her confirmation hearing with the Senate HELP Committee last month, said Congress would be involved in decisions about the Education Department's future.
ALSO: Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on S. 9, the 'Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act,' teeing up an initial floor vote as soon as today. The bill seeks to restrict transgender athletes from competing on women's and girls' sports teams. In January, House lawmakers passed a similar measure, H.R. 28, with some Democrats joining Republicans in the vote.
Higher Ed
A LONG NIH FUNDING BATTLE AHEAD — A federal court has temporarily blocked the across-the-board cut Trump wants to make to how the National Institutes of Health pays for universities' 'indirect costs,' such as facilities and administration. But even if the courts reject the plan, Trump could turn to Plan B — renegotiating the payments one university at a time, POLITICO'S Erin Schumaker reports.
— That would seemingly make institutions that command the highest amounts most vulnerable. At stake is $4 billion, a shortfall the universities say would devastate the nation's scientific enterprise. The indirect funding, which is added to health research grants to help universities and other grantees cover their overhead, adds an average 27 percent to the cost of a grant, but varies widely. In early February, the NIH announced it would cap fees for new and existing grants at 15 percent.
— Top research universities like Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins command some of the highest indirect cost rates, in part because they have specialized and state-of-the-art equipment, which is expensive. But a reduction in reimbursements will hit research universities in rural red states and urban blue ones alike. Less well-funded universities could feel the sting more than wealthy ones, even if their rates aren't slashed as much.
Teacher Unions
AFT's DAY OF ACTION — American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten along with educators, students and activists across the country will hold a press conference Tuesday to kick off more than 100 'Protect Our Kids Day of Action' events. The group is rallying against the Trump administration's efforts to wind down the Education Department, which they say could especially hurt low-income children, kids with disabilities and first-generation college students.
In the Courts
TITLE IX RULE FIGHT CONTINUES — The Victim Rights Law Center and 'Jane Doe,' a college student who has an ongoing Title IX investigation, are seeking to intervene in a case that blocked the Biden administration's 2024 rule on Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex-based discrimination. Their goal is to appeal the case, at least narrow the scope of the ruling and uphold the parts of the Biden administration's rule that oversaw sexual misconduct procedures.
— In January, a federal judge in Kentucky vacated the Biden administration's rule nationwide. Since then, the Trump administration has already advised schools the Education Department will return to enforcing Title IX on the basis of biological sex.
—The agency also said it will enforce the 2020 regulation from the first Trump administration that overhauled how schools handle sexual misconduct allegations, offered new rights to those accused of misconduct and required colleges to respond to formal complaints with courtroom-like hearings.
— 'Reversion to the 2020 Rule once again removes protections against sex-based harassment and imposes disproportionate burdens on survivors,' lawyers wrote in the motion to intervene in the case. 'It reduces schools' responsibility to respond to sex-based harassment—in some cases requiring schools not to respond at all.'
DOGE WATCH
$25K TO GO AWAY — The Education Department is offering a buyout of up to $25,000 to most of its employees, according to a department-wide email sent Friday. Employees have until today at 11:59 p.m. to make a decision, our Rebecca Carballo reports. The deal comes after the Trump administration ordered federal agencies to submit plans by mid-March for laying off employees in 'large-scale reductions in force.'
— Those who take the offer can stack it with retirement benefits. They will receive the equivalence of severance pay or $25,000, whichever is less, Jacqueline Clay, a chief human capital officer, wrote in an email sent on Friday afternoon. The offer would take effect March 31.
Student Loans
DISMISSED — Former Consumer Financial Protection Bureau staff are raising the alarm after the Trump administration dropped several lawsuits that accused student loan companies and other lenders of violating consumer protection laws.
— One of the cases dropped was against the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, which was accused of illegally collecting on student debt that was discharged in bankruptcy and reporting to credit agencies that borrowers weren't making payments. Others dismissed included cases against Capital One and Heights Finance.
— 'These six cases are just the beginning,' said Eric Halperin, a former CFPB associate director for enforcement during the Obama administration. 'The Trump led CFPB is intent on shutting down virtually all enforcement activity and has sent a clear message that its open season on consumers.'
Syllabus
— It could be months before affordable student loan repayment plans return: The Washington Post— After monthlong pause, Trump admin resumes investigating disability complaints at schools: USA Today— America's college chaos: Axios— Iowa governor signs law removing civil rights protections for transgender Iowans: Iowa Public Radio— Professor, scrutinized for ties to China, sues to get his job back: The New York Times
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 minutes ago
- USA Today
LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?
