Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Forbes: Trump Says His Tariffs Collected ‘Trillions’ In Revenue—Here’s The Real Figure

Posted on by
Reply
  • “Without tariffs, and all of the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS we have already taken in, our Country would be completely destroyed, and our military power would be instantly obliterated,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
  • Trump claimed earlier this month that “trillions of dollars are being taken in on tariffs” and his levies have “not caused inflation, or any other problems for America, other than massive amounts of CASH pouring into our Treasury’s coffers.”
  • Trump leaves out that tariffs are paid by U.S. companies to import foreign goods, with those costs eventually paid by U.S. consumers.
  • Trump’s latest comments on his tariffs follow a ruling late Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals, as the court wrote Trump overstepped his authority by issuing his reciprocal tariffs, a power the majority opinion said was “vested exclusively” as a “core Congressional power.”
  • The ruling prohibiting Trump’s tariffs won’t take effect until Oct. 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The truth: Trump’s tariffs have only “generated about $96 billion in revenue”.

Trump Claims Tariffs Earned U.S. ‘Trillions Of Dollars.’ Federal Data Says Otherwise.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has projected tariff revenue would reach $300 billion per year.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tylerroush/2025/08/31/trump-says-his-tariffs-collected-trillions-in-revenue-heres-the-real-figure

Newsweek: Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom took a swipe at President Donald Trump on Friday after an appeals court struck down his sweeping plan on global tariffs.

Why It Matters

The decision undercut a central element of President Trump’s unilateral trade strategy and could potentially raise the prospect of refunds if the tariffs are ultimately struck down.

The ruling set up an anticipated legal fight that could reach the Supreme Court.

What To Know

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Trump had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act IEEPA to declare national emergencies and impose broad import taxes on most trading partners, the Associated Press reports.

The legal challenge centered on two sets of actions: reciprocal tariffs announced on April 2—including up to 50 percent on some goods and a 10 percent baseline on most imports—and earlier tariffs announced February 1 targeting selected imports from Canada, China and Mexico tied to drug and migration concerns.

Newsom’s press office reacted to the ruling on X on Friday, saying, “If it’s a day ending in y, it’s a day Trump is found violating the law!”

The rebuke comes amid weeks of back-and-forths from the pair as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans‘ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

Taking to his social media platform Truth Social, reacting to the ruling, the president vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court, saying in part that: “ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. The U.S.A. will no longer tolerate enormous Trade Deficits and unfair Tariffs and Non Tariff Trade Barriers imposed by other Countries, friend or foe, that undermine our Manufacturers, Farmers, and everyone else.”

What People Are Saying

Republicans Against Trump reacting to the president’s vow to appeal to the Supreme Court on X: “Grandpa is mad”

Retired U.S. Air Force General Robert Spalding reacting to Trump’s post on X: “Thank god”

William and Mary Law School Professor Jonathan Adler on X reacting to the ruling: “Whoa”

Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, on X: “BOOM. The federal appeals court rules Trump’s tariffs illegal, because they are. There’s no national emergency, and so the power to tariff a country rests with Congress. Trump admin has lost at every stage of the process, but stay tuned for the Supremes to chime in.”

Wolfers in a follow-up post: “This won’t end all tariffs. This ruling applies to tariffs applied to entire countries (which is most of the tariff agenda). The industry-specific tariffs use a different legal authority, and will remain. The White House has other (more limited) tariff powers it’ll dust off.”

What Happens Next

The appeals court did not immediately block the tariffs, however, allotting the Trump Administration until October 14 to appeal the decision.

Gavin Newsom mocks Donald Trump after tariff plan struck down
The rebuke comes as Newsom has taken aim at Republicans’ redistricting efforts and Trump’s implementation of national guard troops in U.S. cities.

https://www.newsweek.com/gavin-newsom-mocks-donald-trump-tariff-plan-struck-down-2121980

CNBC: Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal in blow to White House trade policy

Posted on by
Reply
  • A federal appeals court ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his aggressive trade policy.
  • Trump is all but certain to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that most of President Donald Trump‘s global tariffs are illegal, striking a massive blow to the core of his aggressive trade policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a 7-4 ruling held that the law Trump invoked when he granted his most expansive tariffs does not actually grant him the power to impose those levies.

