Chuck Todd warns America is heading towards a ‘cold civil war' amid ongoing redistricting battles
Todd contended that the ongoing redistricting battles are 'just the latest skirmish between what is turning into a cold civil war,' and that it is President Donald Trump and the Republican Party who are 'creating this unprecedented challenge to our constitutional republic.'
Advertisement
'I hate using that rhetoric. I hate using those words, but what else are you going to describe it? We are literally having a redistricting war between the states right now, and we have governors who have decided they don't care about the minority rights in their own states,' Todd argued.
'Greg Abbott doesn't care. If you don't agree with Greg Abbott, he is going to force his will upon you in the state of Texas. And if you don't agree with Gavin Newsom and how they're going — he's going to force his will upon you,' he added.
The former NBC host stated that 'this is not what the founders intended,' placing blame on both sides of the aisle, but focusing in on Trump as the primary catalyst for what he describes as a 'cold civil war.'
'This is not a policy fight. This isn't the usual partisan back and forth. It is a direct stress test of whether our constitutional system actually works when a president and his party decide they don't have to care about the limits that are written down on paper,' he asserted.
Advertisement
3 Ex-NBC host Chuck Todd says the U.S. is on the brink of a 'cold civil war' with the ongoing redistricting battles that are occurring in Texas and California.
YouTube/The Chuck ToddCast
'Trump has spent years — parts of his first term and much so far of these first 200-plus days bending and breaking the guard rails of the republic.'
While Todd criticized the Trump administration's use of federal power and Texas Governor Greg Abbott's redistricting efforts, he also took issue with the Democrats' 'fight fire with fire' approach to these perceived problems.
'The Democratic response is pretty troubling because, right now as a party, okay, as an official party apparatus, they've decided to frame this moment as a war, right? Okay, you got to fight fire with fire. This is an unprecedented moment, so they're framing this as a war,' he stated.
Advertisement
3 On 'The Chuck Toddcast,' the former moderator of NBC's 'Meet the Press' mentioned that President Trump and the GOP are 'creating this unprecedented challenge to our constitutional republic.'
REUTERS
'And when you tell yourself you're in a war, you start rationalizing things you'd normally not do that you would say is immoral or wrong or unprincipled. But hey, it's war and all is fair in war, right?'
Todd noted that Democrats have championed independent commissions and wanted competitive district mapping for years, but now with Republicans 'openly wanting to break the rules like they're doing in Texas,' Democrats are also looking to 'break the rules' with their own redistricting efforts.
'And if you criticize that decision, as I've been doing, I've been told I'm naive, that I don't understand the stakes, that you are not taking this threat seriously,' he railed.
Advertisement
3 Todd also said the Democrats' response to the ongoing redistricting battle in Texas has been deeply concerning, and with Republicans now willing to 'break the rules,' so are the Democrats.
AP
'Au contraire, my friend, I do God – understand the stakes, and we are not replacing one unprincipled, unconstitutional set of leaders with another set of unprincipled, unconstitutional set of leaders.'
In closing, Todd called on Republican members of Congress to 'check' Trump's power and use the tools afforded to them by the Constitution to hold him accountable for the 'unconstitutional' actions he has taken while in office.
'They've not lifted one finger of oversight. Not one… You couldn't even say there've been a weak check on Trump. It has been no check on him at all,' he asserted.
'Guess what? The Constitution can't enforce itself without people willing to wield those checks. All we have are words on yellowing parchment paper.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
The Post's Eric Adams support: Letters to the Editor — Aug. 13, 2025
The Issue: The Post's editorial urging President Trump to endorse Mayor Adams for re-election. Wasn't it the New York Post that featured photos of Mayor Adams greeting busloads of illegal immigrants at Port Authority ('The Post says: Endorse Adams Apple,' Editorial, Aug. 8)? Have you already forgotten about the billions of dollars that taxpayers shelled out to house, feed and educate illegals? Advertisement Have you forgotten about all the corrupt politicians Adams surrounded himself with in his administration? One would think The Post would do the right thing for New Yorkers and instead ask President Trump to endorse Curtis Sliwa. Ruth Adler The Bronx Advertisement The Post's support for Eric Adams illustrates a lack of innovation. New York City is primed for a change, which requires the insights of Sliwa. Any other candidate inhabits a 'business as usual' mentality. Advertisement God willing, enough people will stop the madness and give Sliwa his due. Jonathan Kiddrane Queens I urge all New Yorkers to get behind Adams. Advertisement I believe that he cares about New York City and is well aware of the mistakes he has made in his first term. Above all else, he cares about the quality-of-life issues in all five boroughs. He does not want to brainwash us, seize property, close family businesses or make our neighborhoods less safe. Whether you live in Chinatown, Little Italy, Forest Hills, Harlem or elsewhere, Adams will advocate for you. Ken Karcinell Hewlett Adams is the greatest sleazeball since Jimmy Walker during the Roaring '20s. Yes, Andrew Cuomo is distasteful and Zohran Mamdani is over the moon, but going to bat for Adams indicates rabid insanity. Advertisement Doug Brin Brooklyn Has the New York Post lost its mind? How, for the love of God, could you ask President Trump to endorse Adams for re-election? Advertisement Adams has been a complete disaster since his first day in office. Cuomo and Mamdani — the despicable communist — are even worse. Sliwa is the only viable candidate with a chance to bring some semblance of sanity back to our once-great city. John Lucadamo Advertisement Westchester County While The Post raises legitimate questions