The council called it a 'narrowly focused rule' to curb ongoing disruptions during its meetings. But some First Amendment groups are concerned it will put the city on a slippery slope. As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members. It was far from an isolated incident. A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics. Council members finally had enough. In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Already, the ban is getting put to the test. Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time. 'Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,' Harris-Dawson said. 'This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.' If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting. The council's motion calls the terms the 'most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets' at city council meetings. It said such words are 'inherently harmful,' citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.' Such 'fighting words,' the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say. Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties. 'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would 'implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.' Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community. Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits. "As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech," the group wrote. "Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect." But the council's motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms had been used and disrupted the meetings 'on many occasions.' The sergeants-at-arms 'prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out' on at least two occasions, the motion said. It acknowledged that the council 'faces competing duties' in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings. 'It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,' said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.' But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 'This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,' the spokesperson said. 'Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.' Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to 'Jerry Springer' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson described the ban as a 'narrowly focused rule' meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 'These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,' the spokesperson said. Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the 'following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences' and that 'viewer discretion is advised.' 'It's almost like you're about to watch an episode of 'Jerry Springer,'' said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy. During the council's July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a 'millionaire' after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word. Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to 'send the Jews back to Israel' and a reference to President Donald Trump's administration being 'the only America of constitutional betterment.' Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group's meetings have also been disrupted by such language. Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also 'frequently' called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote. 'The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,' Schreiner said. She requested the city council 'explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.' The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and 'apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.' Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are 'able to disrupt discussions for sport' using 'vile language and pointless hate speech,' the statement read. 'Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,' the statement went on to say. 'But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.' City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas' But the First Amendment 'exists for this exact reason,' Jablonsky said. The remedy, in her view, is to 'punish the disruption' and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it's vital to resist any efforts to ban words. 'If we don't, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,' she said. 'Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.' Wizner agreed, saying the 'only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." The ACLU's 2024 article, 'Defending Speech We Hate,' noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association. 'Our view is if the First Amendment doesn't protect the NRA in New York, it doesn't protect the ACLU in Texas,' Wizner said. But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have 'repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others' at meetings. 'Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. 'This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.' BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Indianapolis Star
35 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana mom sues school district after it banned her for recording a meeting
A mom and a national public policy organization are taking her northeast Indiana school district to court to challenge a school policy they say violates her First and 14th Amendment rights. The Goldwater Institute, a conservative-leaning Arizona-based think tank, filed a complaint Aug. 12 in the Northern District of Indiana that, if successful, could overturn the school district's meeting recording policy and clarify a gray area of First Amendment law. Whitley County Consolidated Schools' policy says a building administrator must first give permission before parents and others can record private school meetings such as parent-teacher conferences. Goldwater argues that the policy is unconstitutional, saying there is "no compelling, substantial, important, or even rational reason" to prohibit parents from recording. "We think there's a clear idea that the First Amendment protects more than just verbal speech. It protects conduct, and especially conduct that's inherently expressive," Goldwater attorney Adam Shelton said. "We think that presents a very good and important First Amendment question." In a previous statement to IndyStar, district Superintendent Laura McDermott said Nicole Graves was restricted from campus for "a pattern of aggressive interactions with school staff and public commentary involving children other than her own," not for expressing concerns. IndyStar has reached out to McDermott regarding the newly filed litigation. Last