California “bluffed” its way into flipping the script on Republicans and Donald Trump, according to a new report.
Politico on Saturday published a story called, How California bluffed its way into a redistricting war with Trump, in which the outlet quotes “nearly 50 people involved with the effort” who “shared details with POLITICO about the tightly guarded process.”
California is currently in the process of potentially altering its district maps in response to Texas’ redistricting. But it started off as a “bluff,” according to reporters.
“When word got out that Texas might undertake an extraordinary mid-decade redistricting at Donald Trump’s behest, a handful of top California Democratic operatives floated an idea to Rep. Zoe Lofgren: Could California respond in kind?” according to the weekend report. “Lofgren, the chair of California’s 43-member Democratic delegation, consulted in June with a trusted data expert who dismissed it as absurd — a foolhardy end-run around the state’s popular redistricting panel with no guarantee of yielding enough blue seats to fully offset Texas. Deterred by those misgivings, California Democrats instead spent weeks putting up a front, dangling the threat of a countermove without making any real plans to do so.”
The piece quotes Lofgren as saying, “It seemed to me worth a bluff… If the Texans and Trump thought they’d go through all of this and they’d end up not gaining anything, maybe they would stop.”
She then added, “But they didn’t stop… They just doubled down.”
However, the bluff soon met reality.
“So did California Democrats, especially Gov. Gavin Newsom. In a matter of weeks, they bluffed themselves into the marquee political contest of Trump’s second term, a high-voltage fight to shape the outcome of the 2026 midterms and the remaining years of his presidency,” according to the outlet.
Summing up, the reporters wrote, “In the end, 87 of 90 Democrats voted to put the maps on the ballot — a display of consensus that [Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas] said was made possible by the California-under-siege mentality that had been building up ever since Trump re-took the White House.”
“It’s Whac-a-mole. We’ve been trying to play defense,” Rivas reportedly added. “But we finally just threw up our hands and said, ‘We’ve got to flip the script.’”
Tag Archives: Illinois
Slingshot News: ‘I Don’t Know Until You Told Me’: RFK Jr. Is Asleep At The Wheel, Finds Out In Hearing That His Department Is Gutting Medical Research
Washington Post: Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities
Some responded with strongly worded letters. Others spoke out publicly, accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors.
Democratic state and local officials are forcefully pushing back against threats from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their jurisdictions could be stripped of federal funding or they could face criminal prosecution if they don’t back away from “sanctuary” policies friendly toward suspected undocumented immigrants.
Bondi last week sent a letter to leaders of more than 30 Democratic-led cities, counties and states that accused the jurisdictions of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
Some responded with their own strongly worded letters. Others seized the moment to speak out in a public show of resistance, accusing Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors amid the political divide over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics.
But what happens next remains deeply unclear, according to those Democratic officials, who have described the events of the past week as startling and unprecedented, even against the backdrop of the tumultuous launch of the second Trump term. They are staying mum so far about how much they are coordinating with each other to combat potential actions by the administration.
In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell (D), who is seeking a second term, told The Washington Post that the Aug. 13 letter from Bondi warned that his “jurisdiction” had been “identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement.” It did not reference his city by name, mention specific local laws or policy, or cite Seattle’s crime rates, which Harrell pointed out are “down in all major categories.”
Days later, he was standing behind Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), who had received a nearly identical letter.
“A letter like this cannot be normalized,” Ferguson said Tuesday, speaking to reporters at the state Capitol in Olympia. He called the attorney general’s threats a “breathtaking” tactic aimed at pressuring elected officials to “bend a knee” to Trump.
Ferguson told Bondi in a letter that his state “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”
On the opposite coast, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) stepped onto the plaza outside City Hall for a news conference that quickly took on the feel of an anti-Trump rally.
“Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration’s failures,” said Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. “Boston follows the law, and Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.”
The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to identify and deport suspected undocumented immigrants include the deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in U.S. cities as they seek to meet a directive from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to make at least 3,000 arrests a day.