about Cuomo's record, endorsing Adams overlooks how many of his policies resemble those of Mamdani and Cuomo. Trump would be wise to refrain from any endorsements to avoid involvement in the federal scrutiny the next mayor will likely face over a range of ludicrous campaign proposals. Michael Mulhall Advertisement Moseley, Va. The Issue: The possible cancellation of 'The Howard Stern Show' following a dropoff in listeners. Howard Stern lost his edge years ago when he suddenly went woke ('Bye bye booey: Staff coasting,' Aug. 10). For most of his career, he eschewed good taste and battled critics, going out of his way to be politically incorrect. The more outrageous he was, the funnier he got, and that earned him a tremendous following. But, as Howard's longtime fans know, he is driven by money. When Stern realized his brand of humor could get him canceled, he became a soft liberal. Bill Calvo Brooklyn This is not the old Howard Stern; he is kissing up to the targets, like the woke people he once hated. I have a better opinion of Stern staffers Gary Dell'Abate and Fred Norris than I do of Stern. He shouldn't be offered any extension of his show. The time to pull the plug is now. Sheldon Fosburg Staten Island Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@ Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Just say no to Big Dope — and its push for even more legal marijuana
Will more marijuana use make America a better place? Not many who've seen and smelled what legalizing the drug has done to cities like New York, Washington, DC, and San Francisco would say so. Yet President Donald Trump is contemplating a change to marijuana's federal classification that would make it easier to buy and more profitable to sell. The pot industry — Big Dope — is heavily invested in getting its product recategorized from a Schedule 1 to a Schedule 3 drug. Industry leaders ponied up for a $1-million-a-plate Trump fundraising dinner earlier this month to hear what the president had in mind, according to The Wall Street Journal. The president should ignore the well-funded cannabis lobby: What matters is what more and cheaper marijuana will mean for ordinary Americans. Twenty-four states have legalized recreational use of the drug, despite the ugly results experienced by the first state to do so. Taking advantage of high Democratic turnout the year of President Barack Obama's re-election, activists passed a Colorado ballot measure to make pot legal back in 2012. Legalization didn't take effect until 2014, but by 2022 marijuana use in Colorado and other states that had then legalized was 24% higher than in states where recreational use remained illegal. A study by the South Korean scholar Sunyoung Lee published in the International Review of Law and Economics this year examines what's happened to crime levels in US states that legalized pot. Lee reported his findings 'do not yield conclusive evidence supporting a reduction in crime rates after legalizing recreational marijuana. Rather, they underscore notable positive associations with property crimes and suggest potential correlations with violent crimes.' The marijuana lobby claims that drug prohibition, not the drug itself, drives violent crime. That would be a bad argument even without evidence like Lee's, which suggests legal weed makes crime worse. After all, any profit-driven criminal enterprise could be shut down by simply legalizing the crime in question. If bank robbery were legal, bank robbers wouldn't need to use guns. If auto theft were legal, carjackers wouldn't have to use force, and there wouldn't be any violence associated with black-market chop shops because the chop shops would all be as legal as the commercial marijuana industry is today. Legalize everything Tony Soprano does, and Tony won't have to get rough — but he'll only do more of what he was doing before. Libertarians who argue for legalizing drugs to stop drug violence are closer than they realize to the radical leftists who argue property crimes shouldn't be prosecuted. The psychology is the same: They sympathize with the people who make it harder to live in a civilized society and reject society's right to defend its rules. There are downsides to laws against marijuana, just as there are costs to protecting private property and citizens' bodily safety. But the costs are well worth paying when the alternative is passivity in the face of aggression, handing your belongings or your life over to any thug who makes a demand. For a time marijuana legalization was sold to voters as just a matter of leaving people alone to consume whatever they want in private, without bothering anybody else. Yet millions of Americans have now lived long enough with pot legalization, or the non-enforcement of laws still on the books, to know the pot lobby perpetrated a fraud. What the country has actually had to deal with is pot smoking so rife in public that the offensive smell — and the sight and sounds of intoxication — smacks you in your face. It's hardly different from dope-users blowing smoke right in your eyes on the street. That's not the worst crime in the world — but neither is shoplifting, and there's no reason to tolerate that, either. Tolerating such things only breeds more tolerance for worse abuses, which is what has led progressives to treat even violent criminals with the utmost leniency. Two scenes in the suburbs of DC convinced me pot tolerance has gone too far. First was seeing an African-American bus driver, on a blazing hot summer day, order two dope-smoking teens to put out their joints and be aware there were children around. To the extent our cities work at all it's because of working-class men like him — and the rest of us have to decide whether we're on his side or the punks'. A year or so later I watched a young mother one bright October afternoon hold her small daughter's hand as they walked through a neighborhood reeking of high-potency pot. The multibillion-dollar weed industry got to advertise its product to a little girl about 4 years old that day. It's an industry that notoriously even sells its drug in candy form, as 'gummies.' Our cities and towns shouldn't be open-air drug dens — and Trump shouldn't let a lobby get high off of making Americans' lives worse. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
New York Post
10 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
