GOP

WASHINGTON — As Bill Clinton struggles with his draft history and President Bush his tax promises, they might look back wistfully at something that happened 40 years ago last week. Richard M. Nixon, in much worse trouble, talked his way out with a single TV appearance that became famous as the “Checkers” speech.

On Sept. 23, 1952, the newly minted vice presidential candidate of the Republican Party faced allegations that threatened to force him off the ballot and end his political career–the disclosure of an $18,000 fund set up for him by rich businessmen.

Nixon, a first-term senator from California, dealt with the crisis dramatically, gambling everything that the public could be won over to his side with a mixture of pathos and candor in a single speech.

He denied any impropriety in using the private fund. But that part is hardly remembered.

“One other thing I probably should tell you, because if I don’t, they will probably be saying this about me, too,” Nixon told a television audience of 60 million. “We did get something, a gift, after the nomination.”

He explained it was a black-and-white cocker spaniel that 6-year-old Tricia Nixon had named Checkers. “I just want to say this, right now,” said Nixon, in a fight to stay on the ticket with Dwight D. Eisenhower, “regardless of what they say about it, we are going to keep it.”

The “Checkers” speech also included Nixon’s famous reference to wife Pat’s “Republican cloth coat” to point out that she didn’t wear mink. He ended it with a defiant vow not to quit. He urged listeners to tell the Republican National Committee “whether you think I should stay on or whether I should get off.”

The outpouring of sympathetic support cemented his spot on the ticket.

The fund had been set up by Dana Smith, a Los Angeles lawyer who had been finance chairman for Nixon’s successful 1950 race for the Senate. Smith intended it to pay for Nixon’s political travel, printing and mailing of speeches and clerical help, which would not be reimbursed by the Senate.

Once the existence of “the millionaire’s club” exploded in headlines, it ballooned and overshadowed everything else in the 1952 campaign. Eisenhower’s advisers urged the general to dump Nixon and find himself a new running mate.

Nixon got scant comfort from Eisenhower, who told him: “I have come to the conclusion that you are the one who has to decide what to do,” Nixon recalled, in his book “Six Crises.” “I think you ought to go on a nationwide television program and tell them everything there is to tell, everything you can remember since the day you entered public life. Tell them about any money you have received.”

To others, Eisenhower insisted that Nixon prove himself “clean as a hound’s tooth.”

The GOP and the Senatorial Congressional Campaign Committee pledged the $75,000 to buy a half-hour in prime time for Nixon’s speech, which was broadcast from the 750-seat El Capitan Theater in Los Angeles–the same hall where the “Colgate Comedy Hour” and “This Is Your Life” originated.

An hour before he left for the theater, came a call from Thomas E. Dewey, a two-time losing candidate for president and then a member of Eisenhower’s inner circle. He insisted that Nixon end his broadcast with his resignation–and even resignation from the Senate.

“If they want to find out they’d better listen to the broadcast,” Nixon shouted at Dewey. “and tell them I know something about politics too.”

Nixon went on the air in the empty theater. “Not one cent of the $18,000 or any other money of that type ever went to my personal use,” he said. “Every penny of it was used to pay for political expenses that I did not think should be charged to the taxpayers of the United States.”

He listed his assets and his debts, in detail, then said of his wife, “Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable cloth coat. And I always tell her that she’d look good in anything.”

The next day, Nixon flew to Wheeling, W.Va., to meet with Eisenhower. Just as he was about to leave the plane, Eisenhower came up the steps.

“You didn’t have to come down here to meet me,” said Nixon.

“You’re my boy,” said the general. And Nixon wept.

PORTLAND, Maine — This election year is déjà vu for Sen. Susan Collins — the Maine Republican is running for reelection as Democrats pin their hopes on a new candidate to defeat her. Last time, it was state lawmaker Sara Gideon. This time, it’s combat veteran and oyster farmer Graham Platner.

But Collins has proved to be a hard target for Democrats over the years — even for candidates without the baggage of Platner, who has faced criticism for his relationships with women, inflammatory online posts and a previous tattoo recognized as a Nazi symbol. Collins is seeking her sixth term with sky-high name recognition, a record-breaking run of consecutive Senate votes and a history of bringing back federal funding for her state for years.

She is also the rare Republican who sometimes can boost her own popularity back home by keeping her distance from President Trump, and she has perfected that delicate dance even as his tightening grip on the party has cost two of her Senate Republican colleagues their reelection.

Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana lost their primaries when facing Trump-endorsed opponents. But despite the president’s complaints about Collins, he did not campaign against her. Years of practice have made her adept at staying close — but not too close — to the president when it is politically advantageous, and moving away when showing an independent streak is helpful.

“She’s shown time and time again where her state’s electorate is. She understands what’s too far, she understands where she needs to be,” said political consultant Matt Mackowiak, who worked for Cornyn’s failed reelection campaign. Trump endorsed Cornyn’s opponent, Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton.

The road to Senate control goes through Maine

The Democrats need to flip four seats to take control of the Senate in November and hope that Trump’s falling approval ratings and the war in Iran — as well as its subsequent effect on oil prices and the economy — could buoy their chances. Maine is among the top targets, along with Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina.

Platner wants to make the case that Collins isn’t as independent of Trump as her reputation suggests — repeatedly noting that she allowed his Supreme Court nominations to go through, which in 2022 led to the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, a landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, among other major issues.

“Susan Collins may have started her career decades ago in Washington with good intentions, but she has become just as spineless and corrupt as the establishment she now serves,” Platner said at a victory party on Tuesday.

Platner supporters are ready for change, said John Keenan, of Sullivan, Maine.

“I think Maine has grown tired of the same old system,” he said. “And putting youth into the campaign, with new instead of a rubber stamp, is very refreshing.”

Republicans have already launched their campaign in support of Collins. The National Republican Senatorial Committee posted a pro-Collins video on the social media channel X on Tuesday that resembled a 1980s video game. It stated that Collins “has brought more than $1.5 billion back to Maine” and that Platner “spent time as a kid at a $70,000 a year prep school in Connecticut.”

Trump has often criticized Collins — but not lately

Even as she faces Platner in November, Collins may have to stay wary of Trump. The president has spent years singling her out for daring to occasionally defy him on some issues.

However, he’s refrained from doing so more recently — especially as Collins failed to draw a credible challenger and cruised to a Republican primary victory.

The White House declined to comment. Political advisors close to Trump, however, said the president understands how critical it is that Republicans maintain control of Congress after November, which requires accommodating Collins. Trump understands the need to avoid a Republican wipeout like 2018’s “blue wave” midterms that saw Democrats flip the House and derail much of the last two years of his first-term plans.

“Senator Susan Collins represents the people of Maine first and foremost and has proven herself to be a dedicated public servant,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Kristen Cianci in a statement.

Collins spokesperson Blake Kernen said the senator “has worked with five different Presidents throughout her Senate tenure, and has never agreed with any of them on every issue.”

“When she agrees with an effort, she will support it; when she disagrees, she does not hesitate to speak up for what she believes is the right outcome for Maine and for America,” Kernen said in a statement.

Other Republicans ran into trouble with Trump

That didn’t work out for some Republican senators.

Cornyn was among his party’s top voices, rising through the ranks after joining the Senate in 2002. Paxton trounced him in a runoff race days after Trump endorsed the attorney general.

In office since 2015, Cassidy voted to convict Trump during his impeachment trial after the U.S. Capitol siege on Jan. 6, 2021. He lost his primary to Trump-endorsed state Rep. Julia Letlow.

Maine figures to be a more competitive race in November — as evidenced by Trump recently refraining from singling out Collins. That’s despite her voting last week with Democrats to block the nearly $1.8-billion fund the president wanted to create to benefit allies that he claims were unfairly targeted by law enforcement.

“She’s always down in the polls and she survives,” Trump conceded when asked about Collins in an interview with the New York Post last week.

Collins defeated Gideon, the Maine House speaker, by almost 9 points in 2020, the same year that Biden beat Trump by a similar margin in the state.

Mackowiak said that “there’s just no pathway to a MAGA senator from Maine.”

“It does appear that the Trump political operation is soberly analyzing the electoral environment in Maine and really kind of follows her lead as it relates to that state and that race, particularly this cycle,” he said.

Maine Republicans are ‘a bit more pragmatic’

Chuck Ellis, a Republican from Westbrook who runs a digital marketing company, said Collins’ reluctance to move in lockstep with Trump can be a plus.

Although there are some “hard-line” voters who may disapprove, Ellis said, “ultimately a lot of your conservatives, your Republicans, are people who are a bit more pragmatic.”

After Collins opposed the White House’s signature tax cut and spending package last year, and voted against a proposal to claw back $9 billion in foreign aid and public media funding, the president complained about her on social media.

“Republicans, when in doubt, vote the exact opposite of Senator Susan Collins,” he wrote.

Then, in January, Trump lashed out at the “stupidity” of Collins and four other Senate Republicans who joined Democrats to start a debate over restricting the president’s use of force in Venezuela.

She later received a profanity-laced call from Trump.

White House may keep a further distance from Collins’ race

As chair of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Collins last week cast her 10,000th Senate vote in a row, setting a record.

“She has been able to do and show that ‘I am bringing money and resources from the federal government to Maine to help Maine,’ ” Ellis said.

The president is unlikely to travel to Maine ahead of November despite visiting other states with key Senate races, like Iowa and Michigan. He could even campaign personally for Paxton.

Vice President JD Vance has been to Maine, where he promoted his anti-fraud task force. Collins didn’t attend Vance’s speech in Bangor last month in which he acknowledged the senator’s distance from the Trump administration.

“If she was as partisan as I sometimes wish that she was,” Vance said, “she would not be a good fit for the people of Maine.”

Whittle and Weissert write for the Associated Press. Weissert reported from Washington.

LAS VEGAS — Retired Air Force Lt. Col. David Flippo has won the Republican primary in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District after securing President Trump’s endorsement in the closing weeks of the campaign.

The race, which was called Wednesday, put Trump opposite Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo and retiring Rep. Mark Amodei, who both backed former state Sen. James Settelmeyer. Amodei announced he was retiring after 15 years, opening up a competitive primary for Nevada’s only Republican-held House seat.

Flippo said he will fight “relentlessly” for secure borders, American energy, tax cuts, national defense and “the America First agenda our country needs.”

“Nevada deserves a fighter, and that’s exactly what I will deliver,” he said in a statement.

Democrats had hoped for a Flippo victory, thinking it would make it easier for them to win over less partisan voters in November in the conservative-leaning district. They nominated the chief of staff to state Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford, former majority floor leader Teresa Benitez-Thompson.

“I will ensure that Nevada families have an authentic Nevadan voice fighting for their needs in Washington DC,” Benitez-Thompson said in a Wednesday morning statement.

The 2nd District race is one of several Nevada contests that will be watched closely this year. In southern Nevada’s 3rd Congressional District, Democratic Rep. Susie Lee will face Marty O’Donnell, a composer known for writing the soundtrack to the video game “Halo.”

Trump won the 3rd district in 2024 and backed O’Donnell, who thanked Trump in his victory statement.

Tuesday’s primary also set the general election contest for governor, with Ford defeating a progressive candidate in the Democratic primary and moving on to face Gov. Lombardo. The incumbent, a former Clark County sheriff, is running on his record of public safety and job creation while pledging to work on housing affordability in a second term.

Ford is tying Lombardo to Trump in placing blame for soaring prices across the state and has pledged to lower costs for families. He would be the state’s first Black governor if elected in November.

In other races for statewide offices, Republican primaries for attorney general and secretary of state included several candidates who had pushed election conspiracy theories or been skeptical of election operations. Adriana Guzmán Fralick, who has expressed concerns about voting security, won the GOP nomination for attorney general and will face Democratic state Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro.

