The Houthi attack on merchant ships in the Red Sea shows that asymmetric strategies have become one of the most disruptive forces in international security, often more effective than conventional state military power. The operations of these non-state groups not only disrupt global trade routes but also expose fundamental weaknesses in the international maritime security architecture. This phenomenon marks a major shift in the character of modern conflict: war is no longer the monopoly of states, and non-state actors are now capable of altering global strategic calculations at a much lower cost. This article argues that the Houthi operations reflect the failure of the traditional security paradigm and underscore the urgency of understanding irregular threats as a determining factor in contemporary geopolitical dynamics.
The Houthis’ success is rooted in the use of asymmetric strategies that combine low cost, high flexibility, and significant strategic impact. Unlike 20th-century insurgencies that relied on guerrilla tactics, the Houthis have increased the scale of the threat by utilizing kamikaze drones, ballistic missiles, and inexpensive surveillance systems. They direct these low-cost weapons at commercial vessels worth billions of dollars. When a single drone damages or threatens a merchant ship, dozens of global companies are forced to reroute, increase logistics costs, and face widespread economic risks. Asymmetric strategies work by avoiding the opponent’s main strengths and attacking points that render those strengths irrelevant. This is what is happening in the Red Sea: the superiority of modern warships is useless when the threat comes from small drones that are difficult to track and cheap to replace (Baylis and Wirtz, 2016).
The limitations of the navies of major countries in responding to these attacks highlight problems in traditional defense doctrine. The United States and Britain have deployed advanced combat fleets, but Houthi attacks continue and hit strategic targets. Major powers designed defense systems to deal with interstate threats, not irregular attacks from irregular actors who have no diplomatic obligations and do not submit to international norms. Modern insurgencies thrive by exploiting institutional gaps and the unpreparedness of states to respond to rapidly changing conflict dynamics. The Houthis are a case in point: they operate in a grey area that is not accounted for in conventional defense frameworks (Kilcullen, 2009).
The Houthis’ strategic strength stems not only from their military capabilities but also from their ability to exploit global economic interdependence. The Suez–Red Sea route is one of the world’s logistics hubs. When this region is disrupted, the consequences immediately affect the global energy market, European and Asian supply chains, and logistics costs for almost all sectors of international trade. Houthi attacks, although physically limited, have a huge psychological effect. When an attack occurs, dozens of international companies immediately review their navigation routes. This fear has a much greater economic impact than the physical damage to the ships that are targeted. In a strategic context, the Houthis have understood that creating uncertainty is a very cheap and very effective strategic weapon.
Moreover, Houthi operations are not merely military actions but part of broader geopolitical dynamics in the Middle East. They function as non-state actors and instruments in regional competition, particularly between Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States. With technological and logistical support from patron states such as Iran, the Houthis play a role in a larger regional strategy. This blurs the line between state and non-state actor strategies. Attacks on merchant ships are an effective way to put pressure on major countries without the political risks that usually accompany direct military action.
The involvement of non-state actors in the architecture of modern conflict reveals that the conventional concept of international security is no longer adequate. The doctrine of global maritime security was designed on the assumption that the main threat comes from rival states. However, the greatest threats today come from groups that do not have official navies, do not hold sovereign territory, and are not accountable to the international community. While states remain fixated on traditional threats, groups such as the Houthis are able to move quickly, flexibly, and effectively, exploiting every available opportunity. This is why international stability is increasingly vulnerable, even as the military power of major states continues to advance technologically.
The Red Sea crisis highlights the need for a major paradigm shift in global security strategy. Countries can no longer rely on interstate deterrence as the main pillar. A new model is needed that combines counter-drones, supply chain security, regional diplomacy, and conflict stabilization policies on land. Without a multidimensional approach, countries will continue to be stuck in short-term reactions rather than long-term strategies.
Ultimately, the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea are not merely a disruption to international trade but a warning that the global security order is undergoing a fundamental repositioning. The arguments in this paper show that asymmetric strategies have eroded state dominance and revealed the unpreparedness of international security structures to deal with irregular threats. If states fail to update their paradigms, the future of global stability will increasingly be determined by actors who have no international obligations, are not subject to the norms of war, and are able to maximize their power at minimal cost. The world is entering a new era of strategy, and the Red Sea is proof that state dominance is no longer the mainstay of contemporary warfare.
Published on 28/11/2025 – 17:03 GMT+1 •Updated
17:16
The EU member states agreed on Friday to cut tariffs on US imports as outlined in a controversial trade deal agreed last summer between the European Commission and the Trump administration to the detriment of European goods.
The move comes as US trade representatives urge EU capitals to fast-track the implementation of the deal which foresees the EU dropping tariffs to zero on most US industrial goods. A US delegation visited Brussels this week for talks.
The idea of adding a so-called “sunset clause” – a mechanism that would end the tariff concessions after a period of five years if the deal is not renewed – sparked a debate among EU countries but did not go ahead, signalling that member states do not want to antagonise Trump.
The EU-US trade agreement was concluded in July after months of tensions after US President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on partners worldwide in what he called “Liberation Day” for America. Under the deal, the EU will pay 15% tariffs on its exports to the US, while reducing its own tariffs on most US industrial products to zero.
No ‘sunset clause’ yet, but the Parliament could fight it
The deal has been widely criticised as a humiliation for Europe, although the Commission has defended it since arguing that it was the best possible outcome in the face of Trump’s aggressive trade stance. The alternative, Brussels argued, would have been worse.
Still, on Friday, the 27 backed the Commission’s much-maligned deal with a majority.
They also approved a clause allowing the Commission to suspend the deal if the US fails to implement it, as well as a safeguard mechanism enabling the Commission to temporarily halt the agreement if US imports surge and disrupt the European single market as a result of tariff concessions.
Member states also debated the introduction of a “sunset clause” that would permanently end the tariff reductions after five years if the deal is not renewed – an idea they expect the European Parliament to champion in upcoming talks.