Trump is all but certain to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. The appellate court paused its ruling from taking effect until Oct. 14, in order to give the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on Friday’s ruling, which is the second straight loss for Trump in the make-or-break case.

The Trump administration has argued that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, empowers the president to effectively impose country-specific tariffs at any level if he deems them necessary to address a national emergency.

The U.S. Court of International Trade in late May rejected that stance and struck down Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs, including his worldwide “reciprocal” tariffs unveiled in early April. But the Federal Circuit quickly paused that ruling while Trump’s appeal played out.

Most Trump tariffs ruled illegal in blow to White House trade policy
The appeals court stayed its ruling until Oct. 14, giving the Trump administration time to ask the Supreme Court to hear the case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/29/trump-trade-tariffs-appeals-court-ieepa.html

Tampa Free Press: Federal Court Affirms Dismissal Of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution Claims Against HSI Agents

Posted on by
Reply

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Plaintiff Karina Sigalovskaya, Citing Supreme Court Precedent that Limits Federal Officer Liability

Sigalovskaya claimed that during the search, Special Agent Abigail Braden falsely accused her of confessing to taking pornographic photos of her own child, leading to her arrest and pretrial detention. She was charged with sexual exploitation of children, a charge that was later dropped.

Sigalovskaya alleged that as a result of the fabricated evidence, she was held in jail for three weeks, lost temporary custody of her children, and was placed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Karina Sigalovskaya against four special agents of the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit.

The decision, handed down on Wednesday, concludes a lengthy legal battle that began in 2015 and centers on allegations of false arrest and malicious prosecution.

The case stems from a 2013 incident where HSI agents allegedly unlawfully entered Sigalovskaya’s home. According to the complaint, the agents were searching for her common-law husband, who was under investigation for child pornography.

Sigalovskaya claimed that during the search, Special Agent Abigail Braden falsely accused her of confessing to taking pornographic photos of her own child, leading to her arrest and pretrial detention. She was charged with sexual exploitation of children, a charge that was later dropped.

Sigalovskaya alleged that as a result of the fabricated evidence, she was held in jail for three weeks, lost temporary custody of her children, and was placed on the New York State Sex Offender Registry. Her lawsuit sought damages for false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and denial of a fair trial.

The Second Circuit’s ruling upholds a lower court’s dismissal of the remaining claims against Special Agent Braden. The court’s decision was heavily influenced by the 2022 Supreme Court case Egbert v. Boule, which significantly narrowed the ability of individuals to sue federal officers for constitutional violations under a legal principle known as a Bivens action. The Bivens doctrine allows a person to sue a federal agent for money damages for violating their constitutional rights.

In an opinion, the majority concluded that Sigalovskaya’s claims were no longer viable under the restrictive framework established by the Supreme Court.

The court found that Sigalovskaya’s claims, which focused on the fabrication of evidence, presented a “new context” that was meaningfully different from the original Bivens case. The court also noted that “special factors,” such as the existence of an alternative remedial process within the Department of Homeland Security, weighed against creating a new Bivens remedy.

he ruling was accompanied by three separate opinions from the judges on the panel, highlighting the complexity and debate surrounding Bivens claims.

Judge Myrna Pérez, in a concurring opinion, agreed with the dismissal, arguing that the existence of an internal grievance process within the Department of Homeland Security was a sufficient reason to dismiss the case, echoing the reasoning in the Egbert decision.

Judge Eunice C. Lee, also concurring in the judgment, provided a detailed analysis of the case’s “new context.” She concluded that the claim was distinct from the original Bivens precedent because it centered on fabricated evidence rather than a typical Fourth Amendment violation like a warrantless search or seizure.

Judge Gerard E. Lynch issued a partial dissent, arguing that the false arrest claim should have been allowed to proceed. He contended that Sigalovskaya’s claim was “materially indistinguishable” from the original Bivens case because both involved an arrest made without probable cause. Judge Lynch criticized the majority for drawing what he considered to be fine, intellectually dishonest distinctions that effectively undermine Bivens without explicitly overruling it.

The decision marks another instance of a federal appeals court limiting the scope of Bivens actions, a trend that began with the Supreme Court’s increasingly skeptical view of implied constitutional remedies against federal officials.