Bondi and other Trump administration officials have insisted on cooperation from state and local officials, including access to law enforcement facilities and, in some cases, officers as they seek to step up deportation efforts.
Trump last week ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to D.C. and has sought to expand federal control over D.C. police, claiming the city was not doing enough to stem violent crime. He has indicated that cities like Baltimore, Chicago and New York could be next, likening them to urban hellscapes ruined by crime and lawlessness. All three cities are listed as sanctuary jurisdictions on federal government websites.
On Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.
In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.
Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.
Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.
Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.
“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensiveOn Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.
In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.
Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.
Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.
Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.
“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensive.”
In his letter to Bondi, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) questioned Bondi’s demand that he identify how he’s working to eliminate laws, policies and practices that she claimed impede federal immigration enforcement.
“In a democracy, governors do not unilaterally ‘eliminate laws.’ The role of the executive is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not to pick and choose which to follow,” wrote Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “In Minnesota, we take pride in following the law.”
New York Mayor Eric Adams, who promised to toughen immigration enforcement in his city after the Trump administration dropped corruption charges against him this spring, did not respond directly to Bondi’s letter. The task was passed on to the city’s corporation counsel, who sent a two-paragraph letter that said the city was not thwarting federal immigration policies but operating under a “system of federalism” that means states and cities do not have to undertake federal mandates.
Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Adams, said the city was taking Trump’s threat to possibly target New York seriously and preparing for any scenario. But she declined to reveal what that playbook might look like.
In Washington, Ferguson, who previously served as the state’s attorney general before he was elected governor in November, said he had anticipated some dramatic action from the Trump administration. Late last year, before he was sworn into office, Ferguson spoke to state finance officials to determine how the state would fare fiscally if it lost federal funding, which makes up 28 percent of the budget.
But Ferguson did not anticipate Bondi’s threat to potentially prosecute him or any other elected official in the country over differences in policy. As attorney general, he had been the first to file a lawsuit over Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban visitors and refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries.
On Tuesday, Ferguson recalled trying to reassure his 8-year-old daughter at the time, who worried something might happen to him for challenging Trump.
“I remember telling her … ‘We’re lucky to live in a country right where your dad, or any American, can speak out against the president, where your dad can file a lawsuit against the president, say things that are pretty direct about the president, be critical,’” Ferguson recalled.
It was something they shouldn’t take for granted, he told her, because in other countries people could get sent to jail for something like that.
Eight years later, Ferguson said he didn’t know what he would say to his daughter now of that freedom to challenge a president. “Maybe I’m not so sure about that,” the governor said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/22/sanctuary-cities-bondi
No paywall:
Washington Post: Democrats are pushing back against crackdown on sanctuary cities
Some responded with strongly worded letters. Others spoke out publicly, accusing Attorney General Pam Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors.
Democratic state and local officials are forcefully pushing back against threats from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their jurisdictions could be stripped of federal funding or they could face criminal prosecution if they don’t back away from “sanctuary” policies friendly toward suspected undocumented immigrants.
Bondi last week sent a letter to leaders of more than 30 Democratic-led cities, counties and states that accused the jurisdictions of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
Some responded with their own strongly worded letters. Others seized the moment to speak out in a public show of resistance, accusing Bondi of trying to unlawfully bully governors and mayors amid the political divide over President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration tactics.
But what happens next remains deeply unclear, according to those Democratic officials, who have described the events of the past week as startling and unprecedented, even against the backdrop of the tumultuous launch of the second Trump term. They are staying mum so far about how much they are coordinating with each other to combat potential actions by the administration.
In Seattle, Mayor Bruce Harrell (D), who is seeking a second term, told The Washington Post that the Aug. 13 letter from Bondi warned that his “jurisdiction” had been “identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement.” It did not reference his city by name, mention specific local laws or policy, or cite Seattle’s crime rates, which Harrell pointed out are “down in all major categories.”
Days later, he was standing behind Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson (D), who had received a nearly identical letter.