Both institutions must agree on a common text by next spring to finalise the tariff cuts. According to an EU diplomat, most member states could accept adding the clause, but Germany opposes it as it fears retaliation.
The head of the Parliament’s trade committee, German MEP Bernd Lange (S&D), has already included the idea of a sunset clause in his report on the deal’s implementation which will serve as the basis for the European Parliament’s debate.
Inside the Commission, officials hope the Council and Parliament will refrain from unravelling the agreement negotiated with Washington on the basis that it could trigger another round of escalation and amplify a trade war.
Nov. 25 (UPI) — A coalition of 19 attorneys general and two state governors sued the Trump administration on Tuesday over changes to funding allocations and conditions at the Department of Housing and Urban Development that they say threaten thousands of formerly homeless people and families with eviction.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, alleges new restrictions and funding cuts announced by HUD earlier this month to its Continuum of Care program threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people experiencing homelessness, including those with mental disabilities and substance use disorders.
The Democratic-led states allege that the changes have thrown CoC into “chaos” and that HUD was holding congressionally approved funds and vulnerable people hostage.
“Communities across the country depend on Continuum of Care funds to provide housing and other resources to our most vulnerable neighbors,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.
“These funds help keep tens of thousands of people from sleeping on the streets every night. I will not allow this administration to cut off these funds and put vital housing and support services at risk.”
Founded by Congress in 1987, the CoC program provides states, local governments and nonprofits with funds to provide housing and support services to those experiencing homelessness.
Earlier this month, HUD Secretary Scott Turner criticized the CoC for prioritizing funds for organizations with Housing First policies, which provide housing to individuals without preconditions, such as sobriety or minimum income.
Turner said the policy ran counter to the department’s objective of selecting the most effective and innovative programs, and it would be instituting changes, including requiring that 70% of projects to be selected through competition.
In a statement, HUD said 90% of CoC awards went to support projects with “failed” Housing First ideologies, which the department said “encourages dependence on endless government handouts while neglecting to address the root causes of homelessness, including illicit drugs and mental health.”
Changes to be implemented are to increase competition for grants, advance public safety, focus on self-sufficiency, encourage personal accountability and crack down on gender ideology, use of taxpayer dollars on undocumented migrants and diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
“Our philosophy for addressing the homelessness crisis will now define success not by dollars spent or housing units filled, but by how many people achieve long-term self-sufficiency and recovery,” Turner said.
In their lawsuit, the states allege that the changes mean only 30% of CoC funds may be used for permanent housing, a drop from roughly 90%.
HUD has also revised the scoring system used to grant awards. According to the lawsuit, the previous system encouraged CoCs to address needs of minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, and the new changes arbitrarily disadvantage programs that provide supportive services for mental disabilities and substance use disorder
The policies also bar funding for applicants that acknowledge the existence of transgender and gender-diverse people and penalize homeless-service providers that pursue approaches to homelessness that do not align with the Trump administration.
In total, the changes will threaten housing stability and disadvantage services for people with mental disabilities and substance use disorder, the lawsuit states.
“This program has proven to be effective at getting Americans off the streets, yet the Trump administration is now attempting to illegally slash its funding,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “Those caring for our unhoused neighbors need the federal government’s continued support. Absent judicial intervention, the Trump administration’s actions would only worsen the homelessness crisis.”
The United States’ Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick are arriving in Brussels on Monday for what is expected to be a tense showdown with EU trade ministers.
After months of recriminations on both sides of the Atlantic over the implementation of this summer’s trade deal, the EU and the US are now expected to confront their most contentious differences head-on.
Washington will press to fast-track the deal’s rollout while pushing the bloc to scrap EU legislation it considers unfair to US companies, while Brussels will seek additional exemptions from the 15% US tariffs on its exportsand warn its counterparts about the potential fallout of US investigations into European products.
Ahead of the meeting, EU diplomats said they expected the discussion to be “frank”.
Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and US president Donald Trump clinched a trade deal in July after weeks of negotiations in which the EU tried to minimise the impact of Washington’s newly aggressive trade agenda. In the end, von der Leyen was able to strike a deal that EU-produced goods arriving in the US would be taxed at a rate of 15% while Brussels lifted its duties on most US products.
Presented by the Commission as the most advantageous deal it could get, the agreement has been widely criticised across the EU. The European Parliament, which has to vote on the Commission’s proposal to remove tariffs on US goods, is set to amend the deal and is discussing a 18-month suspension clause.
The US is complaining that the EU’s legislative agenda is moving too slowly. EU lawmakers will vote on the text in January and they should agree on a common text with EU member states next March or April – a timescale radically longer than the Trump administration’s preference.
Greer raised the issue in a meeting with European Parliament president Roberta Metsola last Friday.
EU faces criticism “with good confidence”
The EU is ready to face US criticism “with good confidence” an EU diplomat said, noting that the legislative process in Brussels could have taken a lot longer.
“To my knowledge, the US administration has not taken its decisions through Congress, so it doesn’t take quite as long in the US,” another EU diplomat said, implyingthat the US trade agenda was mainly decided from the White House.
The EU plans to show unity by handing over a list of proposed exemptions to the 15% tariffs they hope to obtain from the Americans. The list includes products such as wines, spirits and pasta.
“American friends are very much aware of where the European Union would like to see tariff reductions,” the same EU diplomat said.
For the Commission, which has competence to negotiate with Washington, the list of exemptions “remains a priority,” according to its deputy chief spokesperson, Arianna Podesta.
The EU is also concerned about the future of its steel exports. The US already imposes 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium, and has extended them to some 407 derivatives. A consultation already underway may see further derivatives added to the list.
As EU diplomats see it, adding tariffs on steel derivatives would go against the whole “spirit” of this summer’s agreement. The same goes for investigations still open by Washington into products such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors and medical devices.