The Republican primary for secretary of state, the office that oversees elections, included Jim Marchant, a former state lawmaker who has said the 2020 election “ was probably stolen,” and Sharron Angle, a former state lawmaker who was part of an effort to block the certification of Nevada’s 2020 election results. Another candidate who was competitive in the race, Shirley Folkins-Roberts, is an attorney who has denied that there is widespread voting fraud in Nevada.

In the 2nd District race, Flippo said he understands issues important to the region, including mining, water rights and fuel prices. He sought to turn Settelmeyer’s long political record into a liability, pointing to votes he said did not match conservative values.

He moved to the district this election cycle after losing a race in southern Nevada in 2024. The 2nd District covers all northern Nevada. It mostly rural but includes the major battleground county of Washoe, home to Reno.

Hill writes for the Associated Press.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Former Sen. Bob Packwood, a moderate Oregon Republican whose reputation as a champion of women’s rights was tainted late in his career by a sexual harassment scandal, has died. He was 93.

Packwood’s death Saturday was announced in an obituary sent to media outlets by his family. The release didn’t include additional details.

As the scandal unfolded, Packwood initially refused to quit the chamber in which he had served for 27 years, saying he didn’t want to be remembered only for that.

Before the #MeToo era, Packwood stood out as an example of private behavior undermining a man’s public image. He previously had been praised by Planned Parenthood and others.

The great-grandson of a member of the 1857 Oregon Constitutional Convention, Packwood established himself as a social moderate and fiscal conservative who often voted across party lines. He considered running for president in 1980.

Elected to the Senate in 1968, Packwood was best known as the leading Republican advocate of abortion rights — at a time when the position had bipartisan support — and was widely admired by women’s groups throughout the country until the Senate Ethics Committee launched an investigation into the allegations of sexual and official misconduct in 1993.

More than two dozen women, former employees and acquaintances, accused him of making unwanted or uninvited sexual advances.

The allegations remained the target of an ethics inquiry that widened to include other alleged acts of official misconduct. He resigned in September 1995, and went on to start a lucrative lobbying business in Washington.

Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who replaced Packwood in 1996, said that although he should be praised for his record on abortion rights and tax reform, how Packwood treated women overshadows it all.

“His horrible history as documented in his own diaries will forever overshadow that public record. Simply put, historians’ first line about Bob Packwood must include those women who he abused and assaulted for years and years,” Wyden said in a statement.

As chair and then ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, Packwood was a master of cutting deals and forging compromises needed to pass tax legislation through Congress. He was most proud of the lead role he played in a sweeping tax reform of 1986 that lowered the top income tax bracket and eliminated many itemized deductions.

Over his career, he was described as a blunt, independent, outspoken politician who was a boat-rocker, loose cannon, skilled partisan, and — for most of his career — political survivor.

“I think they probably all ring true,” Packwood told the Associated Press in December 1992.

“I would like to think that I am nobody’s lackey. I try to reach conclusions independently and then I’m willing to fight for those conclusions; if necessary, having to fight against my party or my party’s president,” he said.

Packwood won his first Senate election at age 36, narrowly defeating Democratic Sen. Wayne L. Morse, an Oregon legend who had held the seat for 23 years. He quickly grabbed attention as a rising star in the GOP. By 1980, he was elected chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

But he lost the seat when the White House backed a competitor after Packwood publicly accused President Reagan of alienating women, African Americans and Jews.

Just two weeks after Packwood’s reelection in 1992, the Washington Post printed allegations from former female employees and acquaintances that the senator had subjected them to uninvited sexual advances.

The Senate Ethics Committee also investigated allegations that Packwood solicited jobs from lobbyists for his ex-wife, used his staff to try to threaten the female accusers into keeping quiet and obstructed the investigation by altering his personal diaries.

The Senate held two days of extraordinary debate in 1993 over whether Packwood should have to comply with an Ethics Committee subpoena for his diaries, in which he reportedly made entries relevant to the investigation. The Senate voted 94 to 6 to enforce the subpoena.

Packwood took the case to federal court and lost, ending when Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist refused the senator’s request for the high court to intercede.

Packwood launched his lobbying business, Sunrise Research Corp., in 1997. By 1999, the firm was grossing $1.5 million a year. His business slowed in later years, but he told a City Club of Portland audience in 2010 that he was still spending about half his time in Washington lobbying for a number of clients.

It was interesting work, Packwood told the audience, according to the Oregonian, but “it is not as much fun as being in the Senate.”

As Congress became increasingly partisan after his departure, Packwood continued to advocate a centrist tack and in his 2010 City Club speech called for Oregon to create nonpartisan elections.

Buoyed by a new Congressional map favoring their party, California Democrats were eyeing Tuesday’s primary elections as a critical first step toward flipping a handful of House seats and taking back power in Washington.

Results from California’s massive and slow-moving election process were not immediately clear late Tuesday, as polls closed and mail ballots continued to be processed and counted. Still, Democrats were bullish about their chances of advancing candidates to November’s general election in all five districts that were redrawn in their favor as a result of last year’s Proposition 50 ballot measure.

“The path to winning back the House starts with voting in the June 2nd primary,” the California Democratic Party posted online Monday.

Meanwhile, California Republican Party Chairwoman Corrin Rankin urged Republican voters to make their own voices heard too.

“Like President Trump said, we need to make it too big to rig,” Rankin said on “The Benny Show.” “We need to swamp the vote.”

One of the most closely watched races was in the redrawn 22nd Congressional District in the Central Valley, where incumbent Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) is facing challenges from moderate Assemblymember Jasmeet Kaur Bains (D-Delano) and progressive college professor Randy Villegas.

Another closely watched race was in the redrawn 48th Congressional District in San Diego and Riverside counties, where Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall) decided to retire rather than run for reelection, and where Republican San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond — who is endorsed by Trump — is running against a pack of Democrats.

Prop. 50 — which Californians passed with nearly 65% of the vote a year ago — was California Democrats’ response to Texas Republicans redrawing their state’s Congressional maps in the GOP’s favor, at President Trump’s behest. It was also the only major Democratic counterpunch in the wider mid-decade redistricting brawl that has spread across the country in the last year.

Experts expect the redistricting battle to deliver a net gain of a handful or more House seats to Republicans. But Democrats could gain even more ground given Trump’s lousy approval ratings and the long history of midterm election losses for the president’s party.

Combined, those factors make the battle for control of the House incredibly close, which in turn makes the five seats up for grabs in California pivotal — and potentially decisive.

Tuesday’s primaries won’t determine if any of those five seats will indeed flip parties in November. However, the primaries will define those head-to-head races to come and better inform the odds of Democrats toppling Republican incumbents, experts said.

In addition to flipping the seats currently held by Valadao and Issa, Democrats are hoping to pick up three additional seats.

In the 1st Congressional District — which after Prop. 50 lost rural reaches of northeast California and picked up liberal North Bay communities — various candidates were vying for the seat long held by the late Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), who died in January. They include Democratic state Sen. Mike McGuire and Republican Assemblymember James Gallagher, who is endorsed by Trump.

Voters from the existing district are also voting in a special election Tuesday to fill the remainder of LaMalfa’s term.

In the 3rd Congressional District, which lost an eastern rural stretch along Nevada and now holds more tightly to the Sacramento suburbs, Rep. Ami Bera (D-Elk Grove) — who currently represents a different district — is running to remain in Congress in a new seat.

Meanwhile, the 3rd Congressional District’s incumbent, Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Rocklin), is seeking to do the opposite. He quit the Republican Party, became an independent and is now running for Bera’s current seat in Congressional District 6, which includes the city of Sacramento and Placer County suburbs.

In the 41st Congressional District, which became more liberal after Prop. 50 by losing voters in Riverside County and gaining them in Los Angeles County, a slate of candidates — including Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Whittier), who currently represents a different district — are running to replace Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona). Calvert, a 17-term incumbent, decided to run in the neighboring 40th Congressional District instead.

In the 40th Congressional District, which covers a swath of inland Orange County and portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties, incumbent Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills) is now going head-to-head with Calvert, while also facing several Democratic challengers.

Other districts that were not part of the Prop. 50 shuffle are also attracting attention.

In the 11th Congressional District in San Francisco, several Democratic candidates are vying to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the retiring former House Speaker, including state Sen. Scott Wiener; tech millionaire and Democratic political operative Saikat Chakrabarti; and Connie Chan, a member of the San Francisco board of supervisors who Pelosi endorsed.

Democrats are also closely watching several races where younger Democrats and progressives are challenging older incumbent Democrats, and where newer Democratic incumbents are seeking to hold onto their seats in relatively competitive districts.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana lawmakers passed a new congressional map Friday designed to pick up a Republican seat while leaving the state with just one of its two majority-Black House districts represented by Democrats.

Approval of the new House map came a month after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the state’s current map as an illegal racial gerrymander, weakening the landmark 1965 federal Voting Rights Act. That decision intensified a national redistricting battle fueled by President Trump’s efforts to protect the Republicans’ slim House majority in the midterm elections.

Louisiana Republicans had considered drawing a map giving the party a shot at winning all six of the state’s U.S. House seats. But that would have required adding more Black voters to Republican-held districts, potentially backfiring with losses. Some Republicans said a 5-1 map better protects U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson from facing a difficult reelection.

Republican Gov. Jeff Landry is expected to sign the new map into law.

In the weeks following the Supreme Court’s decision, several other Republican-controlled Southern states have seized upon a weakened federal Voting Rights Act to try to redraw their own congressional districts. It’s the latest flare-up in a heated national redistricting battle heading into the November elections, spurred along by Trump.

So far, Republicans are winning the redistricting contest. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they will win a narrowly divided U.S. House in November. So far, Republicans think they could gain as many as 14 seats from their redistricting efforts, while Democrats think they could gain six seats from new districts in California and Utah.

In Louisiana, Republicans currently hold four of six congressional seats on a court-ordered map drawn in 2024 to comply with the Voting Rights Act by including a second district with a majority-Black population.

That map, however, was challenged in court, and the Supreme Court responded on April 30 by striking it down as an illegal racial gerrymander.

Landry postponed the state’s U.S. House primary, scheduled for May 16, until later this summer to allow time for Republican lawmakers to draw and pass a new map.

The proposed map redraws Democratic U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields’ district, clustering it around predominantly white communities in the Baton Rouge area and southern Louisiana. It also adds part of Baton Rouge to a heavily Democratic, majority-Black district based in New Orleans currently represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter.

More lawsuits were expected over the new map.

Democrats say the proposed map could still constitute a racial gerrymander because it packs Black voters into a single congressional district. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision criticized the Legislature’s map for leaving a majority-Black district in place.

Several other Southern states also have acted on redistricting since the Supreme Court’s decision.

Florida’s Legislature passed new congressional districts just hours after the ruling, completing a redrawing that was in the works in anticipation of the decision. It could yield Republicans as many as four additional seats in the midterm elections.

Tennessee adopted new U.S. House districts a week after the ruling, carving up a majority-Black district based in Memphis in a Republican attempt to win an additional seat.

In Alabama, Republicans are attempting to pick up another seat by redrawing two districts where Black residents compose a majority or close to it. Democrats hold both seats, and the proposal is mired in a court battle.

South Carolina’s Senate, meanwhile, decided against redistricting, despite pressure from Trump.

Brook and Levy write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Ethnic war in Kosovo is provoking a kind of civil war inside the Republican Party.

In rapid fashion, the conflict in the Balkans is widening a fissure in the GOP over America’s role in the world. While Democrats mostly have supported President Clinton’s course, Republicans are being torn in diametrical directions as Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s forces systematically expel hundreds of thousands of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo.