“A letter like this cannot be normalized,” Ferguson said Tuesday, speaking to reporters at the state Capitol in Olympia. He called the attorney general’s threats a “breathtaking” tactic aimed at pressuring elected officials to “bend a knee” to Trump.
Ferguson told Bondi in a letter that his state “will not be bullied or intimidated by threats and legally baseless accusations.”
On the opposite coast, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu (D) stepped onto the plaza outside City Hall for a news conference that quickly took on the feel of an anti-Trump rally.
“Stop attacking our cities to hide your administration’s failures,” said Wu, the daughter of Taiwanese immigrants. “Boston follows the law, and Boston will not back down from who we are and what we stand for.”
The Trump administration’s intensifying efforts to identify and deport suspected undocumented immigrants include the deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in U.S. cities as they seek to meet a directive from White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller to make at least 3,000 arrests a day.
Bondi and other Trump administration officials have insisted on cooperation from state and local officials, including access to law enforcement facilities and, in some cases, officers as they seek to step up deportation efforts.
Trump last week ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to D.C. and has sought to expand federal control over D.C. police, claiming the city was not doing enough to stem violent crime. He has indicated that cities like Baltimore, Chicago and New York could be next, likening them to urban hellscapes ruined by crime and lawlessness. All three cities are listed as sanctuary jurisdictions on federal government websites.
On Thursday, Trump reiterated his pledge to pursue similar crime crackdowns in Democratic-led cities.
In an interview last week with Fox News, Bondi suggested a takeover could be on the table for any city the administration deems out of compliance with federal immigration laws. “You better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she said.
Numerous city and state officials in their letters to Bondi questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s threats against their jurisdictions, with some pointedly critical of Trump’s actions in D.C. and in Los Angeles, where the president — despite the opposition of state and local officials — activated National Guard troops amid protests over the administration’s immigration arrests.
Responding to a letter sent to Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D), Ann Spillane, the governor’s general counsel, noted federal courts had repeatedly upheld an Illinois law that restricts state law enforcement involvement in immigration enforcement. Spillane said that Illinois officers’ primary focus is fighting crime and that they routinely cooperate with federal law enforcement on those issues. “We have not observed that type of coordination with local law enforcement in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles,” Spillane wrote, according to a copy of the letter obtained by The Post.
Bondi’s letters also arrived at the offices of Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston (D). Trump homed in on the state during the presidential race last year, baselessly claiming one of its cities had been overrun by Venezuelan gangs.
Johnston’s city has already lost millions in federal grants intended for migrant shelters, and the Justice Department sued him, Polis, and other state and local officials in May over what it called “disastrous” sanctuary policies. Colorado law bars local police officers from asking a person for their immigration status, arresting someone based only on that status and giving that personal information to federal authorities.
“It is immaterial to whether or not you were doing 55 in a 45, where you were born, and so we don’t ask for that information,” Johnston said. “We don’t have that information.” On Thursday, he remained adamant that Denver had not violated any laws. Bondi’s allegations, he said, are “false and offensive.”
In his letter to Bondi, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) questioned Bondi’s demand that he identify how he’s working to eliminate laws, policies and practices that she claimed impede federal immigration enforcement.
“In a democracy, governors do not unilaterally ‘eliminate laws.’ The role of the executive is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not to pick and choose which to follow,” wrote Walz, the 2024 Democratic nominee for vice president. “In Minnesota, we take pride in following the law.”
New York Mayor Eric Adams, who promised to toughen immigration enforcement in his city after the Trump administration dropped corruption charges against him this spring, did not respond directly to Bondi’s letter. The task was passed on to the city’s corporation counsel, who sent a two-paragraph letter that said the city was not thwarting federal immigration policies but operating under a “system of federalism” that means states and cities do not have to undertake federal mandates.
Kayla Mamelak Altus, a spokeswoman for Adams, said the city was taking Trump’s threat to possibly target New York seriously and preparing for any scenario. But she declined to reveal what that playbook might look like.