EU investments will also be on the agenda. Greer and Lutnick will meet in the afternoon, EU business representatives with EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič.
The trade deal includes an EU pledge of €600 billion in investments in the US even though Brussels has no direct control over the private sector, which is the only force capable of actually delivering those investments.
Monday’s meetings will not be an easy task for the Europeans, as US pressure has been unrelenting since Donald Trump returned to the White House, with the president repeatedly threatening new tariffs or targeting EU legislation he deems too restrictive for US companies.
However, the EU has so far not looked intimidated, and is continuing to enforce the digital legislation that Trump and his administration have condemned.
In the last few weeks, Brussels has launched antitrust investigations against Amazon and Microsoft and hit Google with a €2.95 billion for abusing its dominant position in the advertising technology industry – moves that have not gone unnoticed in Washington.
Four U.S. citizens and a Ukrainian have pleaded guilty to participating in criminal schemes aimed at generating funds for North Korean arms development, the Department of Justice announced on Friday. Photo by KCNA/EPA-EFE
Nov. 14 (UPI) — Four U.S. citizens and a Ukrainian pleaded guilty to participating in North Korean internet technology worker and virtual currency theft schemes.
The Department of Justice announced the guilty pleas on Friday for the illegal schemes that generated funding for North Korea’s armaments program and other uses at various times, from 2019 to 2024.
“Facilitators in the United States and Ukraine assisted North Korean actors with obtaining remote IT employment with U.S. companies,” the DOJ said.
“The facilitators provided their own, false or stolen identities and hosted U.S. victim company-provided laptops at residences across the United States to create the false appearance that the IT workers were working domestically.”
The DOJ said the employment schemes affected at least 136 U.S. companies and used the identities of more than 18 U.S. citizens or legal residents to generate more than $2.2 million for the North Korean government.
The three U.S. defendants who pleaded guilty are Audricus Phagnasay, 24; Jason Salazar, 30; and Alexander Paul Travis, 34, all of whom entered their guilty pleas in the U.S. District Court for Southern Georgia.
The three pleaded guilty to providing U.S. identities to those who are located outside of the United States to enable them to obtain remote work with U.S. firms in exchange for between $3,450 and $51,397 in compensation.
Salazar and Travis at times completed drug testing on behalf of the overseas individuals.
The three defendants also kept laptops at their homes to make it look like the foreign individuals were located in the United States.
The IT worker scheme generated about $1.28 million in pay for the overseas workers.
Erick Ntekereze Prince, 30, also pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to commit wire fraud charge in the U.S. District Court for Southern Florida on Nov. 6.
Federal prosecutors said Prince used his company Taggcar Inc. to contract and supply overseas IT workers to U.S. firms by misrepresenting them as U.S.-based workers.
He also hosted laptops at several Florida residences and installed remote-access software to make it look like the overseas workers were working from locations in Florida.
Prince was paid more than $89,000 for his participation in the scheme, according to the DOJ.
Ukrainian Oleksander Didenky also pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in the U.S.District Court for the District of Columbia.
He agreed to forfeit $1.4 million for helping North Korean and other IT workers to get jobs at 40 U.S. companies.
A North Korean military hacking group identified as Advanced Persistent Threat 38 also carried out virtual currency heists totaling millions of dollars in value in 2023 while targeting four overseas platforms, according to the DOJ.
“While APT38 actors continued to launder their ill-gotten gains for these heists, the U.S. government froze and seized more than $15million worth of virtual currency that it now seeks to forfeit for eventual return to their rightful owners,” the DOJ said.
The criminal activities arise from the North Korean government’s efforts to evade U.S. sanctions and generate millions of dollars to help fund its weapons programs, including nuclear arms development, said Roman Rozhavsky, assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.
“These guilty pleas send a clear message: No matter who or where you are, if you support North Korea’s efforts to victimize U.S. businesses and citizens, the FBI will find you and bring you to justice,” Rozhavsky said.
“We will ask all our private sector partners to improve their security process for vetting remote workers and to remain vigilant regarding this emerging threat,” he added.
With the longest U.S. government shutdown over, state officials said Thursday that they are working quickly to get full SNAP food benefits to millions of people, though it could still take up to a week for some to receive their delayed aid.
A back-and-forth series of court rulings and shifting policies from President Trump’s administration has led to a patchwork distribution of November benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While some states had already issued full SNAP benefits, about two-thirds of states had issued only partial benefits or none at all before the government shutdown ended late Wednesday, according to an Associated Press tally.
The federal food program serves about 42 million people, or about 1 in 8 Americans, in lower-income households. They receive an average of about $190 monthly per person, though that doesn’t necessarily cover the full cost of groceries for a regular month.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, said in an email Wednesday that funds could be available “upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most states.” But the agency didn’t say whether that timeline indicates when the money will be available to states or when it could be loaded onto the electronic cards used by beneficiaries.
West Virginia, which hadn’t issued SNAP benefits, should have full November benefits for all recipients by Friday, Gov. Patrick Morrisey said Thursday.
The Illinois Department of Human Services, which previously issued partial November benefits, said Thursday that it is “working to restore full SNAP benefits.” But it won’t happen instantly.
“We anticipate that the remaining benefit payments will be made over several days, starting tomorrow,” the department said in a statement, and that “all SNAP recipients will receive their full November benefits by November 20th.”
Colorado officials said late Wednesday that they are switching from delivering partial to full SNAP benefits, which could be loaded onto electronic cards starting as soon as Thursday.
Missouri’s Department of Social Services, which issued partial SNAP payments Tuesday, said Thursday that it is waiting for USDA guidance on how to issue the remaining November SNAP benefits but would move quickly once that guidance is received.
Paused SNAP payments stirred stress for some families
The delayed SNAP payments posed a new complication for Lee Harris’ family since his spouse was laid off a few months ago.