On one side, a band of traditional GOP internationalists–led by Sen. John McCain of Arizona–is urging Clinton to escalate the campaign against Milosevic, even to the point of sending ground troops to drive the Serbian forces from Kosovo.

On the other side, an assertive group of conservative nationalists–led by presidential hopeful Patrick J. Buchanan, but extending into Congress–is arguing that the United States should bring its forces home now and leave the problem to the Europeans. “I think . . . we should tell our partners, ‘Look, we’ve expended, almost exhausted our resources. . . . Now on May 1st, we’re going to be out of there and then you take over from there,”’ Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued Sunday.

This dispute marks the first real division in the Republican presidential campaign and, more importantly, a continued shift in the GOP’s center of gravity away from the internationalism that defined it through the Cold War.

Many in the GOP now appear increasingly drawn to an updated version of the old “fortress America” doctrine in which the United States increases its spending on defense but reduces its commitments abroad. Supporters describe this impulse as hard-headed nationalism. Critics, in both parties, deride it as isolationism.

“Republican foreign policy is now mired in pathetic incoherence,” the conservative Weekly Standard magazine said in an editorial last week.

In the first half of the century, the GOP was closely divided between internationalists and isolationists. When the Cold War dawned after World War II, that balance of power tilted toward the internationalists–whose victory was sealed by Dwight D. Eisenhower’s triumph over isolationist Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio for the GOP presidential nomination in 1952.

For nearly the next four decades, internationalists dedicated to containment of the Soviet Union held the upper hand in the GOP–even while isolationist sentiment in the Democratic Party grew after the Vietnam War.

A Role Reversal for Democrats, GOP

But the collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the central rationale for engagement abroad among conservatives and has precipitated something of a role reversal between the parties during Clinton’s presidency. That process has reached a peak in the last few weeks with Republicans leading the opposition to U.S. involvement in Kosovo and Democrats (including many who opposed Vietnam) insisting on America’s obligation to ensure stability abroad.

When the Senate voted last month to authorize airstrikes in Kosovo, 70% of Senate Republicans voted no. Earlier, three-quarters of House Republicans voted against the use of American troops as part of an eventual North Atlantic Treaty Organization peace-keeping force in Kosovo. Virtually all Democrats in both chambers backed Clinton.

Those figures partly reflect Republican skepticism about Clinton’s ability to manage a military conflict and their sheer distrust of the president. But most analysts also see larger forces at work.

“It’s a complex fabric that’s giving us this situation here, from congressional feelings toward this president to the post Cold War fault lines,” said Marshall Wittmann, director of congressional relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

It is possible that tensions could sharpen among Democrats, too, if Clinton eventually asks for ground troops. But so far Democrats have offered little dissent from the president’s course.

On the other hand, the outbreak of fighting has widened the disagreement among Republicans. Overshadowed during congressional debates on Kosovo last month, internationalist Republicans have raised their voices since the bombings began.

Most ubiquitous has been McCain. Last week, McCain put off the formal announcement of his bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 2000, saying that it was inappropriate while NATO was at war in Kosovo. But he has been inescapable on television arguing for an escalation against Milosevic, including the use of ground troops if necessary.

“For us to rule out any capability we have to bring this war to a successful conclusion is a mistake,” McCain said.

Others in this camp include Republican Sens. Richard G. Lugar of Indiana and Charles Hagel of Nebraska, 1996 GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole and–more gingerly–Elizabeth Hanford Dole, who has not explicitly backed ground troops but said last week that “no options should be taken off the table.”

In a slightly different place are Republicans–led by former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger–who opposed the original decision to intervene in Kosovo but now say that NATO must do whatever it takes to defeat Milosevic to maintain its credibility.

Yet it remains unclear how much support these internationalists still command in the GOP.

Apart from McCain and Elizabeth Dole, the only other Republican contender who has accepted the possible use of ground troops is Texas Gov. George W. Bush–though his comments have been so tangled and conditional that the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page labeled them “Clintonian.”

Half of the GOP contenders–including former Vice President Dan Quayle and Ohio Rep. John R. Kasich–have opposed the bombing mission from the outset.

On Sunday, Inhofe and Buchanan raised the ante by calling for Clinton to cut off the military action already underway. Jack Kemp, the GOP’s 1996 vice presidential nominee, last week also urged Clinton to call off the attack and reopen negotiations. Rep. Tom Campbell (R-San Jose), who has criticized the mission, plans to introduce a resolution shortly that would require an up or down vote in Congress on whether to end American involvement.

Republicans opposed to the Kosovo mission extend beyond isolationist figures like Buchanan toward leaders with previously unquestioned credentials as internationalists–like Kemp and Quayle. But the GOP case against involvement is resurfacing arguments that echo earlier generations of isolationist thinking on the right.

One line of thought revives pre-Cold War conservative skepticism about excessive U.S. involvement in Europe. Quayle and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) have argued over the last week that, if troops are required in Kosovo, European nations alone should provide them.

Most foreign policy analysts consider that an impractical prescription since the European governments have made clear that they will not commit troops unless the United States does.

Concerns About U.S. Military Deployments

A related line of Republican thinking on Kosovo echoes earlier “fortress America” thinking. This argument holds that Clinton has invested U.S. forces in too many conflicts–from Bosnia to Haiti to Kosovo–that do not truly threaten America’s vital interests.

By making so many deployments, these conservatives insist, Clinton is depleting the U.S. ability to respond to a true crisis–especially because they believe he has not provided enough funds for defense. As Kasich put it recently: “The United States has to maintain its strength and power so it can preserve stability in the world.”

Much like Clinton, the GOP internationalists think that argument is almost exactly backward. They argue that the United States cannot hold its position of world leadership if it walks away from a crisis of this magnitude.

The test of strength for these competing arguments could come in the weeks ahead if Clinton decides to seek congressional support for ground troops.

WASHINGTON — Alabama on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a congressional map favoring Republicans in this year’s elections, despite a lower court’s ruling that the redistricting plan intentionally discriminates against Black people.

The state’s Republican leadership filed an emergency appeal with the justices a day after a three-judge court refused to let the state use a map it adopted three years ago that has a majority Black population in just one of its seven congressional districts.

The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map that was put in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall told the court that the state did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges.

The appeal is the latest development in the fallout from last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The Alabama cases stretches back several years. The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 19 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said it was standing behind its initial finding that there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination, a holding that was independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The use of the court-ordered map led to the 2024 election of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are seeking to use a map that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim the south Alabama seat.

The state is asking for Supreme Court action by Monday as it makes preparations for the special vote in August.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

PLANO, Texas — Texans are choosing a Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in Tuesday’s runoff election, bringing to a close the extended, bitter and expensive primary where President Trump weighed in late to tip the race in another effort to rid the GOP of leaders less devoted to him.

Trump’s endorsement of state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over four-term Sen. John Cornyn gives the challenger a late boost and puts Cornyn at risk of becoming the first Republican senator in Texas history to seek the party’s nod and lose.

That’s despite Cornyn’s campaign and allied groups spending roughly $90 million in advertising since last year, the vast majority of it attacking Paxton.

It’s the latest GOP contest where Trump has sought to punish a Republican he sees as insufficiently loyal. This month, he has successfully backed challengers to incumbents in Louisiana, Kentucky and Indiana, a sign of his enduring influence among primary voters.

Paxton’s campaign and a pro-Paxton super PAC began airing ads promoting the endorsement within 24 hours of Trump’s announcement. Cornyn acknowledged Trump’s move would have an impact but said he wasn’t giving up.

“I know who gets to choose our senators, and it’s the people of Texas,” he said hours after the endorsement.

The winner will run in November against Democratic state Rep. James Talarico.

Tuesday’s runoffs also will decide Democratic U.S. House nominees for districts in Dallas and Houston that overwhelmingly support Democrats, and a San Antonio-area seat the party hopes to flip.

The primary has been long, bitter and costly

Cornyn led Paxton in the March primary but failed to win a majority in the three-way contest that also included U.S. Rep. Wesley Hunt, who finished in a distant third.

That was after Cornyn’s campaign and allied groups waged a monthslong ad campaign, mostly attacking Paxton for ethical and personal questions. The two-term attorney general was acquitted in a 2023 impeachment trial when allegations of extramarital affairs surfaced. Last year, Paxton’s wife filed for divorce, citing “biblical grounds.”

The alliance of pro-Cornyn groups have continued its attack, outspending Paxton’s campaign and two allied super PACs $16.5 million to $5.9 million since March 3, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact.

Trump promised to endorse immediately after the primary, asking the unchosen candidate to withdraw. But he didn’t act until after early voting began on May 18.

“Ken Paxton has gone through a lot, in many cases, very unfairly, but he is a Fighter, and knows how to win,” Trump wrote in a social media post endorsing him. “Our Country needs Fighters, and also Loyalty to the Cause of Greatness.”

Pro-Cornyn groups lately have been airing ads criticizing the attorney general office’s handling of a Waco sex abuse case. Pro-Paxton groups had seized on Cornyn’s awkward relationship with Trump.

Trump snubs Cornyn amid retribution campaign

The negative tenor could diminish turnout in an election already complicated by coming a day after Memorial Day, Texas Republican strategist Tyler Norris said. About 2 million of Texas’ 18.7 million voters participated in the GOP primary.

The dynamic could favor Paxton, whose support draws from more of the most loyal Trump base in Texas, said Norris, who isn’t affiliated with either campaign.

“The defining battle lines are based around hyper-negative messaging, which dampens turnout to begin with,” he said. “So who is going to show up is the hardest of the hard core.”

Trump in his endorsement also poked at Cornyn, as he has done with other Republicans who are not in lockstep with the president.

He blasted Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy as “a Disloyal Disaster” on May 16, before Cassidy lost a GOP primary for the office he has held since 2015. The two-term senator had voted to convict Trump after his 2021 impeachment trial over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump backed U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow, who advanced to a runoff with John Fleming, the state treasurer. Cassidy finished well behind them.

Last week, Trump celebrated as Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, a critic of the Trump administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, lost his primary to Ed Gallrein. Trump called Massie “the worst congressman in the history of our country.”

In endorsing Paxton, Trump said Cornyn “was not supportive of me when times were tough” and that “John was very late in backing me.”

Cornyn suggested in 2023 that Trump could not win the presidency again in 2024 and that his “time has passed him by.” He also was an early critic of Trump’s plan for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico — a project he now supports.

Senate GOP leaders backed Cornyn, saying he would be stronger in the general election. Some GOP strategists have argued a Paxton nomination would cost millions of dollars more to promote in the fall, when money could be spent defending Republican seats in more competitive states. Democrats need to gain a net of four seats to take the majority.

Democrats also will choose U.S. House nominees

Newly elected Rep. Christian Menefee and veteran Rep. Al Green are vying for the party nod in Texas’ 18th District, which the Republican-led Texas Legislature redrew last year to help the GOP. The new map led to a contest between incumbents and marks the end of a dizzying series of elections in the Houston area. Menefee was elected in a special runoff in January to the seat that had been held by the late Rep. Sylvester Turner, who died in March 2025.

Menefee finished narrowly ahead of Green in the March 3 primary but didn’t win a majority to avoid the runoff.

Former Rep. Colin Allred and U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson are competing in the Dallas-area 33rd District. Johnson was elected to the seat in 2024, the year Allred lost his U.S. Senate challenge to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. Allred was running for Senate again this cycle but dropped his bid and instead is looking to return to the House.

Near San Antonio, Democratic leaders are trying to prevent Maureen Galindo, who has expressed antisemitic views, from winning the party’s runoff with Johnny Garcia. While Texas lawmakers redrew the 35th District to help Republicans, Democrats view it as within reach and don’t want Galindo’s past comments to impede them.

Beaumont and Bedayn write for the Associated Press. Bedayn reported from Austin.