In Washington, Ferguson, who previously served as the state’s attorney general before he was elected governor in November, said he had anticipated some dramatic action from the Trump administration. Late last year, before he was sworn into office, Ferguson spoke to state finance officials to determine how the state would fare fiscally if it lost federal funding, which makes up 28 percent of the budget.
But Ferguson did not anticipate Bondi’s threat to potentially prosecute him or any other elected official in the country over differences in policy. As attorney general, he had been the first to file a lawsuit over Trump’s 2017 executive order to ban visitors and refugees from several predominantly Muslim countries.
On Tuesday, Ferguson recalled trying to reassure his 8-year-old daughter at the time, who worried something might happen to him for challenging Trump.
“I remember telling her … ‘We’re lucky to live in a country right where your dad, or any American, can speak out against the president, where your dad can file a lawsuit against the president, say things that are pretty direct about the president, be critical,’” Ferguson recalled.
It was something they shouldn’t take for granted, he told her, because in other countries people could get sent to jail for something like that.
Eight years later, Ferguson said he didn’t know what he would say to his daughter now of that freedom to challenge a president. “Maybe I’m not so sure about that,” the governor said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/08/22/sanctuary-cities-bondi
Also here without the paywall:
Raw Story: ‘Nuts!’ Ex-GOP lawmaker tees off after Trump calls himself a ‘war hero’
A former member of Congress unloaded on CNN on Tuesday evening after the president referred to himself as a “war hero” during a radio interview.
During an interview with conservative radio host Mark Levin, President Donald Trump described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “war hero” for his actions in Gaza. Trump added that he should also be known as a war hero because he approved of the bombing mission that destroyed Iran’s nuclear facility.
“Nobody cares, but I am too,” Trump said, referring to himself as a hero. “I sent those planes.”
Adam Kinzinger, a former Air National Guard officer, discussed Trump’s comments on CNN’s “Erin Burnett OutFront.”
“This is nuts!” Kinzinger, who represented Illinois in Congress as a Republican for more than a decade, shouted. “This is nuts, and his people are going to find a way to justify this.”
“Listen, when they were putting out something honoring the Army’s 250th anniversary, they put out a picture of Donald Trump in his military academy uniform,” he continued. “Which has nothing to do with the military except that they drill you.”
“This is nuts. He’s not a war hero,” Kinzinger said. “You can like what he’s done. That’s fine. I hope he gets a resolution in Ukraine, but to put himself on the same level as people who have actually gone out and served this country, not claimed bone spurs, is an offense to anybody who’s served.”
Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow
Afederal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state’s workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement.
In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law.
Why It Matters
The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use immigration law to override Illinois’ privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships.
The decision safeguards workers’ procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority.
What To Know
The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois’ law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority.
Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the government’s “broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues”.
The Federal Government’s Argument
The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois’ privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA’s preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens.
The Justice Department also argued that Illinois’ law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment.
At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration’s interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause was “broad to the point of absurdity.”
Judge’s Reasoning
Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State,” she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The judge found that Illinois’ law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees’ rights are respected during that process. “A person’s immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act,” Coleman explained.
She further rejected the administration’s conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois’ law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state’s notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as “simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption.”
Broader Implications
The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois’ privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws.
The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman’s opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges.
Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Wednesday.
What People Are Saying
Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois’ workplace privacy law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the administration’s interpretation of federal law was, “broad to the point of absurdity.”
Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, “A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state that claims IL’s workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement.”
In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.
Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”
What Happens Next
The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois’ workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority.
Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power “is not without limits,” and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois’ law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump’s immigration strategy.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-immigration-legal-setback-illinois-workplace-privacy-2116468
Mirror US: Trump mocked by Gavin Newsom on socials as he ditches all caps writing style
California Governor Gavin Newsom has been relentlessly poking fun at Trump, and it seems to be influencing the way the former US President crafts his social media posts.
Supporters of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement are taking notice as the high-profile Democrat starts using Trump’s own brash and cheeky tactics against him.
As the leader of the country’s most populous state, Newsom is leading the charge as Democrats try to counteract Trump’s confrontational political style.