Harris, 34, said his North Little Rock, Ark., family got help from his temple and received food left by someone who was moving. With that assistance — and the knowledge that other families have greater needs — they skipped stopping by the food pantry they have sometimes used.
Harris’ family, including his three daughters, hasbeen able to keep meals fairly close to normal despite missing a SNAP payment this week. But they have still experienced stress and uncertainty.
“Not knowing a definite end,” Harris said, “I don’t know how much I need to stretch what I have in our pantry.”
Federal legislation funds SNAP for a year
The USDA told states Oct. 24 that it would not fund SNAP benefits for November amid the government shutdown. Many Democratic-led states sued to have the funding restored.
After judges ruled the Trump administration must tap into reserves to fund SNAP, the administration said it would fund up to 65% of its regular allocations. When a judge subsequently ordered full benefits, some states scrambled to quickly load SNAP benefits onto participants’ cards during a one-day window before the Supreme Court put that order on hold Friday.
Meanwhile, other states went forward with partial benefits, and still others issued nothing while waiting for further USDA guidance on the situation.
Amid the uncertainty over federal SNAP funding, some states tapped into their own funds to provide direct aid to SNAP recipients or additional money for nonprofit food banks.
The legislation to reopen the U.S. government provides full SNAP benefits not only for November but also for the remainder of the federal fiscal year, which runs through next September. Citing that legislation, the Justice Department on Thursday dropped its request for the Supreme Court to continue blocking a judicial order to pay full SNAP benefits.
Mulvihill and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill.; John Raby in Charleston, W.Va.; and Colleen Slevin in Denver contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.
This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.
The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.
A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”
The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.
So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?
One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.
Asked in that same Pew survey if mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.
The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.
Esmeralda Bravo, 63, holds a photo of her granddaughter, Nevaeh, one of the Robb Elementary School shooting victims, during a prayer vigil in Uvalde, Texas, on Wednesday.
(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)
“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”
The facts powerfully suggest that’s not true.
Go back roughly 15 years: In 2005, California had almost the same rate of deaths from guns as Florida or Texas. California had 9.5 firearms deaths per 100,000 people that year, Florida had 10 and Texas 11, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.
California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.
Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.
Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.
California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods earlier this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.
The overall pattern is clear, nonetheless, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.
Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.
Hardcore opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.
Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.
Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.
Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.
Finally, in an era defined by “negative partisanship” — suspicion and fear of the other side — it’s easy to convince voters that a modest gun control proposal is just an opening wedge designed to lead to something more dramatic.
That leads to a common pattern when gun measures appear on ballots: They do less well than polling would suggest.
Then, as now, polls showed strong support for requiring background checks for sales that currently evade them. But support for the legislation was sharply lower than support for the general idea, Pew found.
Almost 8 in 10 Republican gun owners favored background checks in general, they found, but when asked about the specific bill, only slightly more than 4 in 10 wanted it to pass. When asked why they backed the general idea but opposed the specific one, most of those polled cited concerns that the bill would set up a “slippery slope” to more regulation or contained provisions that would go further than advertised.
Faced with that sort of skepticism from voters, Republican senators who had flirted with supporting the bill mostly walked away, and it failed.
Then-Vice President Joe Biden led the unsuccessful effort to pass that bill. Nearly a decade later, the political factors impeding action have only grown more powerful.
Texas school shooting
The recent string of devastating shootings has renewed calls for tighter gun restrictions. But as Kevin Rector reported, a loosening of gun laws is almost certainly coming instead, largely because of an expected decision from the Supreme Court, which is likely to strike down a broad law in New York that doesn’t allow individuals to carry guns in public without first demonstrating a “special need” for self-defense.
For all the impassioned speeches and angry tweets, for all the memes and viral videos of gun control proponents quaking with rage, most of the energy and political intensity has been on the side of those who favor greater gun laxity, Mark Barabak wrote.
Biden marked the second anniversary of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer by signing an executive order aimed at reforming policing at the federal level. As Eli Stokols reported, Wednesday’s order falls short of what Biden had hoped to achieve through legislation. It directs all federal agencies to revise their use-of-force policies, creates a national registry of officers fired for misconduct and provides grants to incentivize state and local police departments to strengthen restrictions on chokeholds and no-knock warrants.
Sluggish response and questionable decisions by the Food and Drug Administration worsened the nation’s infant formula shortage, agency officials told lawmakers at a congressional hearing. “You’re right to be concerned, and the public should be concerned,” said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The agency’s response “was too slow and there were decisions that were suboptimal along the way,” Anumita Kaur reported.
Only a couple of months ago, U.S. and European officials said a renewal of the Iran nuclear deal was “imminent.” But with little progress since then, and a shifting global geopolitical scene, the top U.S. envoy for the Iran negotiations testified Wednesday that prospects for reviving the Iran deal are “at best, tenuous,” Tracy Wilkinson reported. “We do not have a deal,” the Biden administration’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Cuba will not attend next month’s Summit of the Americas, a major conference to take place in Los Angeles, after the U.S. refused to extend a proper invitation, the country’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, announced Wednesday. As Wilkinson reported, the decision throws the summit, which is crucial to the U.S.’ ability to demonstrate its influence in the Western Hemisphere, into further disarray.
The latest from California
GOP Rep. Young Kim would seem to have a relatively easy path to reelection in November — the national mood favors her party, she has a lot of money and the newly drawn boundaries for her Orange County district give her more Republican constituents. But Kim is suddenly campaigning with a sense of urgency, Melanie Mason and Seema Mehta report. She’s unleashed $1.3 million in advertising, and outside allies are coming to her aid with more spending. Most of it is aimed at fending off Greg Raths, an underfunded GOP opponent who has been a staple on the political scene in Mission Viejo, the district’s largest city.
Gov. Gavin Newsom and top legislative Democrats pledged Wednesday to expedite gun legislation. Among the bills are measures that would require school officials to investigate credible threats of a mass shooting, allow private citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors, and enact more than a dozen other policies intended to reduce gun violence in California, Taryn Luna and Hannah Wiley reported. “We’re going to control the controllable, the things we have control of,” Newsom said during an event at the state Capitol. “California leads this national conversation. When California moves, other states move in the same direction.”