Federal Court Affirms Dismissal Of False Arrest, Malicious Prosecution Claims Against HSI Agents
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Plaintiff Karina Sigalovskaya, Citing Supreme Court Precedent that Limits Federal Officer Liability The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Karina Sigalovskaya against four special agents of the Department of Homeland Security’s Homeland Security…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/federal-court-affirms-dismissal-of-false-arrest-malicious-prosecution-claims-against-hsi-agents/ar-AA1LlvfR

Washington Post: Two Virginia school districts sue Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

Posted on by
Reply

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools sued the U.S. Department of Education, seeking to bar it from freezing funds to the Virginia districts amid a fight over a policy supportive of transgender students.

Arlington Public Schools and Fairfax County Public Schools filed lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Education on Friday, seeking to bar the federal agency from freezing funds to the districts in response to an ongoing debate over a policy supportive of transgender students.

The move is the latest in a fight between the Education Department and five Northern Virginia school districts over policies that allow students to use facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms that match their gender identity.

Earlier this month, school officials in Arlington, as well as Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William counties, declined to comply with a call from the Education Department to rescind the gender policies after an investigation determined they violate Title IX, the federal law banning sex discrimination.

In response, the Education Department said it would start the process to “suspend or terminate” funding from the five districts. The following week, the department announced it placed the school districts on “high-risk” status, which would make it harder for the systems to receive future federal funds.

“States and school districts cannot openly violate federal law while simultaneously receiving federal funding with no additional scrutiny. The Northern Viriginia[sic] School Divisions that are choosing to abide by woke gender ideology in place of federal law must now prove they are using every single federal dollar for a legal purpose,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a statement.

The new complaints from the Arlington and Fairfax school district, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seek immediate relief from the court to reverse that decision.

In a news release, Arlington schools said the federal money supports academics, counseling, and free and reduced meals for students.

Leaders from the Northern Virginia districts have stood behind policies they say satisfy state and federal antidiscrimination laws and create welcoming environments for students. Revoking their transgender student policies, the school districts argue, would put them in violation of the law.

The Education Department launched its investigations after a Title IX complaint was filed by America First Legal — a conservative group founded by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/08/29/virginia-school-district-sues-education-department-transgender-policy

No paywall:

Two Va. school districts sue U.S. Education Dept. in fight over gender policies

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/two-virginia-school-districts-sue-education-dept-in-fight-over-gender-policies/ar-AA1LvdIK

Associated Press: Appeals court blocks Trump administration from ending legal protections for 600,000 Venezuelans

Posted on by
Reply

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status for Venezuelans while the case proceeded through court.

An email to the Department of Homeland Security for comment was not immediately returned.

The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it. Then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status for people from Venezuela.

“In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that President Donald Trump’s Republican administration overstepped its authority in terminating the protections and were motivated by racial animus in doing so. Chen ordered a freeze on the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported. Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.

In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

Appeals court blocks Trump administration from ending legal protections for 600,000 Venezuelans
A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-trump-temporary-status-venezuelans-7c70b2d301c43663a6f506af527637a4

Independent: Kilmar Abrego Garcia seeks gag order against Trump administration, singles out Noem and Bondi’s ‘inflammatory’ attacks

Posted on by
Reply

Barrage of public attacks could taint jury pools with ‘irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims,’ according to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is asking a federal judge for a gag order to stop Trump administration officials from publicly attacking him with “inflammatory” statements that attorneys say are threatening his right to a fair trial on criminal smuggling charges.

Lawyers for the wrongly deported Salvadoran immigrant say Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, among others, have spent months publicly disparaging his “character and reputation” by smearing him as a wife beater, pedophile, gang member and terrorist.

“The government’s ongoing barrage of prejudicial statements severely threaten — and perhaps have already irrevocably impaired — the ability to try this case at all — in any venue,” lawyers wrote Thursday night.

The Trump administration has “distorted the events and evidence underpinning his case to the public; misrepresented his criminal record; disseminated false, irrelevant, and inflammatory claims; and expressed the opinion that he is guilty of the crimes charged,” lawyers wrote.

Last month, the federal judge overseeing the criminal case ordered his release from jail before trial, finding that prosecutors failed to show “any evidence” that his history or the arguments against him warrant his ongoing detention. Judges have found the allegations “fanciful” and formally ruled that he does not pose a danger to the public.

Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to a brutal prison in his home country, igniting a high-profile legal battle for his return at the center of Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.

Government lawyers admitted he was removed from the United States due to a procedural error, and several federal judges and a unanimous Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return after his “illegal” arrest.

But the government spent weeks battling court orders for his return while officials launched a barrage of public attacks, declaring that he would never again step foot in the country.

He was then abruptly returned in June to face allegations that he illegally moved other immigrants across the country. He has pleaded not guilty.

In their request to keep him in jail before trial, federal prosecutors claimed he is a member of the transnational gang MS-13 and “personally participated in violent crime, including murder.”

Prosecutors also claimed he “abused” women and trafficked children, firearms and narcotics, and there is also an ongoing investigation into “solicitation of child pornography.”

Abrego Garcia is not facing any charges on any of those allegations, nor has he been convicted of anything. A federal judge determined that the government failed to link those allegations to evidence that implicates him.

Abrego Garcia’s wife had previously sought a protective order against him several years ago, though she never pressed charges and said the couple has since resolved their disputes. She has played a prominent public role defending him.

Last week, a federal judge granted his release from pretrial detention. Immigration authorities arrested him days later and threatened to deport him to Uganda.

A separate judge has blocked the government from deporting him while he challenges his latest arrest. A decision is expected after October 6.

His attorneys have argued that the indictment is aimed at punishing Abrego Garcia for his ongoing legal battle with the Trump administration, which has “vilified” him from the moment the case made headlines that caused massive political headaches for the White House.

After he was released from jail this month, Noem labeled him a “MS-13 gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser and child predator.”

That same day, the White House called him “a criminal illegal alien, wife-beater and an MS13 gang member facing serious charges of human smuggling.”

This week, the president called him an “animal” who had “beat the hell out of his wife.”

But the “pièce de résistance,” according to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, was a cartoon posted by the White House’s official X account depicting him with “MS-13” written beneath it.

“If the government is allowed to continue in this way, it will taint any conceivable jury pool by exposing the entire country to irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims about Mr. Abrego,” lawyers wrote.

A DHS official told The Independent that if Abrego Garcia does “not want to be mentioned” by administration officials, “then he should have not entered our country illegally and committed heinous crimes.”

“Once again, the media is falling all over themselves to defend this criminal illegal MS-13 gang member who is an alleged human trafficker, domestic abuser, and child predator,” the official added.

“The media’s sympathetic narrative about this criminal illegal alien has completely fallen apart, yet they continue to peddle his sob story,” the official said. “We hear far too much about gang members and criminals’ false sob stories and not enough about their victims.”

The Justice Department declined to comment to The Independent.

I can’t recall ever seeing the gov’t so obsessed with demonizing someone as Kilmar Garcia.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia seeks gag order against Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi
Barrage of public attacks could taint jury pools with ‘irrelevant, prejudicial, and false claims,’ according to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-gag-order-trump-noem-bondi-b2816582.html

Raw Story: DOJ’s shock move lets Trump stack immigration courts with handpicked lawyers

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department plans to scrap longstanding rules and qualifications for immigration judges and create a new policy where it can appoint any lawyer it wants to temporarily preside over cases, reported Government Executive on Wednesday.

“The change gives Attorney General Pam Bondi wide latitude in selecting officials to oversee asylum and other cases pending before the Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Justice Department agency that runs the nation’s immigration courts,” said the report. “That authority could provide President Trump with additional power to withhold legal status from immigrants and expedite his mass deportation efforts.”

Immigration judges are different from typical so-called “Article III” judges, like the Supreme Court, courts of appeals, and district courts, who are constitutional officers appointed for life; they are instead “Article I” judges who were authorized by Congress to serve at the pleasure of the presidential administration and hear narrow types of subject matter issues.

“Since 2014, the department has allowed only former immigration judges, administrative law judges from other agencies or Justice attorneys with at least 10 years of experience related to immigration law to serve as temporary immigration judges, or TIJs,” said the report. “In its update, to be issued Thursday as a final rule, EOIR called those parameters overly restrictive, noting it has hired fewer than a dozen temporary judges since the Obama administration put them into place.”

The shortage of immigration judges available to hear cases has been a contentious issue for years, and was part of the reason for the massive backlog of cases for the surge of migrants in the years prior to the Trump administration.

