
A Texas showdown could reshape Congress - and Trump's presidency
Why does Trump want redistricting?
The US House of Representatives is made up of 435 legislators who are elected every two years. They represent districts with boundaries determined in processes set by their state governments.Who draws the lines and how can go a long way in shaping the ideological tilt of the district and the likelihood that it elects a Democrat or a Republican.At the moment, the House rests on a knife edge with 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats. There are four vacancies likely to be filled by three Democrats and one Republican in special elections later this year.It wouldn't take much of a shift in the political winds for Democrats to take back control of the House of Representatives in next year's midterm elections. And the party that controls the lower chamber of Congress has powers that extend far beyond simply setting the legislative agenda for the next two years, as important as that may be.House leaders can launch sweeping investigations of presidential actions, as Democrats did in the second half of Donald Trump's first term and Republicans did in Joe Biden's final two years. They can also dig in on policy issues and trigger government shutdowns. They can even vote to impeach a president, as Democrats did in December 2019 and Republicans contemplated during Biden's presidency.Trump appears focused on taking steps to improve his odds of avoiding a similar fate in his second term. He is reportedly fixated on the midterm races and encouraging Texas lawmakers to draw new congressional maps that could increase the likelihood of Republicans winning more House seats from there.
How does redistricting usually work?
District lines are typically redrawn every 10 years, after a national census, to reflect shifts in the population within and between states. The most recent regularly scheduled redistricting took place in 2021.In some states, the process is set by independent commissions but in others the state legislatures are responsible for line-drawing – and the results can frequently be crafted by the party in power to give their side a distinct advantage.In North Carolina, for instance, Republican-drawn lines gave their party 10 of the state's 14 House seats in last year's national elections even though Trump only won the state by a slim margin.Democrats in Illinois hold 14 of the state's 17 House seats, while former Vice-President Kamala Harris won the state with 54%. If Trump has his way, and the maps lead to a five-seat gain next year, Republicans would control 30 of the state's 38 seats. Last year, he won Texas with 56%.
So what happens next?
The Republican push in Texas has leaders in Democratic-controlled states calling for a response, which could set off a redistricting "arms race" that spreads across the country.California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, has asked legislators in his state, where Democrats control 43 of the 52 seats, to find ways to increase their advantage. Governors Kathy Hochul in New York and JB Pritzker in Illinois have issued similar calls."Everything's on the table," Pritzker wrote in a post on social media. "We've got to do everything we can to stand up and fight back - we're not sitting around and complaining from the sidelines when we have the ability to stop them."Texas Republicans vote to arrest Democrats blocking redistrictingDemocrats flee Texas to block Republican redistricting mapGrassroots Democrats, many of whom have been frustrated by the inability of their party's national political leaders to block the Trump administration's policy agenda, may welcome such confrontational language. States like California and New York have laws that mandate congressional districts be drawn by a bipartisan commission to create constituencies that are compact and fair.Such efforts were the result of a push to remove political considerations from the redistricting process, but now some Democrats view those moves as unilateral disarmament that gave Republicans an advantage in the fight for a House majority."I'm tired of fighting this fight with my hand tied behind my back," Hochul told reporters at the New York Capitol in Albany on Monday. "With all due respect to the good government groups, politics is a political process."She said the "playing field" has changed dramatically during Trump's second term and Democrats need to adjust.Democrats may not have the final say, however. Republicans are already looking beyond Texas for more places to pick up seats. Vice-President JD Vance is reported to be considering a trip to Indiana later this week to push for new district lines in that state. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently said his Republican-dominated state may undertake a similar process.Despite its explicit political designs, all of this is fair game under the US Constitution – at least the way a narrow majority of the US Supreme Court interpreted it in a landmark 2019 case.Partisan "gerrymandering", as the process is sometimes called, has a long tradition in US politics – one that frequently creates oddly shaped constituencies that stretch for miles to include, or exclude, voters based on their political affiliations, all with the goal of giving one party an electoral majority.The Republican move in Texas isn't even without precedent. In 2003, Republican leaders redrew their congressional maps to boost their electoral advantage.The state's Democrats even responded in a similar way – leaving the state to delay the legislative proceedings. The redistricting ultimately passed after enough Democrats returned.There is a risk in all of this, even for the party doing the line-drawing. While the goal is to maximise the number of seats where victory is probable, in an election where one side outperforms expectations even seemingly safe seats can flip sides.Texas, and other redistricting states, could create an electoral map that does not survive a political deluge, leading to otherwise avoidable losses at the ballot box.In a close election, however, every seat counts. And if next year's midterm elections continue the recent trend of narrowly decided political battles, what happens in state legislatures over the next few months could have dramatic political consequences in Washington DC – and, consequently, across America.
Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Trump to meet Putin face-to-face as soon as next week
President Donald Trump is planning to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin as soon as next week and could bring the Russian leader face-to-face with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump shared this pitch on a phone call with European leaders Wednesday, The New York Times reported , after his special envoy Steve Witkoff met in-person with Putin at the Kremlin earlier in the day. In recent months, Trump has expressed disgust with Putin's continued bombing campaigns of Ukraine, despite being in contact with the U.S. leader. Trump hinted, however, there had been a breakthrough during Witkoff's meeting. In his social media post, he did not disclose the potential planned meeting with Putin and a possible Trump-Putin-Zelensky summit. 'Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,' Trump said, using his trademark closing, 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Zelensky and Witkoff were on Trump's call with European leaders, which included NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also joined. Trump said the meetings would only include himself, Putin and Zelensky, The Times report said, with the European leaders appearing to accept the American leader's plan. The Republican president hasn't met in-person with Putin since November 2018, when they engaged in an informal conversation on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires.


The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump rebukes crowd for not applauding ban on transgender women from female sports
Donald Trump scolded a crowd for not applauding his comments on his administration's ban on transgender people competing in women's sports. The US president's 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' executive order was published in February. The order bans transgender women from competing in female sports categories. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee has announced it will comply with the executive order. "That's a big deal... It's amazing the way I don't hear any applause for that when everyone feels it... nobody wants to clap it's crazy," Trump said on Tuesday (5 August).


The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
UCLA says Trump administration has frozen $584 million in grants, threatening research
The Trump administration has suspended $584 million in federal grants for the University of California, Los Angeles, nearly double the amount that was previously thought, the school's chancellor announced Wednesday. UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges. 'If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA and for Americans across the nation,' Chancellor Julio Frenk said Wednesday in a statement, noting the groundbreaking research that has come out of the university. The departments affected rely on funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, Frenk said. The U.S. Department of Education did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment. The Trump administration recently announced the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division found UCLA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' The announcement came as UCLA reached a $6 million settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus. The university has said that it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. The new UC president, James B. Milliken, said in a statement Wednesday that it has agreed to talks with the administration over the allegations against UCLA. "These cuts do nothing to address antisemitism," Milliken said. 'Moreover, the extensive work that UCLA and the entire University of California have taken to combat antisemitism has apparently been ignored.' Milliken said the 'cuts would be a death knell for innovative work that saves lives, grows our economy, and fortifies our national security. It is in our country's best interest that funding be restored.' As part of the lawsuit settlement, UCLA said it will contribute $2.3 million to eight organizations that combat antisemitism and support the university's Jewish community. It also has created an Office of Campus and Community Safety, instituting new policies to manage protests on campus. Frenk, whose Jewish father and grandparents fled Nazi Germany to Mexico and whose wife is the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, launched an initiative to combat antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias. Last week, Columbia agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into the government's allegations that the school violated federal antidiscrimination laws. The agreement also restores more than $400 million in research grants. The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as an expectation.