This comes after lawmakers in Texas pledged to redraw the state’s electoral boundaries in an attempt to tip the 2026 midterm elections in favor of the Republicans.
In a move reminiscent of Trump’s somewhat erratic style, Newsom announced his plans to implement similar redistricting measures, using all caps and heaping praise on himself. He also took a swipe at Trump’s controversial Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, calling her KaroLYIN and saying she’ll be left scrambling to answer press questions about the new electoral maps.
He even went so far as to claim these maps are ‘the greatest maps ever created’ and ‘even superior to those of Christopher Columbus’.
A statement from Newsom posted late Wednesday night read: “WOW! TOMORROW HISTORY WILL BE MADE. KaroLYIN LEAVITT WILL HAVE NO ANSWERS FOR THE SUPPOSED ‘FAKE MEDIA’ ABOUT CALIFORNIA’S BEAUTIFUL MAPS. PEOPLE ARE SAYING THEY ARE THE GREATEST MAPS EVER CREATED – EVEN BETTER THAN CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS’. DONALD ‘THE FAILURE’ TRUMP BE WARNED, TOMORROW MAY BE THE WORST DAY OF YOUR LIFE. ALL BECAUSE YOU ‘MISSED THE DEADLINE.’ LIBERATION DAY FOR AMERICA! ! ! – GCN”.
It appears Newsom’s jabs are getting under Donald Trump’s skin, with the former President seemingly using fewer capitalized letters in his recent Truth Social posts.
The shift was spotted on X, with one user sharing a screenshot of Trump’s less-capitalized messages. They posted: “The funniest thing about this is ever since Newsom started mocking him, Trump has stopped posting in all caps.”
Trump’s chaotic social media behavior has already resumed, but it suggests Newsom might be making an impression on him.
Texas Legislature Democrats initially fought back by blocking Republican measures through departing the state, but now multiple Democratic governors have pledged to establish new districts within their own states to counter potential Republican gains in Washington. Their approach has built steam through nationwide fundraising drives, media blitzes and public rallies, including demonstrations held across the country on Saturday.
Newsom joined forces with JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York, showing solidarity with Texas Democrats and pledging to retaliate through redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who obediently responds “yes, sir” to Trump’s orders.
Hochul labeled Texas Republicans as “lawbreaking cowboys.”

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/gavin-newsom-donald-trump-1335709
Law & Crime: Judge shreds Trump admin for ‘nonsensical’ bid to terminate 28-year policy that protects immigrant children in federal custody
A federal judge in California has shot down an attempt by the Trump administration to scrub away the government’s 28-year-old Flores Settlement Agreement, which calls for court-mandated oversight on the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody.
U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a 20-page order on Friday, keeping the 1997 agreement in place as Justice Department lawyers “fail to identify any new facts or law” that warrant its termination “at this time,” according to the Barack Obama appointee.
The administration had previously tried terminating the Flores agreement in 2019 at the end of Donald Trump‘s first term, but was unsuccessful then, too. Gee reportedly called a hearing last week on the matter “deja vu” as the government tried propping up similar arguments.
“The court remains unconvinced,” Gee wrote in Friday’s order. “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law.”
Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, immigrant children must be held at “state-licensed” facilities — treated properly and humanely — before being released into the custody of family members or guardians “as expeditiously as possible,” per Gee’s order. The settlement is named after Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old detainee who sparked a class-action lawsuit to be filed in 1985.
The Trump administration recently argued that the Flores agreement was no longer needed because Congress had approved legislation to help deal with the issues the settlement addressed. It also claimed that government agencies had implemented practices and standards to ensure youths were being treated properly.
“The legal basis for the agreement has withered away,” DOJ lawyers argued in a May 22 motion for relief. “Congress enacted legislation protecting UACs [unaccompanied alien children], and the agencies promulgated detailed standards and regulations implementing that legislation and the terms of the FSA,” the lawyers said, blasting the agreement as an “intrusive regime” that has “ossified” federal immigration policy.