A bipartisan immigration deal cut in the final years of the Biden administration would have established more funding for immigration courts to operate on an expedited basis; however, Trump worked behind the scenes to tank the deal among Republican lawmakers.

This makes a mockery of justice under administrative judges. All administrative judges should be removed from Department of Justice and placed under the supervision of the circuit / district courts.

DOJ’s shock move lets Trump stack immigration courts with handpicked lawyers

https://www.rawstory.com/doj-judges

Alternet: ‘Grab everyone by the neck’: Presidential historian reveals Trump’s chief second-term goal

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump is taking a much more direct, hands-on approach to governing in his second term compared to his first four years in the White House, according to a new report.

In a Wednesday article, the Wall Street Journal’s Josh Dawsey and Annie Linskey reported that the second Trump administration is moving with a decidedly faster tempo given that there are far fewer people in the Trump White House today who are willing to rein in his most impulsive decision-making. This has led to Trump making numerous unprecedented moves, including his attempt to fire a member of the Federal Reserve’s board of governors and teeing up a showdown with the Supreme Court — something that has never been done in the Fed’s 112-year history.

Despite his status as a term-limited commander-in-chief constrained by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution from running for another four years, Trump nonetheless keeps “Trump 2028” campaign hats on display in the Oval Office and shows them off to visitors. Earlier this week, he toyed with the idea of being a “dictator,” saying that while some unnamed “people” had told him that they might “like” to have a dictator, he didn’t like dictators and refused to describe himself as such (Trump said during his 2024 campaign that he would be a dictator, “but only on Day One.”)

The Journal reported that Trump is more “in the weeds” in the day-to-day operations of federal agencies, ordering his Cabinet secretaries to make certain hiring and firing decisions and floating various ideas. He also reportedly spends much more time at the White House, “blaring music with doors of the Oval Office open, working later into the evening and telling his advisers that he is having fun.”

This is a sharp contrast to his first term, where he was dogged by multiple investigations like former DOJ Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump also lamented about his treatment at the hands of the Federal Reserve and the Kennedy Center after his first election. Trump has since commandeered the Kennedy Center and installed himself as chairman, with little to no pushback from his inner circle. Even his chief of staff, Susie Wiles (who managed his 2024 campaign), has taken a more lenient approach to her boss, insisting that her role is to manage the staff rather than the president.

According to Douglas Brinkley, who is a presidential historian at Rice University, Trump’s ultimate goal is “having control over all American institutions, adding: “He seems to want to grab everyone by the neck and say ‘I’m in charge.’”

“I think he’s learned there is not much that can really stop him from what he wants,” Marc Short, who was Trump’s first-term director of legislative affairs, told the Journal.

‘Grab everyone by the neck’: Presidential historian reveals Trump’s chief second-term goal

https://www.alternet.org/trump-second-term-goal

Washington Post: The states where Trump, Republicans plan to bring redistricting fights next

Posted on by
Reply

After Texas and California, the legislative action is set to move to Missouri and three other states. Trump and his allies are pressuring red state Republicans to act.

President Donald Trump and his allies are charging ahead with plans to try to redraw the congressional map in red states beyond Texas, pressuring GOP lawmakers to act and setting up an all-out push for political advantage that will be difficult for Democrats to match ahead of the midterms.

Republican state lawmakers early Saturday approved an unusual mid-decade redraw of the U.S. House districts in Texas, adding five red seats on a new map that Trump advocated. Democrats in California retaliated by passing bills that will ask the liberal state’s voters to add five blue seats in a November special election. Now the legislative action in a nationwide redistricting battle is set to move to Missouri and three other Republican-controlled states.

Democrats have repeatedly promised to “fight fire with fire,” relying on the states they control. But they face more obstacles — and have taken few concrete steps toward redrawing blue-state maps outside California.

Many state Republicans balked at redistricting outside the usual census-driven schedule, reluctant to shake up existing lines and use their political capital on such a divisive move. But Trump’s team — backed up by activists threatening primary challenges — have pushed forward. Changing the maps could help Republicans maintain their narrow control of the U.S. House in 2026, paving the way for Trump’s agenda and preventing Democrats from using the House to launch investigations or impeachment proceedings.