CLOVIS, Calif. — In the waning days before California’s primary election, the two top Republicans running for California governor delivered closing arguments in front of a friendly Central Valley audience Friday evening.

Though Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and former Fox News host Steve Hilton have attacked each other throughout the campaign, they abstained from feuding and instead focused on common enemies — Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers who control the Legislature.

Hilton criticized Newsom’s new $20-million program to provide free diapers for families of newborn babies, referring to the outgoing governor as “the great loaded diaper of California himself.”

Earlier this year, Hilton and Bianco topped the governor’s race polls as a packed field of Democrats split many of the state’s liberal voters. Under California’s “jungle primary” system, where the top two candidates advance from the primary to the general election regardless of political affiliation, that led to fleeting hope among Republicans that the two candidates could shut Democratic candidates out of the November election.

“That idea was always a fantasy,” Hilton wrote in an op-ed published in the New York Post earlier this week in which he urged Bianco to drop out of the race “for the sake of the state we both love.”

“Steve, it is time for you to drop out,” Bianco retorted in a video posted to social media soon after. “In no world, no world does Steve Hilton beat a Democrat in November.”

After winning an endorsement from President Trump in early April, Hilton has steadily outpaced Bianco in polls. A poll commissioned by the California Democratic Party released last week showed Hilton leading the field with support from 22% of likely voters, followed by Democrat and former Biden Cabinet member Xavier Becerra with 21%. Bianco was at 10%, down from 15% in a previous poll conducted two weeks prior.

Still, Bianco, the two-term sheriff of California’s fourth most populous county, is a favorite of many Republicans in the state and won more support from delegates during the party’s recent endorsing convention than Hilton, though neither reached the necessary 60% to win the party backing.

While the two candidates have needled each other with personal digs and insults throughout much of the campaign, they appeared to set that energy aside during the Clovis forum and even traded some compliments. Hilton praised “sheriffs like Chad who actually understand what public safety looks like” while Bianco acknowledged that his opponent “should be very proud” to have Trump’s endorsement.

State Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), who moderated the more than 90-minute event, praised their “extraordinary civility” before she pressured each to commit to backing whichever Republican makes it through the June 2 primary — or if they both advance, continue to focus on policy debates over attacks.

The forum was hosted by the Fresno County & City Republican Women Federated as part of a fundraiser and dinner honoring the upcoming 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding. About 450 attendees were served dishes inspired by presidential favorites including sirloin steak for Theodore Roosevelt, a chopped salad from Chasen’s, a favorite Los Angeles eatery for Ronald Reagan, and a chocolate pie with cherry vanilla ice cream for Trump.

The Central Valley stretches from Bakersfield to Redding and is home to some of the nation’s most lucrative farmland. It also includes the heart of California oil country in Kern County. Yet residents feel largely neglected by statewide politicians who are more drawn to the ample votes and wealthy donors in Southern California and the Bay Area.

“We are the breadbasket of the world but we’ve been overlooked for too long,” said Andrea Shabaglian, a vice president of the Fresno Republican women’s group. “When gubernatorial candidates come here to sit down and listen to our communities, they realize that a stronger Valley means a stronger California.”

Though he lost California handily to former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election, Trump dominated in the state’s midsection. Even in Fresno County, where the Republican forum was held, Trump beat Harris by a four percentage point margin despite Democratic voters slightly outnumbering Republicans.

“We need a Republican in office because California is a mess. I mean, anybody with common sense can see that,” said LuAnne Pinedo-Madden, a retiree living in the Sierra foothill community of Coarsegold who listed transgender girls being allowed to compete in girls’ sports and government corruption as her top concerns.

Pinedo-Madden said she was “pretty sure” she had decided which of the Republican candidates to vote for but declined to say whom. “I feel that if we don’t get a Republican in office, we’re looking at moving” to Utah, Idaho or Nevada, she said. “We can’t take this anymore.”

Bianco and Hilton spoke about their plans to improve public safety, small businesses, homeowner’s insurance and water management, a crucial issue for the conservative-leaning owners of vast swaths of California’s agricultural heartland.

Signs along the major highways that straddle California’s Central Valley proclaim that “Food grows where water flows” and criticize Newsom for allowing water to flow into the ocean instead of capturing and storing more of it for farming.

Both of the GOP candidates described their visions for the state, which include building new dams and raising existing ones to store more water.

“We don’t have the water problem. We have a water management problem,” Bianco said before falsely arguing that “we get more water every single year than any other state in the country” and that California has “never, ever, ever been in a drought.”

“The water will be flowing to our farmers, the oil will be flowing to our refineries, the forests will be managed, the timber will be harvested” and used to build new single-family homes, Hilton said. “We’ve got the best weather, we’ve got the best people, we’ve got the best farmers, we’ve got everything we need to make this place amazing, except a good governor. Very soon we’ll have that as well.”

Though a Republican governor would likely face a hostile Legislature intent on blocking many priorities, Bianco and Hilton both promised sweeping cuts and cutbacks of state agencies. Both pledged on Friday to replace every member of the state’s parole review board, which drew criticism in February when it granted elderly parole to a man convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation in 1999.

“California criminal justice is absolutely broken and it was forced upon us in the name of reform. What I’m going to do is make it a crime to hear the word reform again, because we lost track of what that word even means,” Bianco said.

He also pledged to eliminate laws and environmental regulators often blamed for slowing housing development: the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Commission and the state Air Resources Board.

Though his opponent has the coveted Trump endorsement, Bianco argued that it will hurt Hilton’s chances of winning the general election. The Republican president has never been popular in deep-blue California; just 25% of adults in the state approved of Trump’s performance according to a February survey by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“Steve should rightfully be proud of being endorsed by President Trump [but] we have to actually realize, is that a good thing in California? It’s a good thing in this room,” Bianco said as the crowd cheered at the mention of the president’s name. “We have to realize strategically that President Trump ran three elections in this state, and he lost 60-40 in all three of them.”

The Riverside sheriff argued he is “the only person that can actually sway Democrats to vote for a Republican across party lines on a public safety platform.”

WASHINGTON — For much of President Trump’s second term, Republican senators have largely stayed in line, wary of the consequences of defying a president with a history of targeting those who cross him. This week, that dynamic noticeably shifted.

Senate Republicans blocked two of Trump’s legislative priorities, angered by the push to create a $1.8-billion federal fund to compensate people who claim to have been politically persecuted, including rioters who assaulted the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The revolt forced Republican leaders to pull a planned vote on legislation to fund the president’s immigration crackdown and security features for the president’s White House ballroom project.

In response, the president defended the fund and lashed out at its critics.

“I gave up a lot of money in allowing the just announced Anti-Weaponization Fund to go forward,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden Administration, receive, at long last, JUSTICE”!

The president also called Republican senators who broke with him quitters who are “screwing the Republican Party.”

The friction, which has been building for weeks, is being watched as potential test to the limits of Trump’s grip on his party amid an already tense political environment heading into the midterm elections.

“This is kind of a perfect storm,” former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It may be that this time you can point to it and say this is when the great migration begins, away from some of the president’s policies and away from the fear that the president can target you.”

Whether this week marks the beginning of that moment — or simply another episode of political turbulence that fades — is the central question now handing over Trump’s second term.

Not the first break — but an escalation

This is not the first time Republicans have broken with the president. In November, Congress overwhelmingly voted to force the Justice Department to release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, an effort that Trump unsuccessfully tried to thwart for months.

The Epstein vote showed that on the right issue, under the right circumstances, Republicans could be moved to defy Trump. This week, the creation of the fund changed the circumstances again, and the number of Republican senators willing to act quickly grew.

This moment comes after months of rising costs during the war in Iran, efforts by the president to oust members of his own party and now a set of proposals that are proving hard to defend in an election year.

“What you have is basically a bunch of people who feel a bit under siege,” said Bob Olinksy, the senior vice president of Structural Reform and Governance at the Center for American Progress. “At the same time, they know that most of what the president is doing is unpopular, and they’re the ones who are going to be standing for reelection in November.”

Republicans push back

Senate Republicans leaders are now asking the Department of Justice to reconsider the terms of the fund, underscoring just how politically toxic the idea has become within the president’s own party.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told reporters that the politically speaking, the fund is “unexplainable.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told the New York Times the fund should be in real trouble. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) called the fund “utterly stupid” and “morally wrong.”

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican whom Trump has singled out for going against him, was equally unsparing, saying he opposed “using billions of taxpayer dollars to compensate convicted felons and thugs who attacked police.” He also criticized the administration for pushing domestic and foreign policy issues that he says are bad for housing and the military.

“If opposing these things makes me a RINO [Republican In Name Only], then I gladly accept that nickname,” Tillis wrote on X. “We need Republicans to do well in November, but the stupid stuff is killing our chances!”

The Republican push back comes as the concern about self-dealing runs deep across the electorate.

A recent poll Economist/YouGov poll found that 59% of Americans believe Trump is using his office for personal gain, though that belief is sharply divided among partisan lines. A CNN poll found that 37% of Americans say Trump puts the good of the country above his personal gain, while 32% say he is in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans.

Asked if the political environment influenced the actions this week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters that there is a “political component to everything we do around here.”

Funds and tax immunity clauses

Senate Democrats are wondering if the fund will mark a watershed moment for Republicans.

“Have Republicans finally found a bridge too far?” Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters after Republicans left Washington without funding Trump’s priorities.

Democrats have called the fund an illegal abuse of power designed to line the pockets of Trump’s allies with taxpayer dollars. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) called it a “pure theft of public funds.”

The fund was created as part of a settlement resolving a $10-billion lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. Alongside it, the deal says the IRS is “forever barred and precluded” from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses.

Under the tax immunity clause, Trump and his family could save more than $600 million, according to an analysis by Forbes.

The fund, however, has been the target of most of the bipartisan ire. Mostly because Trump and administration officials have not ruled out that it could stand to benefit people who carried out violence during the Jan. 6 riot.

The public funds, if disbursed, would come from the federal judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payouts. In the past, Republicans have taken issue with the fund. The GOP-controlled House Judiciary Committee characterized it an abuse in 2017.

Several of the president’s allies have already talked about tapping into the fund.

Michael Cohen, Trump’s former attorney who served prison time in relation to campaign finance violations, said he plans to apply for compensation.

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, who was convicted of seditious conspiracy and later pardoned by Trump, told CBS News he would seek a payout from the fund.

“I was targeted,” Tarrio said. “And I do believe that this fund does apply to me.”

Americans always say they want politicians with backbone — men and women of principle who will stand up for what they believe in, even when it’s unpopular.

And every so often, the American people prove their commitment to this noble aspiration by firing anybody who actually tries it.

Take Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, who just lost a reelection bid by double digits after President Trump’s affiliated committees dumped enough money into Kentucky to purchase, well, Kentucky.

Massie committed the cardinal sin of modern Republican politics: He behaved as though Congress were a coequal branch of government instead of the warm-up act before a Trump rally.

He bucked Trump on spending, Iran and — in what apparently qualified as political suicide — whether or not to release the Epstein files. For this display of independent thought, Massie was summarily retired by what can only be described as the Trump cult (formerly known as the Republican primary electorate).

Before anybody accuses me of hyperbole, consider the remarkably revealing example presented recently on the New York Times podcast, “The Daily.”

At a town hall in Burlington, Ky., one voter explained to Massie that Trump is basically omniscient.

“As I see it,” the voter said, “the one person in the whole United States, maybe the world, that understands everything and has input to everything is Donald Trump.”

Not content with mere earthly wisdom, Trump also possesses universal awareness, superior intelligence and perhaps even low-level clairvoyance. The voter continued that Trump “gets more information, more meetings, more everything” than anybody else in government.

