Archives for category: Politics

John Thompson, historian and retired teacher in Oklahoma, keeps us up to date about the political winds in his state.

He writes:

My Congresswoman, Stephanie Bice (R-OK), has been getting national attention since the Bulwark revealed an audio of Bice telling Republican students “that President Donald Trump’s unpopularity and freewheeling executive actions were hurting the party and even endangering seemingly safe seats like hers.”

Rep. Bice was quoted as saying:

“The challenge that we have is that we have to get over the narrative that ‘I don’t like this guy, so I’m going to vote for the Democrat,’” said Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.), according to audio obtained by The Bulwark. “Because I’m telling you right now, I’m hearing it already.”

She also said:

“And what happens is that’ll impact me because . . . two things will either happen,” Bice added. “They’re going to vote for the Democrat and they may split [the] ticket and vote for me and a few others, or—this is my bigger fear right now—people don’t go vote.”

The Bulwark reported that Bice provided a “rare glimpse into the gloom some elected Republicans feel about the impending midterms.” And, she explained, “I was at a board meeting yesterday with a group, and one of the execs said to me, ‘I’m a Republican, I’ve been a Republican for a long time, but I have Trump fatigue.'”  

Bice later argued that she was just “relaying a comment made by someone else and discussing the importance of Republicans turning out and voting for the entire ticket. Any suggestion otherwise takes her comments out of context.” 

In fact, after quoting the Republican who complained about “Trump fatigue,” Bice said, “It’s a fair statement, you know?” 

She also said, “We’re not helping ourselves when we decide to rename Lake Ontario Lake America. This does not help the case.” 

Most polls predict Bice will be reelected. But, the national news regarding Bice only reported a third of the story. There are a couple more narratives that make the case that Republicans will likely lose this seat, and many other seats.

First, the national news is also full of coverage of other conservative, Republican incumbents who are falling behind Democrat challengers. 

And perhaps the most positive part of the story is how and why a poll  found the charismatic Democrat, Jena Nelson, Oklahoma’s 2020 Teacher of the Year,  leading by 4 points

The 5th Congressional previously elected a Democrat congresswoman, Kendra Horn. Yes, Horn was defeated in 2020 by less than five points. Because Oklahoma City was growing more progressive, it’s hard to believe that Bice would have won in 2022 if the district had not been dramatically gerrymandered

And, as Nelson explained in 2026, “It’s been almost five years since her [Bice’s] last in-person town hall on August 25, 2021.” 

And, in a recent discussion, Bice didn’t seem to have taken a clear enough stand to win over the “61 percent of respondents who said that data centers are a threat to local resources or wanted a full ban on the facilities. An additional 20 percent said they wanted more regulations on the centers.” 

Similarly, if Bice listened to Oklahomans, why would she justify her opposition to raising the minimum wage above $7.25 per hour, by claiming it would provide “a broad range of benefits with no regard for the actual level of need of those on the receiving end of funding.” 

As the Oklahoma City part of the 5th District has continued to become more progressive, Jena Nelson, has also invested months of time, introducing herself, and listening to people in the conservative rural areas. 

At the same time, Bice has done herself no favors by giving muddled answers as to why, for instance, she voted for Trump’s issues like his cutting 1 billion dollars of hospital reinbursements in her district

Nelson’s polling reveals that in July 2026, 50% viewed Trump very unfavorably and 4% somewhat unfavorably, while 31% viewed Trump very favorably and 10% somewhat favorably. That means that, “His overall favorability is underwater by 13 points.” 

Moreover, “Voters respond positively to Nelson’s biography (61-12), while Bice’s profile produces a net-negative response (40-42). And, Bice “also gains 13 points among self-identified independents, reaching 65%. Among Moderate Republicans, she rises 13 points to 26%.” 

And, I would add that when watching Nelson interact with crowds, it is easy to understand why she was selected Teacher of the Year. Her ability to listen, her empathy, her enthusiasm are combined with her knowledge and intellect. Her audiences not only see the damage that Bice helped Trump impose, but they see and feel the principles and the solutions that Jena is committed to.

Epilogue: There seems to be no evidence that Bice attended Trump’s Midterm convention, or that she has made a statement about it.  

Andrew Tobias is a writer and a financial whiz whose insights about politics are worth reading.

He wrote today:

Seriously!*  

Because if it’s a good idea to hand everybody a check for $5,000, isn’t it twice as good an idea to hand everybody $10,000?

That’s what all our candidates should promise to do if we win the House and Senate!

If Trump thinks $10,000 is too much, he can simply promise to veto or pare it back when we pass it.  Stingy Don.

When the press asks where we plan to get all that money to give away, we can say:

“The same place Trump got the money to give everybody the $2,000 checks he promised the last time.”

And when the press pushes back, noting that he never did give anyone those promised $2,000 checks, we can say, “Well . . . duh!”

Or we can say, “Don’t worry, we have the concept of a plan.”

Or we can say, “We’re going to get every penny of it by raising tax rates on corporations and billionaires and by closing tax loopholes that only benefit the rich.”  (Which would be the only defensible way to get it.)