year, Graves recorded a meeting with her school principal about an incident on her daughter's school bus concerning the driver's behavior. She decided to record the meeting so she could accurately recount what was said, according to Goldwater. Discontent with the principal's answers, she posted part of the recording on social media. The district then notified Graves in a letter, which IndyStar obtained, that she broke policy and was given a school grounds ban and restrictions on staff communications. The punishment has since expired. As she brings her fight to court, Graves said she is surprised it has come to this but not that the school won't back down. She said she is continuing to fight to establish better policies for parents and protect children. "This is not fun for me. This is not something I ever thought I would have to fight for," she said. "But I am more than happy to stand up and fight and talk to who I need to talk to to get things to change because I think it's important for all the families in this school district." With her four children still attending school in the district, Graves is concerned about retaliation. She said she is keeping a close eye on her children's schooling and is "terrified" the school will ban her again. The right to record public officials engaged their official duties in a public place has been solidified through previous case law. Goldwater, through its complaint, is attempting to deepen those rights by arguing that some private conversations are protected as well. In its complaint, Goldwater argues that people have the right to record meetings with government officials as long as the recording doesn't violate the rights of other private individuals and the person is lawfully present. "When it's just a conversation between a parent and a school official about their child and doesn't implicate any privacy rights of other students, we think a parent has the right to record that meeting," Shelton said. If the school restricted Graves from talking about the meeting or drafting a transcript, Shelton previously said, it would undoubtedly violate the First Amendment. He questions why a recording would be any different. The complaint also says the policy violates Graves' 14th Amendment rights to control her child's education in several instances, overlapping with their First Amendment argument. Goldwater is seeking an injunction halting the recording policy and a judgment finding the school district violated Graves' First and 14th Amendment rights. This is Goldwater's second crack in two years at clarifying First Amendment case law on recording conversations with school officials. The institute petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2024 to take up the case of a Massachusetts dad denied the ability to video-record his son's special education accommodation conferences. The high court did not take up the appeal after a district court ruled the act of recording was not protected by the First Amendment. Shelton said the institute is hopeful the courts will take a full look at their arguments in Graves' case. "We think we have a very good argument here that the recording of this meeting is protected both by the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment," he said. "We look forward to expressing those ideas in court." The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Politico
2 hours ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy goes all in on funding bill boycott
IN TODAY'S EDITION:— The one Dem voting against funding bills— First in IC: Cruz preps new AI bill— Trump's BLS pick has to get past Cassidy Sen. Chris Murphy wants to pick a fight with Donald Trump over government funding — even if his fellow Democrats don't, Jennifer Scholtes reports. The top Democratic Homeland Security appropriator said he's willing to shake up the typically bipartisan committee, after Republicans sided with the president to claw back billions of dollars previously approved by Congress. Trump 'doesn't give a fuck what we write' into spending legislation, the Connecticut senator told Jennifer. Murphy has opposed all the funding measures advanced during Senate appropriations markups for which he was present, challenged his Republican counterpart on the DHS appropriations subcommittee and voted against the Senate's first bipartisan funding package of the year. Murphy's national profile has been on the rise for years — especially since he's branded himself an outspoken member of the Trump resistance. His name is among those floated as a potential 2028 presidential contender. The senator's approach on appropriations, however, stands in stark contrast with the rest of his party. Senate and House Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, respectively, have publicly said they're pursuing 'a bipartisan, bicameral' process to avoid a shutdown this fall. But Murphy has been burned before in his attempts to work across the aisle against the backdrop of Trump's influence. Although Murphy successfully negotiated with Republicans in 2022 to pass the first significant federal gun-control legislation in decades, his subsequent effort to pass a bipartisan border deal floundered after Trump, then a candidate for reelection in 2024, signaled disapproval. Murphy's fellow Democratic appropriators have largely avoided criticizing his strategy — but they aren't exactly praising him, either. 'He has the right to his opinion,' said top Senate Democratic appropriator Patty Murray. Murphy's friend and another appropriator, Sen. Brian Schatz, told Jennifer, 'I'm not his spokesperson.' Murphy, for his part, isn't slamming his colleagues for embracing bipartisan negotiations. But he said in an interview he wished more Democrats on the Appropriations panel would join him in taking a stand. 'It's lonely,' Murphy said. '28-to-1 votes are lonely.' GOOD WEDNESDAY MORNING. Are you placing a bid in the upcoming auction featuring items from the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein's estate? Email us: cdumay@ crazor@ and bguggenheim@ THE LEADERSHIP SUITE Jeffries takes on redistricting fights, D.C. police takeover Jeffries spent Tuesday in Illinois backing Texas Democrats who left their state to block a GOP mid-decade redistricting attempt. 'I had the opportunity to express thanks to them for their courage, their character and their conviction,' Jeffries told Shia Kapos of his meeting with the Texas lawmakers. 