When Massie noted that Trump opposed releasing the Epstein files, the man calmly explained that if Trump changed positions, “there was a reason” — one too profound for ordinary mortals to comprehend.

Massie’s reply deserves to be bronzed and mounted over the entrance to the U.S. Capitol: “I don’t give anybody but God that kind of trust.”

Unfortunately, for a large portion of the Republican electorate (about 55%, based on the Kentucky primary results), those words constitute sacrilege against their earthly savior.

As South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham cheerfully boasted on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “This is the party of Donald Trump.” Which is true in much the same way North Korea is the party of Kim Jong Un.

The one ironic twist in all of this is that Americans finally managed to punish somebody over the Epstein files — only it turned out to be the guy who wanted them released.

There’s American justice for you.

Massie isn’t the only Republican currently being fitted for concrete shoes. Trump also helped finish off Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, whose unforgivable crime was voting to convict Trump during the impeachment trial following Jan. 6. And Trump has endorsed controversial Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn, which in today’s GOP primary environment is roughly the equivalent of finding a horse head in your bed.

Now, to be fair, Cassidy and Cornyn are no Massie, who openly opposed Trump and paid the price standing upright. Cassidy and Cornyn demonstrated brief moments of independence, only to spend years vainly performing political interpretive dance routines in hopes of regaining Trump’s favor.

Still, there may be a silver lining here for students of political irony.

Trump’s endorsement of Paxton will force Republicans to spend enormous sums defending a deep red state that would ordinarily require little more than a campaign sign and a pickup truck.

Meanwhile, Trump is creating resentful lame-duck Republicans in Congress who now possess the most dangerous attribute in politics: nothing left to lose.

But the broader message is unmistakable. Trump wants Republicans to understand that disagreement will not be tolerated. No criticism. No distancing. No independent branding.

The party line is whatever Trump said five minutes ago, amended by whatever he says five minutes from now. By now, everyone knows this to be true.

Which would be excellent news for Trump, if not for one small complication: The rest of the country appears to be tiring of his act. Recent polling shows Trump’s approval slipping to 37%, while Democrats gain major ground, surging to a +11 on the generic congressional ballot.

Trump, it seems, has created a situation in which Republicans can either oppose him and be destroyed in a primary, or they can embrace him and risk losing the House and the Senate in November’s general election. It’s the old “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum.

The point is this: With the midterms approaching, Trump is making sure Republicans are ensnared in the gravitational pull of his unpopularity.

That may satisfy the president’s desire for complete loyalty. It may also hand Democrats control of both chambers of Congress.

Trump is settling all family business this week, by purging those pesky disloyal Republicans. Only time will tell whether he’s also purging America’s non-Republican “swing” voters, as well.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s grip on his party slipped on Thursday as anger boiled over among Senate Republicans about a growing list of issues.

In a striking display of defiance, GOP senators abruptly derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid deep disagreements over security funding for a White House ballroom and a $1.8-billion fund to pay people who claim to have been politically persecuted.

The discontent had been building for weeks. Many senators had grown frustrated over Trump’s decision to endorse candidates running against longtime Republican incumbents.

Others, worried about rising costs as a result from the war in Iran, had aired concerns ahead of the midterm elections. But the breaking point came when the Justice Department, with little warning, pushed to create what it termed the “anti-weaponization fund.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) acknowledged the concerns over the fund Thursday after a reportedly contentious private meeting about it between Senate Republicans and acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. He also conceded midterm politics had added to the tension.

“It’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us,” Thune told reporters. “You can’t disconnect those things.”

A day earlier, Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who lost his primary race on Saturday to a Trump-backed challenger, expressed strong disagreement with the creation of the fund, which would be controlled by appointees without congressional oversight.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries and paying for gas, not putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” Cassidy wrote on X. “If there needs to be a settlement, the administration should bring it to Congress to decide.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) also had harsh criticism for the fund.

“So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong — take your pick,” he said in a statement.

The discord was striking, partly because Republicans have largely steered clear of checking the president’s power, and Congress has been largely sidelined under the second Trump administration on the war in Iran and other issues.

“I don’t think the Republicans had any choice but to pull the plug until we come back in June, because they’re facing a bit of a mutiny within their conference,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) told The Times, saying he had heard that the meeting between Blanche and Republicans “didn’t go well.”

As tension simmered on the background, Trump seemed unbothered by the group of Republicans’ public rebellion against his agenda. When asked whether he was losing control of the Senate, he said he didn’t know.

“I only do what is right,” he told reporters in the Oval Office.

However, he expressed annoyance at lawmakers who would not support $1 billion in federal funding for security costs related to the ballroom project. He said the structure is being privately funded by him and other “great patriots.”

“We are making a gift to the United States,” Trump said. “This is being made as a gift from me and other people that are great patriots and spent a lot of money. We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world.”

The $1 billion for security funding would be “very much a good expenditure,” he said. If Congress does not sign off on the money, Trump said the “White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Trump did not immediately comment on Thursday about the Senate’s delaying of the funding bill. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

Trump’s second-term actions have frequently tested the loyalty of Republican lawmakers, who have largely stayed in line. The settlement fund, with its ethical questions, appears to have crossed a line for some senators in a party that has traditionally opposed wasting taxpayer funds.

The money comes from the judgment fund, which is a Congress-approved ongoing appropriation that allows the Justice Department to settle cases and make payments.

Stephen Miller, a top aide to Trump, told reporters at the White House that the $1.8-billion settlement was “just a small measure of the justice” that many people are owed after being targeted by the federal government. Miller declined to say whether the White House was reaching out to senators to ease concerns about the fund.

Republicans in Congress decried the use of similar third-party settlements during the Obama administration, with House lawmakers repeatedly passing a bill aimed at stopping settlement slush funds, noted Molly Nixon, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Though the Trump administration’s plan is novel because the settlement money isn’t going to a third party, the general concept has been offensive to Republicans in the past; the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee termed it an abuse in 2017.

“If you’re taking a consistent view, you’d be at least equally as opposed to this settlement,” Nixon said of Republican lawmakers.

That could be driving some of the opposition now, along with concerns about who is going to get the money and whether it could be distributed to people who wouldn’t have been able to make a successful case before a court of law, Nixon said.

“The fund is going to plaintiffs who were victims of lawfare or weaponization. … Those are pretty ambiguous terms. They’re sort of in the eye of the beholder,” Nixon said. “It’s pretty easy to see how this could very easily become a quiet political claims process.”

Police officers who defended the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, riot have already filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block the creation of the fund, arguing in part that it would compensate extremist convicted of committing violent crimes.

“The fund’s mere existence sends a clear and chilling message: those who enact violence in President Trump’s name will not just avoid punishment, they will be rewarded with riches,” the lawsuit says.

When Trump returned to office in January 2025, one of his first acts was pardoning or commuting the prison sentences of the 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack. Vice President JD Vance on Wednesday did not rule out that settlement money could go to those rioters, saying the money would be given out on a “case-by-case basis.”

Thune told reporters on Thursday that the Justice Department would have to come up with some guardrails to ease concerns among senators.

“We need to get some clarity,” he said.

Though the number of Republicans angry with Trump is significant enough to make or break legislation, the caucus appeared far from falling apart.

Senate Republicans blocked an attempt by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) on Thursday to pass a bill to prohibit federal funds from reaching Jan. 6 rioters, an attempt to prevent the fund from being used to compensate them.

“I’m encouraged hearing some of my Republican colleagues agreeing with me,” Padilla said on the Senate floor. “Let’s stand up for congressional oversight as a unified Senate.”

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) objected to Padilla’s bill, later writing on X: “PROUD to object today to Senator Padilla’s RIDICULOUS bill and stand up for ALL FREEDOM-LOVING AMERICANS.”

Schiff, who is working on an amendment that would target the fund, said other Republican colleagues he spoke to Wednesday evening were unhappy with the position Trump has put them in. He said Trump’s actions have helped underscore Democrats’ arguments against his party.

“All [it’s] doing is helping us make the case that the Republicans couldn’t care less about people’s cost of living … that there’s plenty of money for golden ballrooms for the president, there’s plenty of money for the president’s cronies, but there’s no money for the average family,” Schiff said.

CONCORD, N.H. — A growing effort to raise suspicion about the security of voting systems has kindled a back-to-the-future moment among conservatives in some parts of the U.S.

Republican lawmakers in at least six states have introduced legislation that would require all election ballots to be counted by hand instead of electronic tabulators. Similar proposals have been floated within some local governments, including about a dozen New Hampshire towns and Washoe County in the presidential battleground state of Nevada.

The push for hand-counting ballots comes amid mistrust of elections stoked by many Republicans who advance the false narrative that widespread fraud cost former President Trump reelection in the 2020 contest.

Despite no evidence of widespread fraud or major irregularities, conspiracy theories have proliferated among his allies that voting systems were somehow manipulated to favor Democrat Joe Biden. That has prompted calls to ban electronic tabulators used to scan ballots, record votes and compile race tallies.

“It’s our responsibility, and it should be our desire, to count every vote and to imbue confidence in our citizenry that our elections are fair and free, and that their vote is being counted,” said New Hampshire state Rep. Mark Alliegro, sponsor of a hand-counting bill that is similar to ones proposed in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Washington and West Virginia.

Alliegro said he was motivated by his analysis of recounts in nearly 50 New Hampshire state legislative races, not by the 2020 presidential election.

But some of the bill’s supporters reference the 2020 election to explain why they argue his hand-count legislation is needed. They cite a belief — despite evidence disproving it — that Trump actually won a landslide victory and that cheating is the only way to explain how New Hampshire voters elected a Republican governor and GOP majorities in the Legislature, but then backed Democrats for federal office.

Critics of the proposals to ditch electronic ballot tabulators and return to hand-counting are blunt about what they see as the motivation.

“It’s coming from conspiracy theories and lies,” said Sylvia Albert, director of voting and elections for Common Cause, a nonpartisan group that advocates for expanded voter access. “It’s attempting to lower people’s confidence in elections.”

Albert and others said it’s unrealistic to think election officials can count millions of ballots by hand and report results quickly, given that ballots often include dozens of races. The partisan review last summer of the 2 million ballots cast in Maricopa County, Ariz., which included a hand count, took several months and hundreds of people to complete.

“If you have a jurisdiction with 500 voters, you might be OK. But if you have a jurisdiction with thousands of voters, tens of thousands of voters, hundreds of thousands of voters, it’s just not going to work,” said Jennifer Morrell, a former elections clerk in Colorado and Utah who now advises state and local election officials.

Even in New Hampshire’s small towns, hand-counting is a complicated, lengthy process when a typical ballot might include 50 questions, said Milford Town Clerk Joan Dargie, who spoke against the proposed legislation on behalf of the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Assn. She estimates her town would have to boost election workers from 200 to 350, and said many of her fellow clerks have said they will quit if they have to tabulate every ballot by hand. “People who are asking to get rid of machines obviously haven’t worked in an election,” she said.

As one example, Cobb County, Ga., performed a hand tally ordered by the state after the 2020 election. It took hundreds of people five days to count just the votes for president on roughly 397,000 ballots, said Janine Eveler, elections director for the county in metro Atlanta. She estimates it would have taken 100 days to count every race on each ballot using the same procedures.

Counting by machine isn’t just faster. Multiple studies have shown it’s also more accurate, said Charles Stewart, professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The first research on the topic was done almost two decades ago, comparing recounts of New Hampshire races that were originally tabulated by hand with those tabulated by machines. In that study and subsequent research, the machines won, he said.

“Counting votes is very tedious. Human beings are bad doing tedious things, and computers are very good at doing tedious things,” Stewart said.

Most states also conduct postelection audits that are designed to identify any irregularities with ballot scanning and counting. But with many Republicans believing Biden was not legitimately elected, election machines have become a popular target.