The Los Angeles mayor’s race has seemingly devolved in recent days into a rhetorical brawl between two of the city’s richest men, Benjamin Oreskes wrote. Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who supports Rep. Karen Bass, says Rick Caruso’s history of supporting Republican candidates and being registered as a Republican a decade ago disqualifies him from being mayor. That came after Variety published an interview with Caruso in which he attacked the former Walt Disney Studios chairman for “lying” about him in ads by a pro-Bass independent expenditure committee predominantly funded by Katzenberg.
The growing corruption scandal in Anaheim has cost the city’s mayor his job, endangered the city’s planned $320-million sale of Angel Stadium to the team and provided a rare, unvarnished look at how business is done behind closed doors in the city of 350,000. Read our full coverage of the FBI probe into how the city does business.
Colombia’s ambassador to the United States, Daniel Garcia-Pena, has been recalled as part of a diplomatic row with Washington. File Photo by Eduard Ribas Admetlla/EPA
Nov. 11 (UPI) — In a new diplomatic escalation between Colombia and the United States, President Gustavo Petro again recalled Colombia’s ambassador to Washington, Daniel García-Peña, for consultations.
This time, the recall aims to clarify a situation reported by the Colombian magazine Cambio regarding a photo released by the White House on Oct. 21 as part of its official coverage of a meeting between senior officials and Republican senators.
On Sunday, the image drew renewed attention after Cambio published an analysis focusing on a folder held by Deputy Chief of Staff James Blairen. The photo shows Petro alongside Nicolás Maduro, both wearing orange jumpsuits similar to those used in U.S. prisons, as part of a document titled “Trump Doctrine.”
“If an ambassador is called for consultations, the representative of the other country returns to their own country while the necessary information is obtained,” Petro wrote on X, suggesting that while García-Peña is in Bogotá, U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara should return to the United States, El Colombiano reported.
“This is about understanding why the official White House page shows me as if I were a prisoner in a U.S. jail. It is a brutal disrespect to the people who elected me and to the Colombian nation and its history,” Petro added.
Colombia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement confirming that Ambassador García-Peña “has been called for consultations” and “is already in Bogotá.”
At the same time, Foreign Minister Rosa Villavicencio ruled out the expulsion of U.S. chargé d’affaires John McNamara from Colombia, El Tiempo reported.
The Petro government’s decision comes amid a visible deterioration in diplomatic relations between the two countries and adds pressure to a bilateral agenda that includes sensitive issues such as counternarcotics cooperation, migration, trade and hemispheric relations.
According to Cambio, the first paragraph of the document held by Blairen outlines five steps against the Colombian president, three of which are already underway.
The five are designating additional cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, supporting pro-U.S. leaders in the Western Hemisphere, imposing targeted sanctions on Petro, his family and associates, countering corrupt and anti-U.S. criminal activities, and launching a comprehensive investigation into Petro’s campaigns and their foreign financing.
“People should not always rely on what they read in the newspapers,” Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau said when askedwhether the United States had a plan underway to imprison Colombian President Gustavo Petro.
The diplomat addressed the issue during a telephone press briefing with several Latin American media outlets Monday morning.
Landau declined to comment further on the photo, which has since been removed from the U.S. government website, but expressed dissatisfaction with the Colombian president’s statements.
States administering a federal food aid program serving about 42 million Americans faced uncertainty Monday over whether they can — and should — provide full monthly benefits during an ongoing legal battle involving the U.S. government shutdown.
President Donald Trump’s administration over the weekend demanded that states “undo” full benefits that were paid under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during a one-day window between when a federal judge ordered full funding and a Supreme Court justice put a temporary pause on that order.
A federal appeals court in Boston left the full benefits order in place on Sunday, though the Supreme Court order ensures the government won’t have to pay out for at least 48 hours. The Trump administration is also expected to ask the justices to step in again, and Congress is considering whether to fund SNAP as part of a proposal to end the government shutdown.
Some states are warning of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the Trump administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they already authorized. Meanwhile, other states are providing partial monthly SNAP benefits with federal money or using their own funds to load electronic benefit cards for SNAP recipients.
Millions receive aid while others wait
Trump’s administration initially said SNAP benefits would not be available in November because of the government shutdown. After some states and nonprofit groups sued, two judges each ruled the administration could not skip November’s benefits entirely.
The administration then said it would use an emergency reserve fund to provide 65% of the maximum monthly benefit. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell said that wasn’t good enough, and ordered full funding for SNAP benefits by Friday.
Some states acted quickly to direct their EBT vendors to disburse full monthly benefits to SNAP recipients. Millions of people in those states received funds to buy groceries before Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson put McConnell’s order on hold Friday night, pending further deliberation by an appeals court.
Millions more people still have not received SNAP payments for November, because their states were waiting on further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP.
Trump’s administration has argued that the judicial order to provide full benefits violates the Constitution by infringing on the spending power of the legislative and executive branches.
States are fighting attempt to freeze SNAP benefits
On Sunday, the Trump administration said states had moved too quickly and erroneously released full SNAP benefits after last week’s rulings.
“States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. He warned that states could face penalties if they did not comply.
Wisconsin, which was among the first to load full benefits after McConnell’s order, had its federal reimbursement frozen. As a result, the state’s SNAP account could be depleted as soon Monday, leaving no money to reimburse stores that sell food to SNAP recipients, according to a court filing submitted by those that had sued.
Some Democratic governors vowed to challenge any federal attempt to claw back money.
In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said “those who received their benefits should not worry about losing them.”
“No, Connecticut does not need to take back SNAP benefits already sent to the 360,000 people who depend on them for food and who should have never been caught in the middle of this political fight,” Lamont said. “We have their back.”