“The legal and policy landscape has also changed beyond recognition,” they added.
Gee noted Friday how she had heard this all before.
“These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical,” the judge blasted.
“Incredulously, defendants posit that DHS need not promulgate regulations containing an expeditious release provision because ‘this Court has interpreted [expeditious release] to apply to accompanied children,'” Gee explained. “But ‘the FSA was intended to provide for prompt release of unaccompanied children.’ This is plainly incorrect and ignores the rulings of at least three separate courts.”
Gee concluded her order by saying it was ultimately the Trump administration that “continues to bind itself to the FSA by failing to fulfill its side of the parties’ bargain.”
Lawyers for immigrant children named in the class action complaint that spurred all this have said Trump’s second term has seen similar violations of the Flores agreement that have been alleged in the past.
“In CBP facilities across the country, including in cases documented by class counsel in New York, Maine, Illinois, Ohio, Arizona, Texas, and California, plaintiffs report being held for days and sometimes weeks in restrictive, traumatic conditions,” the lawyers said in a June 17 motion to enforce the FSA. One parent, whose allegations were included in the motion, described how they and their child were held at a facility where “the rooms have hard walls, like cement, and there is a window facing the hall but you cannot go out or see the sun,” per the motion.
“We are never allowed to go out,” the parent said. “The children keep telling us, ‘This is not America.’ They feel imprisoned and confused. They are seeing the sun for the first time in this interview room. They both ran to the window and stared out, and my son asked, ‘Is that America?'”
The plaintiffs’ lawyers accused the Trump administration of wanting to be released from the settlement “not because they have complied with and will continue to observe its fundamental principles, but because they want the flexibility to treat children however they wish,” according to the June motion.
DOJ officials did not respond to Law&Crime’s requests for comment Sunday.

The Hill: [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi ramps up pressure on 32 ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’: Who’s on the list?
Attorney General Pam [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi said Thursday she was ramping up pressure on 32 “sanctuary jurisdictions,” urging them to comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
“I just sent Sanctuary City letters to 32 mayors around the country and multiple governors saying, you better be abiding by our federal policies and with our federal law enforcement, because if you aren’t, we’re going to come after you,” she told a Fox News reporter.
“And they have, I think, a week to respond to me, so let’s see who responds and how they respond. It starts at the top, and our leaders have to support our law enforcement,” she added.
The measure comes after an Aug. 5 release from the Justice Department highlighting various states, cities and counties deemed noncompliant with regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.
“For too long, so-called sanctuary jurisdiction policies have undermined this necessary cooperation and obstructed federal immigration enforcement, giving aliens cover to perpetrate crimes in our communities and evade the immigration consequences that federal law requires,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in the letter to officials across the country.
“Any sanctuary jurisdiction that continues to put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens can either come to the table or see us in court,” [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi wrote in a post announcing the move.
She cited a late April executive order from President Trump as legal grounds for the push.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for the 32 jurisdictions that received letters from [“Bimbo #3”] Bondi.
The below jurisdictions received a letter from the Department of Justice on Aug. 5:
States:
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Illinois
- Minnesota
- Nevada
- New York
- Oregon
- Rhode Island
- Vermont
- Washington
Counties:
- Baltimore County, Md.
- Cook County, Ill.
- San Diego County, Calif.
- San Francisco County, Calif.
Cities:
- Albuquerque, N.M.
- Berkeley, Calif.
- Boston
- Chicago
- Denver
- District of Columbia
- East Lansing, Mich.
- Hoboken, N.J.
- Jersey City, N.J.
- Los Angeles
- New Orleans
- New York City
- Newark, N.J.
- Paterson, N.J.
- Philadelphia
- Portland, Ore.
- Rochester, N.Y.
- Seattle
- San Francisco City
Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi is one of the stupidest women on Earth. Despite already losing a couple such cases on well-established Tenth Amendment grounds, she is now threatening to replicate her failures in 12 states, 4 counties, and 19 cities. When God passed out brains, Pam Bimbo #3 Bondi must have been hanging out near the manure spreader.