'I indicated that we'll support them every step of the way.' In a joint interview with Texas House Minority Leader Gene Wu aired on MSNBC Tuesday, Jeffries said that to respond to Republican attempts to redraw congressional maps, his party needs to use 'any tools in the toolbox in California, in New York and in Illinois' — where Democrats are floating redistricting efforts in their own party's favor. House Democrats will hold a virtual caucus meeting at noon today on the redistricting fight. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, is expected to attend. Jeffries also told Shia he's been in communication with District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser amid Trump's aggressive targeting of the capital city's locally elected government and takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department. 'We're going to strongly support her efforts to defend the sovereignty and integrity of the District,' Jeffries said. The minority leader said he planned to connect with District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton Tuesday evening regarding the police takeover. POLICY RUNDOWN FIRST IN INSIDE CONGRESS: EARLY LOOK AT SENATE COMMERCE AI BILL — Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz is prepping draft legislation that would allow companies seeking to use artificial intelligence to apply for waivers from regulations, Benjamin scoops this morning. It's an idea that has the backing of the White House, and Cruz is expected to advance the bill this fall amid his effort to ensure the U.S. comes out ahead in the global AI race with China. The framework would allow companies to ask a federal agency to waive or modify regulations that are posing barriers to their work with AI. Industry groups are welcoming the proposal, though they're still pushing for a 10-year moratorium on AI regulations that was cut from the GOP's sweeping domestic policy bill, Benjamin reports with Anthony Adragna. Regulatory sandboxes have been tried before in sectors like fintech, though some experts say such waivers often stretch indefinitely and are expensive to implement. It's also not clear whether Democrats will support the proposal. CASSIDY TO VET BLS NOM — Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni, will need to first survive Senate HELP. The panel is led by Sen. Bill Cassidy, who has shepherded through dozens of Trump's nominees since January — even as some selections, most notably HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have struggled to win over other committee Republicans. Antoni would be taking over the nonpartisan agency at a time of heightened scrutiny about its independence and methods of data collection. He has been a fierce critic of former BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, who Trump fired and accused, without evidence, of rigging job report data for political purposes. In a statement, Cassidy spokesperson Stephen Lewerenz didn't give a strong read on where the panel's chair might come down on the nominee. 'We need a BLS Commissioner committed to producing accurate, unbiased economic information to the American people,' Lewerenz said. 'Chairman Cassidy looks forward to meeting with Dr. Antoni to discuss how he will accomplish this.' Best of POLITICO Pro and E&E: THE BEST OF THE REST Republican Gets Booed in Furious Town Hall Trainwreck: 'F*** You!', from Janna Brancolini at The Daily Beast Texas redistricting fight provides Democratic Senate contenders with a megaphone, from Ben Kamisar and Andrew Arenge at NBC News THE CARRYOUT A recess section for lawmakers' Capitol Hill food recs Rep. Tim Burchett said he brings in homemade peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. 'I'm not a fan of the food up here,' Burchett said. 'It's not very good.' What's your go-to lunch to pack for a day on the Hill? Email crazor@ CAMPAIGN STOP CASAR STANDS GROUND VS. DOGGETT — Rep. Greg Casar isn't backing down from a primary against 16-term Rep. Lloyd Doggett. New congressional maps proposed by Republicans in Texas would draw the two Democrats into the same district in Austin. Doggett has suggested Casar run in a newly formed district in a different part of the state. In a new statement obtained by POLITICO from the Progressive Caucus chair's chief of staff Stephanie Trinh, Casar turned down that option. 'Greg leaving Austin to run in this new south Texas seat would deprive Austin of Greg's voice and growing influence as new chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and it would undercut Democrats' chance to win in the new south Texas seat by running a candidate with deep ties to that community,' Trinh wrote. 'As Greg has said clearly: his focus is on fighting the maps, but whatever happens he will be running for reelection in Austin.' BRAUN LEAVES REDISTRICTING DOOR OPEN — Gov. Mike Braun has been noncommittal on calling a special session to redraw Indiana's congressional map, but said Tuesday that GOP leaders are 'considering it seriously.' 'I think mostly what happens here is going to depend on where Texas goes, because I think they've got five seats in play,' the former senator told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. IN OTHER SENATE CAMPAIGN NEWS — Sherrod Brown will run for Senate in Ohio in 2026, according to two people familiar with his thinking, Holly Otterbein and Gregory Svirnovskiy report. Brown is making a play for his old job just months after losing to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno in November. Brown will face GOP Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed after JD Vance vacated the seat to become vice president. Republican Rep. Barry Moore, meanwhile, is running for Senate in Alabama next year, he announced Tuesday. HAPPY BIRTHDAY Former Reps. Tom Marino and Pete Visclosky … Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders … acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham … Karine Jean-Pierre … former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen … Larry Weitzner … Grace Davis of Rep. Tim Moore's office … State Department's Bridget Roddy … Adam Sharon … GrayRobinson's Chris McCannell … Gabriel Laizer … AP's Kelly Daschle … Gonzo Gallegos … Kelly Rzendzian … former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders (92) … Sara Sorcher … Herald Group's Ansley Bradwell … Douglas Rivlin TRIVIA TUESDAY'S ANSWER: Andrew Stahovec correctly answered that a suffrage activist's demonstration at Woodrow Wilson's State of the Union address got Capitol visitors banned from leaning over chamber balconies. TODAY'S QUESTION, from Andrew: Which U.S. president attempted to retract the original treaty of the annexation of Hawaii authored under the Benjamin Harrison administration? The first person to correctly guess gets a mention in the next edition of Inside Congress. Send your answers to insidecongress@