Lieb and Mulvihill write for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas; and Nicholas Riccardi in Denver contributed to this report.
It was going to make California count, make it a contender after decades spent watching all those other pipsqueak states decide who among the legions of presidential candidates got to move into the Oval Office.
When California legislators–and Gov. Pete Wilson–agreed two years ago to move the state’s 1996 presidential primary forward from June to March, you could almost hear the silent chortles: Take that, New Hampshire! Back to the farm, Iowa!
And now that the state’s early presidential primary is a mere six months away, the nation’s most delegate-rich state can witness the result:
Nothing.
Sure, the candidates still plumb the state for money, just as they did in the old days. But apart from President Clinton’s trips, there are precious few actual campaign visits and little attention given to the issues peculiar to California. Even Wilson spent more than twice as much time out of state last month than he did tending to matters in Sacramento.
Some candidates still believe that California could ultimately play a big role in selecting the Republican nominee, even given the current dearth of activity. The state, after all, controls about 16%–or 163 of the 991–delegates needed to win the Republican nomination.
Scenarios abound, with California either putting a runaway victor over the top or deciding between two strong candidates. Then again, it could also add to a muddle of results that would force the nomination to be decided weeks later.
“California is going to play a significant role,” said Mark Helmke, communications director for Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, who announced his candidacy in April. “It’s just that none of us could speculate on what that role is.”
Others in the perennially optimistic corps of campaign activists insist that California won’t matter because the front-runner (their candidate, of course) will have it all sewn up beforehand.
“The problem is that California is too late. This thing is going to end in the industrial Midwest,” said Mike Murphy, a senior aide in the campaign of former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander. Murphy was referring to a ring of primaries to be held the week before California’s.
This underwhelming outcome was utterly predictable, according to campaign seers. And there are both logical and logistic reasons.
California moved its primary up, but only to March 26, six weeks after the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses. Not eager to be left in the dust, a host of other states began to clamor.
New York, with the third-largest delegate pool, moved from early April to early March. Pennsylvania and Ohio moved from late spring to March 19, where they will join Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin in the massive Rust Belt regional primary.
The New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine similarly coalesced into a Yankee primary on March 5–three weeks before California’s primary.
All the movement left California in 32nd place in the 1996 campaign chronology, only slightly better positioned than if it had left the primary in June.
“We were dead last, along with New Jersey and a few other states,” said state Sen. Jim Costa (D-Fresno), who lobbied for an early primary for 14 long years. “We’re better off than we were then. We’re just not significantly better off.”
Because the early primary is a one-year experiment, legislators will have to take up its fate after next year. Costa said that he may propose moving it up even further for the 2000 election.
The state senator initially wanted to set this year’s primary for March 5, which would have made California the first big state on the election calendar. But he compromised with others in the Legislature, who argued that the state is so big that it would swallow up all but the richest candidates. Give the poorer candidates a chance to make their mark in earlier, smaller states, the argument went, and then their momentum could offset their lack of funds in California.
The upshot is this: Candidates are still cozying up to Iowa, whose caucuses are scheduled for Feb. 12, and New Hampshire, whose first-in-the-nation primary will be held eight days later.
They are patting backs and kissing babies in South Carolina, whose primary will be held March 2, on the grounds that it will serve either as a fire wall to block a surging campaign or will redouble the momentum of an earlier winner.
They are courting voters elsewhere in the South, where the Super Tuesday primary will be held March 12 and where voters will decide the fates of at least two of their own, Texas’ Phil Gramm and Tennessee’s Alexander.
All of this makes compelling strategic sense.
“The first focus has to be the first caucus and primaries,” said Charles Robbins, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. “They come first and if you don’t perform, you’re out of the game.”
Put another way, it would be political malpractice for a candidate to hang out in California when his time is better spent in the earlier states. Compounding matters is California’s status as a winner-take-all primary. That means a candidate who put all his marbles into the state and pulled, say, 48% of the vote would walk away without a delegate. Many other states dispense their delegates proportionally.
“No candidate is going to make a serious commitment to resources in a March primary simply because there’s no guarantee you’re going to get that far,” said an adviser to one of the campaigns. “It’s a huge gamble to put up that money and risk walking away with nothing.”
Another hindrance to actively campaigning in California is the fact that the state is so far from Washington, where no less than six of the nine Republican candidates are based.
One recent Thursday, for example, Specter jetted from Washington to Boston, held two campaign events and was back in the Capitol for Senate business by lunchtime.
“You can’t do that to California,” said his aide Robbins. “Just because of the geography, all the way on the other side of the country, it’s a real project.”
While the Republican candidates have not spent much time in California, their campaigns are starting to lay the foundations of an effort here.
Wilson’s campaign is rebuilding his longstanding organization, despite prominent defections to other camps and surveys that show the governor losing the state to front-runner Bob Dole of Kansas.
Besides having the only full-fledged campaign office in the state, Wilson’s operation has staffers specifically working to buoy his standing here, said spokesman Dan Schnur.
“For all their talk, none of the other campaigns are putting any time or energy into California at all,” he said. “They file in and out for fund-raisers, but beyond that there’s no indication of any serious organizational effort on the part of any of them.”
Wilson does have a leg up, but his opponents argue that his campaign may have folded by late March or, even if he stays in the race, they may be able to build enthusiasm here from the momentum of earlier victories.
Gramm has made the biggest splash, garnering the support of Republican legislative leaders Curt Pringle and Rob Hurtt, both of Orange County, and a host of activists. U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox of Newport Beach, who is heading Gramm’s California campaign, said the effort so far is a “very well-organized, low dollar” effort.
It will remain entirely a volunteer effort through the end of the year, he said.
“When you’re running statewide in California, it’s important to have money when it counts, not lavishly throw it around months in advance,” Cox said.
Dole has been here infrequently, but has tried to make a big splash when he has come. He salted one Los Angeles fund-raising trip with a high-profile assault on the entertainment industry.