The bottom line is that the federal government can’t compel state and local governments to do its bidding. If the state and local governments don’t wish to comply or assist, the federal government must do its own dirty work.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5454204-bondi-immigration-enforcement-urge
Washington Post: Pentagon plan would create military ‘reaction force’ for civil unrest
Documents reviewed by The Post detail a prospective National Guard mission that, if adopted, would require hundreds of troops to be ready around-the-clock.
The Trump administration is evaluating plans that would establish a “Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force” composed of hundreds of National Guard troops tasked with rapidly deploying into American cities facing protests or other unrest, according to internal Pentagon documents reviewed by The Washington Post.
The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.
Cost projections outlined in the documents indicate that such a mission, if the proposal is adopted, could stretch into the hundreds of millions of dollars should military aircraft and aircrews also be required to be ready around-the-clock. Troop transport via commercial airlines would be less expensive, the documents say.
The proposal, which has not been previously reported, represents another potential expansion of President Donald Trump’s willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil. It relies on a section of the U.S. Code that allows the commander in chief to circumvent limitations on the military’s use within the United States.
The documents, marked “predecisional,” are comprehensive and contain extensive discussion about the potential societal implications of establishing such a program. They were compiled by National Guard officials and bear time stamps as recent as late July and early August. Fiscal 2027 is the earliest this program could be created and funded through the Pentagon’s traditional budgetary process, the documents say, leaving unclear whether the initiative could begin sooner through an alternative funding source.
It is also unclear whether the proposal has been shared with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
“The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe,” Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.”
The National Guard Bureau did not respond to a request for comment.
While most National Guard commands have fast-response teams for use within their home states, the proposal under evaluation by the Trump administration would entail moving troops from one state to another.
The National Guard tested the concept ahead of the 2020 election, putting 600 troops on alert in Arizona and Alabama as the country braced for possible political violence. The test followed months of unrest in cities across the country, prompted by the police murder of George Floyd, that spurred National Guard deployments in numerous locations. Trump, then nearing the end of his first term, sought to employ active-duty combat troops while Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and other Pentagon officials urged him to rely instead on the Guard, which is trained to address civil disturbances.
Trump has summoned the military for domestic purposes like few of his predecessors have. He did so most recently Monday, authorizing the mobilization of 800 D.C. National Guard troops to bolster enhanced law enforcement activity in Washington that he said is necessary to address violent crime. Data maintained by the D.C. police shows such incidents are in decline; the city’s mayor called the move “unsettling and unprecedented.”
Earlier this year, over the objections of California’s governor and other Democrats, Trump dispatched more than 5,000 National Guard members and active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area under a rarely used authority permitting the military’s use for quelling insurrection. Administration officials said the mission was necessary to protect federal personnel and property amid protests denouncing Trump’s immigration policies. His critics called the deployment unnecessary and a gross overreach. Before long, many of the troops involved were doing unrelated support work, including a raid on a marijuana farm more than 100 miles away.
The Trump administration also has dispatched thousands of troops to the southern border in a dramatic show of force meant to discourage illegal migration.
National Guard troops can be mobilized for federal missions inside the United States under two main authorities. The first, Title 10, puts troops under the president’s direction, where they can support law enforcement activity but not perform arrests or investigations.
The other, Title 32, is a federal-state status where troops are controlled by their state governor but federally funded. It allows more latitude to participate in law enforcement missions. National Guard troops from other states arrived in D.C. under such circumstances during racial justice protests in 2020.
The proposal being evaluated now would allow the president to mobilize troops and put them on Title 32 orders in a state experiencing unrest. The documents detailing the plan acknowledge the potential for political friction should that state’s governor refuse to work with the Pentagon.
Some legal scholars expressed apprehension about the proposal.
The Trump administration is relying on a shaky legal theory that the president can act broadly to protect federal property and functions, said Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice who specializes in legal issues germane to the U.S. military’s domestic activities.