In Nevada, a Republican county commissioner is pushing a proposal that would require hand-counting of all ballots, along with a return to primarily in-person voting and beefing up uniformed security at polling places.

“I’m 82 years old, and I’ve been through a lot of elections,” said Washoe County Commissioner Jeanne Herman. “I know that something is not right.”

The proposal has drawn opposition from other commissioners, the biggest labor union in the state and a rare front-page editorial in the largest newspaper in northern Nevada, which said the measure could cost taxpayers “millions of dollars to chase down Facebook rumors of illusory election fraud.”

In West Virginia, a bill to repeal the state law governing tabulation machines died in committee earlier this month. In Missouri, lawmakers have not yet acted on a proposal that would ban electronic voting machines and tabulation equipment and require hand-counting to be livestreamed and recorded.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Mitch Boggs Jr., said he has no proof elections have been manipulated but is responding to constituent concerns.

“You file what the constituents are asking for,” Boggs said. “But at the end of the day, what they’re really wanting is just the transparency. They want to know that our elections are secure.”

Republican state Rep. Petty McGaugh said the legislation would delay election results and likely undermine their accuracy. When she became clerk of rural Carroll County in 1995, election staff were still hand-counting ballots by marking tallies in blocks of five on paper. She noticed multiple errors and eventually switched the county to an electronic tabulation system.

“I don’t really think that in this day and age we need to go back to hand-counting where it’s so susceptible to human error,” she said. “We’ve got to start trusting electronics and computers.”

In New Hampshire, that message seems to have gotten through. Last week, a state House committee unanimously recommended killing the hand-counting legislation and voters in nine towns where the question was on the ballot in local elections rejected it.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican who has occasionally asserted his independence from President Trump, failed to advance in Saturday’s GOP primary runoff in Louisiana, as a Trump-backed foe and another candidate finished in the top two spots.

U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow won the most votes, capitalizing on the power of Trump’s endorsement in his latest attempt to purge his party of people he views as disloyal. State Treasurer John Fleming came in second to join her in the next round of voting.

Trump supported Letlow over Cassidy, one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict him during his second impeachment trial over the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Cassidy, a doctor, has also clashed with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine policy, even though he provided crucial support to help Kennedy get confirmed.

By receiving less than 50% of the vote, Letlow and Fleming, a former U.S. House member and Trump administration official, were unable to avoid the runoff, which will take place June 27. The winner will almost certainly take the November general election because of the state’s Republican leanings.

The Louisiana primary comes in the middle of a month of campaigns by Trump to exact retribution on politicians he views as having crossed him. On May 5 he helped dislodge five of seven Indiana state senators who rejected his partisan gerrymander plan.

Next Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky will face a Trump-backed challenger, Ed Gallrein, in another Republican primary. Massie angered Trump by opposing his signature tax legislation over concerns about the national debt, pushing for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and opposing his decision to go to war with Iran.

The president leveled insults at Cassidy on Saturday morning, calling him “a disloyal disaster” and “a terrible guy” on social media. In the evening he followed up with: “Congratulations to Congresswoman Julia Letlow on a fantastic race, beating an Incumbent Senator by Record Setting Numbers.”

Jeanelle Chachere, a 66-year-old nurse, said she considers Cassidy “a phony” and voted for Letlow solely because Trump endorsed her.

“I’m going by what he says, because I like what he does,” she said.

Election changes stir concern

The election was scrambled by a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision focused on Louisiana gutting a part of the Voting Rights Act that affects how congressional maps are drawn. Although the Senate primary is moving forward, Louisiana leaders decided to delay House primaries until a future date to allow them to redo district lines ahead of time, a shift that threatened to cause confusion for voters Saturday.

Mary-Patricia Wray, who has consulted for Republican and Democratic candidates in Louisiana, said before the vote that the change could weigh against Cassidy by dampening turnout among voters who are less fervently pro-Trump.

“Suspending the congressional primaries hurts Cassidy,” she said. “Some people believe the Senate primary is canceled.”

Cassidy also complained that a new primary system enacted last year confused voters by requiring them to ask for a partisan ballot instead of the all-party primary previously in place. He said some called his office to say they had been unable to vote for him.

“The process that was set up was destined to be confusing,” Cassidy told reporters Friday.

Dadrius Lanus, executive director of the state Democratic Party, said his team fielded hundreds of calls from voters statewide who said the changes undermined their ability vote as they planned.

“A lot of the information should have gotten to voters well in advance,” Lanus said. “It’s literally been a whirlwind of confusion.”

A costly primary

Cassidy waged an aggressive campaign to convince voters he should not be counted out. Wray was among the political consultants who, as election day neared, gave the senator a chance of pulling off an upset.

The senator’s campaign was expected to have spent roughly $9.6 million on advertising through May 16, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact. And Louisiana Freedom Fund, a super PAC supporting him, was on track to spend $12.3 million.

By comparison, Letlow’s campaign, which launched Jan. 20, spent roughly $3.9 million, while a super PAC backing her, the Accountability Project, spent about $6 million.

Fleming’s campaign spent about $1.5 million.

Cassidy and Louisiana Freedom Fund ran ads attacking Letlow within days of her entering the race for supporting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, which Trump has tried to root out of the federal government.

Letlow, a college administrator before her election to the House, said she supported DEI while interviewing for the position of president of University of Louisiana-Monroe in 2020.

The ads, an attempt to characterize Letlow as a progressive trying to pass as a conservative, were one way Cassidy tried to flip the script in a race where he was on the outs with Trump.

Trump’s campaign

The senator’s vote in favor of convicting Trump after his 2021 impeachment has shadowed Cassidy throughout his second Senate term.

John Martin, a 68-year-old retired engineer in south Louisiana, said he would vote for Letlow because he was still upset by Cassidy’s decision. He waved a flier from Letlow’s campaign showing her standing alongside the president.

“I know a lot more about Cassidy than I do about her,” Martin said. “But if she’s endorsed by Trump, I’m going to believe that.”

Cassidy steered clear of Trump’s ire last year, supporting Kennedy to lead the Department of Health and Human Services despite his public reservations about the nominee’s anti-vaccine views.

Mark Workman, a 75-year-old retired infectious disease physician in the New Orleans suburbs, said he backs Fleming. Had Cassidy “stood up and blocked RFK,” Workman said, he would have supported the senator for taking a strong and courageous stance.

“He had the ability to stop him,” Workman said, “and he was too weak to do that.”

As chair of the Senate Health Committee, Cassidy has been more publicly critical of Kennedy, including over funding cuts for vaccine development.

Trump blamed Cassidy for the failed nomination of his second choice for surgeon general, Casey Means, who raised doubts about vaccinating newborns for hepatitis B, a practice Cassidy supports. Trump withdrew the Means nomination and decried Cassidy.

Challenger waited for Trump’s backing

Letlow considered running last year but only entered the race after Trump announced his endorsement in January.

By that time Fleming, who was elected state treasurer in 2023, was already in the race as a Trump devotee. But Landry was looking for a better-known challenger, and he suggested Letlow to the president.

Letlow had an unconventional and tragic entry into politics.

In 2020, while she was a college administrator, her husband, Luke, was elected to the U.S. House but died of COVID-19 before he could be sworn in. Letlow ran for and won the seat in a March 2021 special election and was reelected in 2022 and 2024.

Beaumont and Brook write for the Associated Press and reported from Des Moines and Baton Rouge, respectively

BATON ROUGE, La. — Thousands of Louisiana voters have already cast early ballots for congressional candidates in what soon could be the wrong districts. Alabama’s primaries are a week away, but the state could force a do-over for voting on U.S. House races. A new congressional map in Tennessee upended races that had been underway for months.

Republicans’ rush to gerrymander congressional districts across several Southern states after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling hollowed out the Voting Rights Act is confusing voters and creating logistical headaches for local election officials. The changes are hitting while primary season is in progress.

The chaotic upheaval to an election season that could determine which party controls the U.S. House is the latest fallout from an intensely partisan gerrymandering battle initiated by President Trump last year to protect Republicans’ slim majority.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month severely weakening the Voting Rights Act required Louisiana to reconsider a map drawn in 2024 with two majority minority congressional districts that elected Black representatives. The GOP-controlled Legislature could eliminate one or both in a state where roughly 30% of the population is Black.

The ruling also encouraged Republicans in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee to consider eliminating four Democratic districts among them, three represented by Black lawmakers. Florida has a new map meant to cost Democrats four of their eight seats, out of 28.

In Louisiana, 66-year-old New Orleans resident Sallie Davis voted early last week. Her ballot allowed her to vote for Democratic U.S. Rep. Troy Carter, but a sign at her polling booth showed his race crossed off with a ballpoint pen. She was confused and frustrated — especially when a poll worker told her to go with what the sign seemed to convey. She’s now worried that her entire ballot will not be counted.

“I was supposed to believe a piece of paper with an X on it marking out the person I wanted to vote for,” she said, her voice breaking as she recounted her experience later. “I think I have been disenfranchised. I think my vote, that I just voted on, it’s not going to count or something. I think it’s illegal.”

Primaries postponed, deadlines compressed

Louisiana’s primary is on Saturday, and a week of early voting there began May 2, two days after the Republican governor declared an emergency and suspended congressional primaries to give lawmakers a chance to draw a new map.

Republican Secretary of State Nancy Landry’s office said nearly 179,000 primary ballots had been cast as of Friday, including about 53,000 absentee ballots returned by mail. She said the ballots included U.S. House races, but votes in those contests won’t be counted.

In Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee, Republicans justified pursuing new maps by saying that electing more Republicans would better reflect their states’ conservative values. Alabama lawmakers passed legislation Friday allowing a do-over of congressional primaries.

Alabama’s primary is May 19, and voting in congressional races will occur then as planned, but with the old districts. Those votes would end up not counting if a court allows the switch to different districts.

Mississippi held its primaries in March, but a federal court has ordered it to redraw its state Supreme Court districts, and Trump is pushing Republicans to redraw the state’s four congressional districts.

A special session of its Legislature is set for May 20. Renovations of the House chamber will force members to meet at the Old State Capitol, where, decades ago, Mississippi lawmakers passed Jim Crow laws suppressing Black voting.

“Modern-day voter suppression relies on election administration errors and chaos, and that’s what we’re going to see play out in all of these states,” said Amir Badat, a Jackson, Mississippi, voting rights attorney and activist.

Tennessee continues yearlong fight

Tennessee was the first state to enact a new map since the U.S. Supreme Court decision, but Trump’s push for redistricting started in Texas last year. Democrats countered in California and tried but ran afoul of the courts in Virginia.

Before Tennessee’s GOP-controlled Legislature passed a new map last week, the state’s elections coordinator told county officials in a memo what that would mean: reprogramming election systems, retraining poll workers and possibly adjusting precinct boundaries, meaning some voters’ polling places could change.

Tennessee’s congressional primaries still will be held Aug. 6 as planned, and candidates have until Friday to qualify for the ballot. Those who qualified previously will get a pass if they can run in a new district with the same number.

In South Carolina, lawmakers could move all the state’s June 9 primaries to August, or just the congressional races. While mail balloting is limited because the state requires an excuse to do it, more than 6,800 mail ballots already had been sent to voters — with 260 returned — as of Friday, according to the state Elections Commission.

Holding a separate election for congressional primaries would cost $3 million and the time for preparations would be compressed, Conway Belangia, the commission’s executive director, told lawmakers Friday.

“It will be difficult, but it will be possible,” he said.

Activists see problems ahead for voters

Michael McClanahan, president of the NAACP’s Louisiana State Conference, is hearing “total confusion” as voters call him and ask, “Is there an election?”

“People say, ’I ain’t going to vote because the governor’s suspended the election,’” he said. “But he didn’t, he only suspended one aspect of it.”