Overall, the Dole campaign said, it has raised $1.5 million in its visits to California.
“Some analysts are suggesting that it will all be over before California,” said Dole spokesman Nelson Warfield. “Our attitude is that we are contesting every state very vigorously. We’re proceeding on the assumption that it is up for grabs.”
Former television commentator Patrick J. Buchanan has made three multi-day fund-raising trips to California since March–the same time frame in which he has visited Iowa 11 times and New Hampshire eight times. His aides say they are putting together networks of volunteers who will fan out in support of Buchanan.
Lugar and Alexander have raised money in California, and Lugar aides said they had particular luck with a direct mail drive that touted his proposal to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace income taxes with a national sales tax. Like the latter two, Specter has had a low profile here.
At some point, the Republican nominee will begin fighting the general election war here–one that President Clinton is already waging. Mindful that he needs to win the state in order to be reelected, Clinton has visited California 19 times in less than three years, more than any other state.
The Trump administration is demanding states “undo” full SNAP benefits paid out under judges’ orders last week, now that the Supreme Court has stayed those rulings, marking the latest swing in a seesawing legal battle over the anti-hunger program used by 42 million Americans.
The demand from the U.S. Department of Agriculture came as more than two dozen states warned of “catastrophic operational disruptions” if the administration does not reimburse them for those SNAP benefits they authorized before the Supreme Court’s stay.
Nonprofits and Democratic attorneys general sued to force the Trump administration to maintain the program this month. They won the favorable rulings last week, leading to the swift release of benefits to millions in several states.
But, even before it won a stay on those rulings through an appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday night, the Trump administration balked at reimbursing states for the initial round of SNAP payments. Wisconsin, for example, loaded benefits onto cards for 700,000 residents, but after the U.S. Treasury froze its reimbursements to the state, it anticipates running out of money by Monday, Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration warned in a lengthy statement Sunday.
The lack of money could leave vendors unpaid and trigger escalating legal claims, the states warned. “States could face demands to return hundreds of millions of dollars in the aggregate,” the filing at the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals says.
That situation “would risk catastrophic operational disruptions for the States, with a consequent cascade of harms for their residents,” the filing concludes.
That filing arrived as the Department of Agriculture on Saturday told states it would now consider any payments made last week to be “unauthorized.”
“To the extent States sent full SNAP payment files for November 2025, this was unauthorized,” Patrick Penn, deputy undersecretary of Agriculture, wrote to state SNAP directors. “Accordingly, States must immediately undo any steps taken to issue full SNAP benefits for November 2025.”
Evers issued a quick response to the Trump administration’s demand. “No,” the governor said in a statement.
“Pursuant to and consistent with an active court order, Wisconsin legally loaded benefits to cards, ensuring nearly 700,000 Wisconsinites, including nearly 270,000 kids, had access to basic food and groceries,” Evers said. “After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would ‘complete the processes necessary to make funds available.’ They have failed to do so to date.”
Bauer and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Leo XIV has called for “deep reflection” in the United States about the treatment of migrants held in detention, saying that “many people who have lived for years and years and years, never causing problems, have been deeply affected by what is going on right now.”
The Chicago-born pope was responding Tuesday to a variety of geopolitical questions from reporters outside the papal retreat at Castel Gandolfo, including what kind of spiritual rights migrants in U.S. custody should have, U.S. military attacks on suspected drug traffickers off Venezuela and the fragile ceasefire in the Middle East.
Leo underlined that scripture emphasizes the question that will be posed at the end of the world: “How did you receive the foreigner, did you receive him and welcome him, or not? I think there is a deep reflection that needs to be made about what is happening.”
He said “the spiritual rights of people who have been detained should also be considered,’’ and he called on authorities to allow pastoral workers access to the detained migrants. “Many times they’ve been separated from their families. No one knows what’s happening, but their own spiritual needs should be attended to,’’ Leo said.
Leo last month urged labor union leaders visiting from Chicago to advocate for immigrants and welcome minorities into their ranks.
Asked about the lethal attacks on suspected drug traffickers off Venezuela, the pontiff said the military action was “increasing tension,’’ noting that they were coming even closer to the coastline.
“The thing is to seek dialogue,’’ the pope said.
On the Middle East, Leo acknowledged that the first phase of the peace accord between Israel and Hamas remains “very fragile,’’ and said that the parties need to find a way forward on future governance “and how you can guarantee the rights of all peoples.’’
Asked about Israeli settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank, the pope described the settlement issue as “complex,’’ adding: “Israel has said one thing, then it’s done another sometimes. We need to try to work together for justice for all peoples.’’
Pope Leo will receive Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas at the Vatican on Thursday. At the end of November he will make his first trip as Pope to Turkey and Lebanon.
But if Democrats succeed in California, the question remains: Will it be enough to shift the balance of power in Congress?
To regain control of the House, Democrats need to flip three Republican seats in the midterm elections next year. That slim margin prompted the White House to push Republicans this summer to redraw maps in GOP states in an effort to keep Democrats in the minority.
Texas was the first to signal it would follow Trump’s edict and set off a rare mid-decade redistricting arms race that quickly roped in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom devised Proposition 50 to tap into his state’s massive inventory of congressional seats.
Californians appear poised to approve the measure Tuesday. If they do, Democrats potentially could gain five seats in the House — an outcome that mainly would offset the Republican effort in Texas that already passed.
While Democrats and Republicans in other states also have moved to redraw their maps, it is too soon to say which party will see a net gain, or predict voter sentiment a year from now, when a lopsided election in either direction could render the remapping irrelevant.
GOP leaders in North Carolina and Missouri approved new maps that likely will yield one new GOP seat in each, Ohio Republicans could pick up two more seats in a newly redrawn map approved Friday, and GOP leaders in Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas and Florida are considering or taking steps to redraw their maps. In all, those moves could lead to at least 10 new Republican seats, according to experts tracking the redistricting efforts.