“You don’t want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement,” he said. “You don’t want to normalize routine domestic deployment.”
The strategy is further complicated by the fact that National Guard members from one state cannot operate in another state without permission, Nunn said. He also warned that any quick-reaction force established for civil-unrest missions risks lowering the threshold for deploying National Guard troops into American cities.
“When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you’re going to want to use it,” Nunn said. “It actually makes it more likely that you’re going to see domestic deployments — because why else have a task force?”
The proposal represents a major departure in how the National Guard traditionally has been used, said Lindsay P. Cohn, an associate professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. While it is not unusual for National Guard units to be deployed for domestic emergencies within their states, including for civil disturbances, this “is really strange because essentially nothing is happening,” she said.
“Crime is going down. We don’t have major protests or civil disturbances. There is no significant resistance from states” to federal immigration policies, she said. “There is very little evidence anything big is likely to happen soon,” said Cohn, who stressed she was speaking in her personal capacity and not reflecting her employer’s views.
Moreover, Cohn said, the proposal risks diverting National Guard resources that may be needed to respond to natural disasters or other emergencies.
The proposal envisions a rotation of service members from Army and Air Force National Guard units based in multiple states. Those include Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Tennessee, the documents say.
Carter Elliott, a spokesperson for Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D), said governors and National Guard leaders are best suited to decide how to support law enforcement during emergencies. “There is a well-established procedure that exists to request additional assistance during times of need,” Elliott said, “and the Trump administration is blatantly and dangerously ignoring that precedent.”
One action memo contained in the documents, dated July 22, recommends that Army military police and Air Force security forces receive additional training for the mission. The document indicates it was prepared for Hegseth by Elbridge Colby, the Defense Department’s undersecretary for policy.
The 300 troops in each of the two headquarters locations would be outfitted with weapons and riot gear, the documents say. The first 100 would be ready to move within an hour, with the second and third waves ready within two and 12 hours’ notice, the documents note, or all immediately deployed when placed on high alert.
The quick-reaction teams would be on task for 90 days, the documents said, “to limit burnout.”
The documents also show robust internal discussions that, with unusual candor, detail the possible negative repercussions if the plan were enacted. For instance, such short-notice missions could “significantly impact volunteerism,” the documents say, which would adversely affect the military’s ability to retain personnel. Guard members, families and civilian employers “feel the significant impacts of short notice activations,” the documents said.
The documents highlight several other concerns, including:
• Reduced Availability for Other Missions: State-Level Readiness: States may have fewer Guard members available for local emergencies (e.g., wildfires, hurricanes).
• Strain on Personnel and Equipment: Frequent domestic deployments can lead to personnel fatigue (stress, burnout, employer conflicts) and accelerated wear and tear on equipment, particularly systems not designed for prolonged civil support missions.
• Training Disruptions: Erosion of Core Capabilities: Extensive domestic deployments can disrupt scheduled training, hinder skill maintenance and divert units from their primary military mission sets, ultimately impacting overall combat readiness.
• Budgetary and Logistical Strains: Sustained operations can stretch budgets, requiring emergency funding or impacting other planned activities.
• Public and Political Impact: National Guard support for DHS raises potential political sensitivities, questions regarding the appropriate civil-military balance and legal considerations related to their role as a nonpartisan force.
National Guard planning documents reviewed by The Post
Officials also have expressed some worry that deploying troops too quickly could make for a haphazard situation as state and local governments scramble to coordinate their arrival, the documents show.
One individual cited in the documents rejected the notion that military aviation should be the primary mode of transportation, emphasizing the significant burden of daily aircraft inspections and placing aircrews on constant standby. The solution, this official proposed, was to contract with Southwest Airlines or American Airlines through their Phoenix and Atlanta operations, the documents say.
“The support (hotels, meals, etc.) required will fall onto the general economy in large and thriving cities of the United States,” this official argued. Moreover, bypassing military aircraft would allow for deploying personnel to travel “in a more subdued status” that might avoid adding to tensions in their “destination city.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/08/12/national-guard-civil-unrest