In Alabama, Senate Democratic leader Bobby Singleton said he has been fielding calls from public officials who also are confused.

“These are the people who are the head of elections,” he said. “They don’t know what to do.“

Voting rights activists see problems that arose in Nashville, Tennessee, in 2022, when Republican legislators divided the state’s capital city into three congressional districts to take a seat from Democrats, as a harbinger of what Memphis voters could face this year. A state report said more than 3,000 Nashville-area voters were assigned to incorrect districts and more than 430 cast ballots in the wrong races in the November 2022 election.

“It’s going to be really hard for the election commissions to be able to keep up with this short timeline,” Matia Powell, executive director of the voting rights nonprofit Civic TN, said during a conference call Friday with other voting rights activists in the South.

Some fear confusion will lead to distrust and apathy

Anneshia Hardy, executive director of Alabama Values, which provides support to voting and civil rights groups, said people will lose trust in elections if they believe the rules can change every two years.

“Once people stop believing that the process is stable and fair, disengagement is going to increase, and that’s one of the biggest dangers here,” she said. “Democracy doesn’t just depend on voting systems existing but really on people believing that their participation matters.”

At least a few Democratic voters who went to the Louisiana Capitol on Friday to protest the gerrymandering expressed doubt about whether they still have a political voice.

Davis came to the State Capitol in Baton Rouge and had a bullhorn with her for a protest in which she yelled, “Whose vote? Our vote!”

David Victorian, a 79-year-old Vietnam veteran from Baton Rouge, said: “I’m concerned for the survival of the democracy that we’re supposed to be living in.”

Hanna and Brook write for the Associated Press. Hanna reported from Topeka, Kan. AP writers Jeffrey Collins in Columbia, S.C., and Kim Chandler, in Montgomery, Ala., contributed to this report.

Five months ago, President Trump was stinging from one of the first political defeats of his second term as Republican state senators defied him on redistricting in Indiana. Now he has proved he can still punish wayward party members after he endorsed a slate of challengers who defeated almost every one of those lawmakers he wanted to dislodge.

The results will likely bolster Trump’s confidence heading into upcoming Republican primaries where he wants to help oust more incumbents, including U.S Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky.

Indiana’s primary also ratchets up the pressure on Republican lawmakers in other states to move aggressively to redraw congressional district boundaries before the November elections. Alabama and Tennessee have already begun special sessions that could limit Black voters’ strength in Democratic-leaning districts, and some of Trump’s allies in South Carolina want to follow suit.

State Sen. Linda Rogers, one of the Indiana lawmakers who voted against redistricting and lost her seat Tuesday, said the outcome “will probably discourage others in other states.”

“If someone is going to ask you to take a tough vote, you may think twice about your conscience and what’s best for your community and instead what’s best for you and your career,” she said.

Redistricting efforts began last year, when Trump saw an opportunity to give Republicans an additional edge, but they were supercharged last week when the U.S. Supreme Court gutted a provision of the Voting Rights Act that influenced how political lines are drawn.

Trump’s success in Indiana, aided by more than $8.3 million in campaign cash in races that usually see very little spending, reaffirmed the president’s continued strength within a Republican Party that he has dominated for a decade, despite his inevitable slide toward lame-duck status and his sagging poll numbers.

“Historic night for Indiana as Republicans stood with me and President Trump to nominate some great America First conservatives,” Gov. Mike Braun, R-Ind., posted on social media. “I look forward to winning big in November and serving Hoosiers with this team in the statehouse!”

Trump backed primary challenges against seven Republican state senators who rejected his redistricting plan in December. Five of the president’s candidates won, and another race remained too close to call.

Trump was relatively restrained on social media about the voting. He shared a series of photos celebrating the victories of candidates he endorsed in Indiana and Ohio, which also held primaries Tuesday. But he otherwise passed on boasting or renewing his attacks on Massie or Cassidy.

Massie has been among the members of Congress who frustrated the president by pressing for release of the Jeffrey Epstein case files. Cassidy was among the Republican senators who voted to convict Trump on 2021 impeachment charges after the Jan. 6 riot.

James Blair, one of Trump’s top political advisers, was more direct, posting an image from the movie “Gladiator” depicting Russell Crowe’s ancient Roman character Maximus exulting after a combat victory.

Rogers, the Indiana state senator, faced almost $670,000 in television advertising against her, funded by political action committees associated with Braun and U.S. Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind.

She said she did not regret her vote against redistricting.

“It would have been easy for me to hit that ‘yes’ button,” she said. “To hear the number of people who asked me not to, then the number of people who thanked me, would mean I wasn’t representing them.”

Louisiana’s primary, in which Trump has endorsed U.S. Rep. Julie Letlow over Cassidy, is set for May 16. Kentucky, where Trump has endorsed Massie’s challenger, retired Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, will hold its primary May 19.

Beaumont and Barrow write for the Associated Press.

May 6 (UPI) — Republican voters in Indiana and Ohio largely backed Trump-aligned candidates Tuesday in primaries seen as tests of President Donald Trump‘s influence within the GOP.

Both states held their party primaries on Tuesday to decide candidates for hundreds of races for November’s midterm elections, but most eyes were on contests for the Indiana state Senate, where incumbent Republicans had rejected Trump’s redistricting push.

Indiana

Though too late to influence Indiana’s congressional map before the midterms, Trump endorsed challengers to incumbents who had opposed his effort to redraw the map to add Republican seats.

Trump’s influence within the GOP in the Hoosier State appeared strong: Of his seven endorsed challengers against Indiana Republican state senators who opposed his gerrymandering push, five appeared poised to win outright, one seemed to have lost and another was in a tight race.

“Big night for MAGA in Indiana,” Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said in a social media statement, referring to the acronym for Trump’s far-right nationalist Make American Great Again movement.

“Proud to have helped elect more conservative Republicans to the Indiana State Senate.”

Nearly 90% of all Indiana precincts were reporting as of early Wednesday, according to the Indiana Election Division, but five of the seven Trump-backed candidates had already declared victory.

Those five are Trevor De Vries, Brian Schmutzler, Blake Fiechter, Tracey Powell and Michelle Davis.

“Thank you to every Hoosier who came out to vote today,” De Vries said in a social media post late Tuesday.

“And special thanks to President @DonaldTrump for his endorsement that helped seal the deal and showed Indianapolis what real Hoosiers wanted.

“We did it, Indiana! Time to get to work.”

De Vries beat incumbent Daniel Dernulc, state senator for District 1, in a landslide. According to the unofficial results, De Vries secured 75.1% of the vote to Dernulc’s 23.3%.

Schmutzler was poised to beat state Sen. Linda Rogers in a 55.8% to 44.2% split, Fiechter over state Sen. Travis Holdman 61.5% to 38.5%, Powell’s 64.7% led state Sen. Jim Buck’s 35.3% and Davis led state Sen. Greg Walker 58.8% to 41.2%.

Trump-endorsed Paula Copenhaver also declared victory in her race against Sen. Spencer Deery despite being in a virtual tie. According to unofficial state results, she was trailing Deery by three ballots.

“After all provisional ballots are counted, we will prevail and be declared the winner of this race,” she said on X.

“I want to thank President Donald Trump for his unwavering support and endorsement. President Trump is the leader of our party, and it showed clearly tonight in his victories across the state.”

The only Trump-endorsed candidate to lose was Brenda Wilson. State Sen. Greg Goode was poised to win with 53.6% of the vote to Wilson’s 36%, according to the unofficial results.

A sixth incumbent who stood against redistricting, Sen. Rich Niemeyer, also appeared poised to lose his seat to challenger Jay Starkey, who was not endorsed by Trump.

Ohio

In Ohio, the race to watch was on the GOP gubernatorial primary.

With incumbent Republican Gov. Mike DeWine barred by term limits from running again, Ohio’s governor’s mansion will have a new occupant.

Amy Acton and her running mate David Pepper ran unopposed in the Democratic primary for governor and lieutenant governor, respectively.

Republican voters in the state nominated Trump ally Vivek Ramaswamy for governor and Robert McColley for lieutenant governor in a landslide.

According to unofficial results from the Office of Ohio Secretary of State, the Ramaswamy-McColley ticket secured 82.47% of the vote compared to the 17.53% that Casey Putsch and Kimberly Georgeton received.

“I speak for Rob and myself here: We are in this because we believe that together — with the complementary skills that we bring to the table — we are the two people in this state who can work together as a team to lead Ohio back to our true potential,” he said Tuesday night during his victory speech.

“To our greatest heights to put more money in your pocket, to bring down those costs and to give your kids the world-class education that is the birthright of every Ohioan.”

Trump had endorsed Ramaswamy for governor.

“I know Vivek well, competed against him and he is something SPECIAL,” Trump said earlier Tuesday.

“Vivek Ramaswamy will be a GREAT Governor of Ohio.”

Ramaswamy gained national attention during the 2024 GOP presidential primary, running against Trump. Instead of attacking the former New York real estate mogul, Ramaswamy aligned himself with Trump’s America First movement, often praising him.

“Thank you, Mr. President!” Ramaswamy said in response to Trump’s endorsement.

“It’s time to make Ohio greater than ever.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

ST. LOUIS — Still smarting from their election loss and scornful of their departing leaders, ranking Republicans met Thursday to select a new party chairman, eyeing five candidates who stress unity but whose links to opposing factions and presidential hopefuls mirror the party’s deep clefts.

On the surface, the three-day meeting of the 165-member Republican National Committee to pick a new leader opened Thursday with a collegial sense of purpose: All five men seeking the post are conservatives who talk of renewing the party at the grass-roots level and loosening ties to the Washington Establishment that called the shots for 12 years.

But the mounting heat produced by this campaign has burnished the differences between the candidates and exposed hints of their ties to the forces buffeting the party–presidential aspirants, religious and anti-abortion elements, even the tattered remains of George Bush’s reelection apparatus.

Party veterans say none of the five–retiring Missouri Gov. John Ashcroft, Mississippi lawyer and political consultant Haley Barbour, Republican Congressional Committee Co-Chairman L. Spencer Abraham, former Army Secretary Howard H. (Bo) Calloway and Oregon party Chairman Craig L. Berkman–appear to have enough support to muster a first-ballot victory this afternoon.

Party regulars described Barbour and Abraham as the perceived front-runners, with Ashcroft, who gained national exposure last fall as a Bush campaign speaker, not far behind. But arriving committee members said up to 40% of the voting members appeared uncommitted.

Committed or not, some of the arriving committee members projected a prickly impatience with the soothing promises made by consultants and cellular phone-wielding floor whips. After 12 years of taking orders from Administration officials, some party officials gleefully flexed their independence.

Outside one reception, a Midwestern committeeman poked a startled staffer in the chest and huffed: “You’re beginning to sound exactly like the dolts we had to endure for the last four years.”

Karen Hughes, the executive director of the Texas Republican Party, said a “strong anti-Washington Establishment” mood pervades the gathering. “I think the deciding factor in the vote is who the members believe will allow them to be part of the process,” she said. “You don’t mind being a rubber stamp body when you win. But when you lose . . . .”

As they lobbied near well-stocked buffet tables in Hyatt Regency hotel hospitality suites and in secluded speeches in spare meeting rooms, the five contestants tried to capitalize on that sense of frustration. They echoed a growing cadre of party regulars who think that Bush’s presidential campaign was fatally flawed by the party’s failure to project a “big tent” image to a diverse nation.

“The sense that the party needs to be inclusionary is playing pretty well here,” said Eddie Mahe, a Republican political consultant who flew in from Washington to lobby for Calloway.

That yearning for a broader, more tolerant Republican Party masks a fear among many stalwarts that they are in danger of a grass-roots takeover by the religious right.