To counter that, Democrats in Virginia passed a constitutional amendment that, if approved by voters, would give lawmakers the power and option to redraw a new map ahead of next year’s election. Illinois leaders are weighing their redistricting options and New York has filed a lawsuit that seeks to redraw a GOP-held district. But concerns over legal challenges already tanked the party’s efforts in Maryland and the potential dilution of the Black vote has slowed moves in Illinois.
So far, the partisan maneuvers appear to favor Republicans.
“Democrats cannot gerrymander their way out of their gerrymandering problem. The math simply doesn’t add up,” said David Daly, a senior fellow at the nonprofit FairVote. “They don’t have enough opportunities or enough targets.”
Complex factors for Democrats
Democrats have more than just political calculus to weigh. In many states they are hampered by a mix of constitutional restrictions, legal deadlines and the reality that many of their state maps no longer can be easily redrawn for partisan gain. In California, Prop. 50 marks a departure from the state’s commitment to independent redistricting.
The hesitancy from Democrats in states such as Maryland and Illinois also underscores the tensions brewing within the party as it tries to maximize its partisan advantage and establish a House majority that could thwart Trump in his last two years in office.
“Despite deeply shared frustrations about the state of our country, mid-cycle redistricting for Maryland presents a reality where the legal risks are too high, the timeline for action is dangerous, the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic, and the certainty of our existing map would be undermined,” Bill Ferguson, the Maryland Senate president, wrote in a letter to state lawmakers last week.
In Illinois, Black Democrats are raising concerns over the plans and pledging to oppose maps that would reduce the share of Black voters in congressional districts where they have historically prevailed.
“I can’t just think about this as a short-term fight. I have to think about the long-term consequences of doing such a thing,” said state Sen. Willie Preston, chair of the Illinois Senate Black Caucus.
Adding to those concerns is the possibility that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority could weaken a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act and limit lawmakers’ ability to consider race when redrawing maps. The outcome — and its effect on the 2026 midterms — will depend heavily on the timing and scope of the court’s decision.
The court has been asked to rule on the case by January, but a decision may come later. Timing is key as many states have filing deadlines for 2026 congressional races or hold their primary election during the spring and summer.
If the court strikes down the provision, known as Section 2, advocacy groups estimate Republicans could pick up at least a dozen House seats across southern states.
“I think all of these things are going to contribute to what legislatures decide to do,” said Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice. The looming court ruling, he added, is “an extra layer of uncertainty in an already uncertain moment.”
Republican-led states press ahead
Support for Prop. 50 has brought in more than $114 million, the backing of some of the party’s biggest luminaries, including former President Obama, and momentum for national Democrats who want to regain control of Congress after the midterms.
In an email to supporters Monday, Newsom said fundraising goals had been met and asked proponents of the effort to get involved in other states.
“I will be asking for you to help others — states like Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and more are all trying to stop Republican mid-decade redistricting efforts. More on that soon,” Newsom wrote.
Indiana Republican Gov. Mike Braun called a special session set to begin Monday, to “protect Hoosiers from efforts in other states that seek to diminish their voice in Washington and ensure their representation in Congress is fair.”
In Kansas, the GOP president of the state Senate said last week that there were enough signatures from Republicans in the chamber to call a special session to redraw the state’s maps. Republicans in the state House would need to match the effort to move forward.
In Louisiana, Republicans in control of the Legislature voted last week to delay the state’s 2026 primary elections. The move is meant to give lawmakers more time to redraw maps in the case that the Supreme Court rules in the federal voting case.
If the justices strike down the practice of drawing districts based on race, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, has indicated the state likely would jump into the mid-decade redistricting race.
Shaniqua McClendon, head of Vote Save America, said the GOP’s broad redistricting push underscores why Democrats should follow California’s lead — even if they dislike the tactic.
“Democrats have to be serious about what’s at stake. I know they don’t like the means, but we have to think about the end,” McClendon said. “We have to be able to take back the House — it’s the only way we’ll be able to hold Trump accountable.”
In New York, a lawsuit filed last week charging that a congressional district disenfranchises Black and Latino voters would be a “Hail Mary” for Democrats hoping to improve their chances in the 2026 midterms there, said Daly, of FairVote.
Utah also could give Democrats an outside opportunity to pick up a seat, said Dave Wasserman, a congressional forecaster for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. A court ruling this summer required Utah Republican leaders to redraw the state’s congressional map, resulting in two districts that Democrats potentially could flip.
Wasserman described the various redistricting efforts as an “arms race … Democrats are using what Republicans have done in Texas as a justification for California, and Republicans are using California as justification for their actions in other states.”
‘Political tribalism’
Some political observers said the outcome of California’s election could inspire still more political maneuvering in other states.
“I think passage of Proposition 50 in California could show other states that voters might support mid-decade redistricting when necessary, when they are under attack,” said Jeffrey Wice, a professor at New York Law School where he directs the New York Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. “I think it would certainly provide impetus in places like New York to move forward.”
Similar to California, New York would need to ask voters to approve a constitutional amendment, but that could not take place in time for the midterms.
“It might also embolden Republican states that have been hesitant to redistrict to say, ‘Well if the voters in California support mid-decade redistricting, maybe they’ll support it here too,’” Wice said.
To Erik Nisbet, the director of the Center for Communications & Public Policy at Northwestern University, the idea that the mid-decade redistricting trend is gaining traction is part of a broader problem.
“It is a symptom of this 20-year trend in increasing polarization and political tribalism,” he said. “And, unfortunately, our tribalism is now breaking out, not only between each other, but it’s breaking out between states.”
He argued that both parties are sacrificing democratic norms and the ideas of procedural fairness as well as a representative democracy for political gain.
“I am worried about what the end result of this will be,” he said.
Ceballos reported from Washington, Mehta from Los Angeles.