“Our more moderate members in both the House and Senate — this is not something they would be inclined to do,” said Gregg Keller, a Republican strategist in Missouri, the next red state expected to redraw its maps. “However, when it became clear that these calls were coming directly from the president, directly from the White House, that this was part of a larger national strategy, they realized they were going to need to go along with it whether they liked it or not.”

Federal law restricts the political activities of federal employees. But White House staff have been acting in a personal capacity while discussing redistricting with state Republicans, said a person familiar with the effort, who like some others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. James Blair, the White House deputy chief of staff for legislative, political and public affairs, has been leading the effort.

Missouri is expected to add one more red seat — likely after state lawmakers return to the Capitol on Sept. 10, according to people familiar with the plans. Trump got ahead of state Republican officials on Thursday, saying on Truth Social that Missouri “is IN.”

Trump has spoken directly with Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) about redistricting, two people familiar with the discussions said. White House staff, acting in a personal capacity, have discussed the matter with members of the state’s congressional delegation and also called state lawmakers — including the openly skeptical Missouri House Speaker Pro Tem Chad Perkins, according to Perkins and others told about the outreach.

State leaders are assessing “options for a special session” to redraw the maps, Kehoe spokesperson Madelyn Warren said after Trump’s social media post. Warren said the governor “regularly speaks with the President on a variety of topics” but has not discussed “any specific or potential maps” with him.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

In Indiana, state Republicans also face mounting pressure to get on board with a redraw that would be likely to give the GOP one additional red seat. Vice President JD Vance discussed the issue with state leaders in person this month, and White House staff have been calling state legislators, according to Republicans in the state.

“The pressure from the White House is intense,” said Republican state Rep. Ed Clere, who said he has not been contacted but knows others who have. Clere has previously said special sessions “should be reserved for emergencies,” and that Trump’s “desperation to maintain a U.S. House majority by stacking the deck in favor of Republicans does not constitute an emergency.”

Every member of Indiana’s congressional delegation got on board with redistricting this past week. Recorded calls from a group identifying itself as Forward America have urged Indiana residents to call their legislators in support, according to the Indianapolis Star and other news outlets. The Washington Post could not reach Forward America for comment.

Trump ally Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, said his organization would back primary challenges to state lawmakers “who refuse to support the team and redraw the maps.”

The White House is hosting Indiana Republicans in Washington on Tuesday — part of a series hosting various states. Cabinet secretaries, senior White House officials and members of the Domestic Policy Council will join and take questions, according to an invitation. Clere said he is not attending.

Indiana House Speaker Todd Huston (R) has also been reluctant to redraw the map, according to a person familiar with the matter. A spokeswoman for Huston said he has not taken a position. Gov. Mike Braun (R) recently said he has not decided whether to call a special session.

Others have been openly skeptical. “Please help me understand the push to pick up MAYBE 1 Congressional seat while putting many good state elected officials at risk because of a political redistricting stunt!” state Rep. Jim Lucas (R) said on social media.

Trump’s team is optimistic they will persuade Indiana Republicans and have not “put their back into it” yet, said one person familiar with the redistricting effort. “I think they will all come to the realization this isn’t going away,” the person said of state Republicans.

In Trump’s home state of Florida, top Republicans have expressed support for a redraw and gone further by asking the federal government to grant Florida an extra U.S. House seat.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier recently sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Commerce, which oversees the census, arguing that the state should have gotten more representation after 2020 and that Florida “should not have to wait” for the next one. The Commerce Department did not respond to a request for comment about the letter.

“Obviously we’d love to do it before the midterms next year,” Uthmeier said this week at a news conference.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has said he supports redrawing the map even without a census revision. And Florida House Speaker Daniel Perez (R) moved this month to create a “select committee” on congressional redistricting.

The states where Trump, Republicans plan to bring redistricting fights next
After Texas and California, the legislative action in a nationwide redistricting battle is set to move to Missouri and three other Republican-led states.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/08/23/trump-gop-redistricting-missouri-indiana

No paywall:

The states where Trump, Republicans plan to bring redistricting fights next
After Texas and California, the legislative action in a nationwide redistricting battle is set to move to Missouri and three other Republican-led states.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-states-where-trump-republicans-plan-to-bring-redistricting-fights-next/ar-AA1L52br