Mary Alice Lair, a national committeewoman from the small southeast Kansas town of Piqua, worries about the “new people,” her hushed description of Christian right volunteers who have swelled party membership rolls in her Republican precinct.

“We need to find ways to show the new people that we’re OK and to teach them how to operate as one group,” Lair said. “We need a chairman who can show the precincts how to organize properly.”

But even as candidates talked earnestly about tinkering with the grass roots, listening to regulars outside the Washington Beltway and turning a deaf ear to well-heeled consultants, they were relying on time-tested Capitol contacts and imported consultants to sway uncommitted members.

And, as they promised a turn in the party’s fortunes by welcoming all of its embittered factions, the five candidates were busy attacking each other for their links to future presidential contenders as varied as former Vice President Dan Quayle and Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, to Christian fundamentalist leaders like Pat Robertson and even to CBS News.

Abraham, a Michigan Republican leader, is selling himself as a leading candidate for change based on his roles in revitalizing his state’s party, in paring consultants’ costs and, as chairman of the congressional campaign committee, in funneling more money last year to Republican House candidates. But his opponents have attacked him for being openly supported by Quayle, who employed him as an aide.

Barbour, one of the earliest to announce his candidacy, has been criticized for his close ties to Gramm–thought to be a presidential possibility–and for representing CBS News against the Bush Administration in a battle over a cable TV bill last year.

Ashcroft has emphasized his recent role as a party spokesman in his bid to do similar work as party chairman. But it is Ashcroft’s very influence that may have prevented him from gaining an edge. His prominence in drafting the party’s platform last year has hurt him, some moderates say. And, like Abraham, he is burdened by his links to some of the powerful influences aiding him. Current RNC Chairman Richard N. Bond is said to favor him, as are a number of influential Christian right figures impressed with his strong anti-abortion stance. That kind of backing hurts the former governor as much as it aids him, party regulars said.

Calloway, who runs a political action committee founded by Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), is beloved by many committee members. But he is believed to be a long shot because, at 67, “he’s just too old,” one Abraham backer said.

Berkman, an Oregon moderate who prefers that the party move away from its anti-abortion and anti-gay-rights planks, is said to be limited by his regional support.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Louisiana’s congressional primaries won’t be going forward as scheduled in May, as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a majority-Black congressional district, the state’s top elected officials said Thursday.

Gov. Jeff Landry and Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, both Republicans, said in a joint statement that Wednesday’s high court ruling effectively prohibits the state from carrying out the primaries under the current districts. Early voting had been scheduled to begin Saturday in advance of the May 16 primary.

“The State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map,” Landry and Murrill said in the statement posted to social media. “We are working together with the Legislature and the Secretary of State’s office to develop a path forward.”

That path is likely to lead to a new U.S. House map benefiting Republican candidates in Louisiana.

President Trump, in a series of social media posts Thursday, praised Landry for moving quickly to revise the state’s congressional districts and urged Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee to do likewise in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

While civil rights activists denounced the potential for diminished minority representation in Congress, top Republicans cited the Supreme Court’s decision as justification to spur an already intense national redistricting battle among states before the November elections.

“I think all states who have unconstitutional maps should look at that very carefully, and I think they should do it before the midterm,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters in Washington.

Questions persist about election postponement

Louisiana’s election suspension was denounced by some Democrats and questioned by some legal experts.

“This is going to cause mass confusion among voters — Democrats, Republicans, white, Black, everybody,” said Louisiana state Sen. Royce Duplessis, a Democrat who represents the New Orleans area. “What they’re effectively doing is changing the rules of the game in the middle of the game. It’s rigging the system.”

Although Louisiana officials may legally be able to move the primary, it’s not accurate to assert that it was blocked by the Supreme Court’s decision, said Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School.

State Rep. Kyle Green, a former assistant state attorney general who is chair of the House Democratic caucus, also cast doubt on the legal justification for postponing the congressional primary.

“The Court’s decision does not halt the election process on its own,” Green said. “And any attempt to suspend or disrupt an ongoing election at this stage would raise serious constitutional concerns.”

Delaying an election is unusual but not unprecedented.

During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, several states pushed back elections because of health concerns. Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards, who led Louisiana at the time, postponed Louisiana’s April 4 presidential primary three weeks before it was supposed to occur — then delayed it again until July 11.

Louisiana could join a national redistricting wave

Louisiana currently is represented in the U.S. House by four Republicans and two Democrats. A revised map could give Republicans a chance to pick up at least one more seat in the November midterms — adding to Republican gains elsewhere from redistricting.

Voting districts typically are redrawn once a decade, after each census. But Trump last year urged Texas Republicans to redraw House districts to give the GOP an edge in the midterms. California Democrats reciprocated, and redistricting efforts soon cascaded across states.

On Wednesday, Florida became the latest state to redraw its U.S. House districts, adopting a new map backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that could give the GOP a chance at winning several additional seats.

The Florida vote occurred just hours after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued a ruling that significantly weakened minority protections under the federal Voting Rights Act. The court said Louisiana officials had relied too heavily on race when drawing a congressional district that is represented by Democrat Cleo Fields.

Trump wants Tennessee to also take up redistricting in response to the court’s ruling. The president posted on social media that he had spoken with Lee, who he said would work hard for a new map that could help Republicans gain an additional seat. Democrats currently hold only one of the state’s nine House seats — a district centered in Memphis, which is majority-Black.

Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton, a Republican, said he is in conversations with the White House and others while reviewing the court’s decision.

Louisiana has a history of redistricting challenges

After the 2020 census, Louisiana officials had drawn House voting district boundaries that maintained one Black-majority district and five mostly white districts, in a state with a population that is about one-third Black.

A federal judge later struck down the map for violating the Voting Rights Act. And the following year the Supreme Court found that Alabama had to create its own second majority-Black congressional district.

In response, Louisiana’s Legislature and governor adopted a new House map in 2024 that created a second Black-majority district. But that map also was subsequently challenged in court, leading to the most recent Supreme Court ruling.

After the ruling, Landry called U.S. House candidates on Wednesday and told them that primaries would probably be stalled, according to Misti Cordell, a Republican running in a crowded race to fill U.S. Rep. Julia Letlow’s vacated seat.

“It’s an inconvenience for a candidate for sure, but you know they want to do it right versus having to go through all this again,” Cordell said. She added that she appreciated the heads-up before she and other candidates began “spending their war chest” during the final weeks leading up to election day.

Republican state lawmakers are reviewing which pending bills could be used to alter primaries and reconfigure congressional maps, said Louisiana state Rep. Beau Beaullieu, chair of the House committee overseeing redistricting efforts.

Cline, Brook and Lieb write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from New Orleans and Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. AP reporter Travis Loller contributed to this report from Nashville.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Wednesday sharply limited a part of the Voting Rights Act that has forced states to draw voting districts to help elect Black or Latino representatives to Congress as well as state and local boards.

In a 6-3 decision in Louisiana vs. Callais, the court ruled that creating these majority-minority districts may amount to racial discrimination that violates the 14th Amendment.

When weighing what the Voting Rights Act requires, “we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the federal government or a state to discriminate on the basis of race,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the court.

Alito said states may draw election districts for partisan advantage but may not use race as a basis for redistricting.

The ruling in a Louisiana case appears to clear the way for Republican-led states across the South to redraw their election maps and eliminate voting districts that favor Black or Latino candidates for Congress, state legislatures and county boards.

UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said, “It is hard to overstate what an earthquake this will be for American politics,” adding that the decision makes the Voting Rights Act a “much weaker, and potentially toothless law.”

Hasen said it’s unclear how the decision will affect the November election because in many states early voting has already started and primaries have already taken place.

But the ruling’s long-term consequences for minority representation in Congress, state legislatures and local government are almost “certainly” going to be felt in 2028, Hasen said.

Republican leaders in states across the South have already signaled they intend to move quickly to redraw congressional maps in the wake of the ruling.

Alabama Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said the state will “act as quickly as possible” to ensure its congressional maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.” Marshall called the decision a recognition of how much the South has changed since the civil rights era.

“The court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” he said in a statement.

Florida was already in motion before the ruling came down. But Gov. Ron DeSantis celebrated the decision and said it was all the more reason for state lawmakers to redraw its congressional maps, in a manner that could give Republicans up to four more seats in Congress.

The proposed congressional maps, drawn by DeSantis’ office, were first unveiled to Fox News on Monday. On Wednesday, both chambers approved the maps, and readied them for DeSantis’ final approval.

In Mississippi, Gov. Tate Reeves had already called lawmakers into a special session at the end of May in anticipation of a court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. In a post on X, Reeves underscored the ideological underpinnings to the ruling’s potential implications.

“First Dobbs. Now Callais. Just Mississippi and Louisiana down here saving our country!” Reeves wrote.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) speaks at a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol after the Supreme Court ruling.

(Tom Williams / CQ-Roll Call / Getty Images)

At issue was how to ensure equal representation for Black and Latino citizens.

About one-third of Louisiana’s voters are Black, but the state seeks an election map that will elect white Republicans to five of its six seats in the House of Representatives.

Lower courts said that map violated the Voting Rights Act because it denied fair representation to Black residents.

The state had one Black-majority district, in New Orleans.

Two years ago, judges upheld the creation of a second Black-majority district that stretched from Shreveport to Baton Rouge on the grounds that it was required under the law.

The state’s Republican leaders appealed and argued that race was the motivating factor in drawing the second district.

Alito and the conservatives agreed and called that district an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

The three liberals dissented. The consequences of the ruling “are likely to be far-reaching and grave,” said Justice Elena Kagan, adding that it will allow “racial vote dilution in its most classic form.”

She said the decision means “a state can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic.”

But she said states across the South may draw electoral districts that deprive Black voters of equal representation. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision was the latest example of a partisan political dispute in which the court’s six Republican appointees vote in favor of the Republican state plan, while the three Democratic appointees dissent.

The ruling is likely to have its greatest impact in the Southern states, where white Republicans are in control and Black Democrats are in the minority.

The court’s divide over redistricting is similar to the long dispute over affirmative action.

For decades, university officials said they needed to consider the race of applicants to achieve diversity and equal representation.

But in 2023, the court by a 6-3 vote struck down college affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina and ruled race may not be used to judge applicants.

The historic Voting Rights Act of 1965 succeeded in clearing the way for Black citizens to register and vote across the South, but it took longer for Black candidates to win elections.

The dispute was highlighted in a 1980 case from Mobile, Ala. Its three commissioners were elected to six-year terms, and each of them ran countywide.

Even though one-third of the county’s voters were Black, white candidates always won.

The Supreme Court upheld this arrangement as legal and constitutional. In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall said Black residents were left with the right to cast meaningless ballots.

In response, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to say states must give minorities an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.

Four years later, the Supreme Court interpreted that to mean that states had a duty to draw voting districts that would elect a Black or Latino candidate if these minorities had a sufficiently large number of voters in a particular area.

In recent years, the court’s conservatives, led by Justice Clarence Thomas, have chafed at the rule on the grounds it sometimes required states to use race as a factor for drawing election districts.

Alito’s opinion adopted that view and said states are not required or permitted to use race as a basis for drawing districts.

Hours after the ruling came out, President Trump met with reporters in the Oval Office and said he had not yet seen the decision. He was visibly excited, however, when a reporter explained the decision favored Republicans.

“I love it!” he said. “This is very good.”

Former President Obama said in a statement that the court’s decision “effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities — so long as they do it under the guise of ‘partisanship’ rather than explicit racial bias.”

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, in Los Angeles, also denounced the decision.

“The Supreme Court’s decision blesses racially discriminatory gerrymandering, and dismantles the legal protections for minority voters,” said Nina Perales, the group’s vice president for litigation. It “openly invites states to dilute minority voting strength, and undermines our democracy.”