Or we can say, “Look.  Obviously, we’re no more serious about this than Trump is.  He just dangles it out there as a bribe, as he dangled giving everyone “terrific health care at a tiny fraction of the cost.”  Or dangled “lower prices on Day One.”  Or promised to cherish his first wife “until death did them part.”  And his second.  And his third.

Once he gets what he wants, what does he care?  He breaks his promises on virtually everything, every time.  (He did close the border; but is he really deporting just the worst of the worst?)

On the remote chance he’s serious about the $5,000, where would he get it?

Clearly not from taxing billionaires or corporations.  

He’d just add it to the National Debt.  Because if Republicans have proved anything since Reagan began ballooning it, it’s that they are the “borrow and spend”party.  Forty trillion?  Fifty trillion?  Who cares, so long as they can cut taxes on the wealthy donors who keep them in power.  

His other reason for dangling this phony bribe is to deflect attention.  

From the Epstein files.  From groceries and gas.  From the millions about to lose health insurance.  From the rural hospitals soon to close.  From his staggering corruption.  From his disastrous war.  

Tobias also noted that the Democrat running for Senate in Kansas was endorsed not only by its Democratic governor but by a former Republican governor.

Kansas’s two-term Democratic governor has endorsed Hamilton — obviously — but get this:  Former two-term Republican Governor Bill Graves just endorsed him, too. 


For the last six years, Sen. Roger Marshall has turned his back on Kansas. In contrast, Adam Hamilton stands as a bulwark of kindness, humility and service to others. It is for those reasons, and many more, that I believe Kansas should send Adam Hamilton to the U.S. Senate, and I am proud to endorse him. . .

As an ob-gyn, Senator Marshall sued 300 patients and 81 were arrested.

What a cruel, heartless man.

The New York Times published a deeply disturbing article about the e billionaires who are pumping huge sums into the 2026 midterm elections and about dark money vehicles some use to hide their influence.

I am giving you free access to the articles: no pay walls.

This one shows who they are: “Meet the Megadonors.” Most are Republicans, tech entrepreneurs, and crypto kings.

This one focuses on the dark money that is pouring into state elections to support issues and candidates.

It wasn’t always like this.

In 2002, Senator John McCain of Arizona (R) and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin (D) sponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly called the McCain–Feingold Act.

Its central purpose was to reduce the influence of large, unregulated political contributions.

It banned national political parties from raising or spending unlimited “soft money.” It restricted corporations and labor unions from financing certain broadcast political advertisements immediately before elections.it I ncreased disclosure requirements, and it raised some limits on direct contributions to candidates. 

McCain-Feingold passed the Senate 60-40 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The Supreme Court initially upheld most of it.

In 2003, McConnell v. FEC, the Supreme Court upheld the central provisions—including the restrictions on soft money and electioneering communications. 

Then the Court gradually dismantled important parts.

In 2007, in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the Supreme Court restricted the government’s ability to regulate certain issue advertisements.

In 2008, the Supreme Court (in Davis v. FEC) struck down the so-called “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which raised the limits of campaign funding for individuals running against a wealthy, self-financing candidate. That attempt to level the financial playing field was eliminated by the Court.

And then came the big decision that ripped the teeth out of campaign finance reform: Citizens United.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that corporations and unions have First Amendment protection to spend unlimited amounts independently to influence elections. This invalidated a major part of McCain–Feingold. 

Citizens United, together with subsequent cases, helped produce the modern system of unlimited independent expenditures and Super PACs.

We are now in the era of Citizens United, the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that negated most limits on political spending.

Why did the U.S. Supreme Court swerve sharply against campaign finance reform?

John Roberts was appointed to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 2005 by President George W. Bush. He formed a 5-4 majority with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito,

The person who is elected President usually says on election night that he will govern on behalf of the American people. He makes a point of obligation to be respectful for all Governors, to send FEMA to any state that has suffered from natural disasters, regardless of whether they vote for him or his rival.

Trump has said frankly that he hates his enemies. He sometimes doesn’t pretend to care about states that did not vote for him.

Aaron Parnas of the Parnas Perspective points out that the Trump administrative made decisions about environmental grants based solely on whether the states supported him in the 2024 elections. This involved billions of dollars in grants.

Parnas wrote:

A major constitutional violation, confirmed in court. The Trump administration admitted in court filings this month that it canceled 284 Biden era clean energy grants worth billions of dollars based solely on whether the recipient state voted for Kamala Harris in 2024 and had two Democratic senators. A lawyer for the Energy Department conceded that none of the terminations were based on any programmatic, statutory, cost reduction, or performance related factor, directly contradicting Energy Secretary Chris Wright’s June congressional testimony that no decisions were made on politics. The Energy Department disputes any contradiction, saying Wright was distinguishing between the review process and the timing of the cancellations, but hundreds of additional grants the department had itself recommended for cancellation were left untouched simply because they sat in states that backed Trump.

Real projects and real money were caught in the fallout. The politically targeted cancellations halted funding for hundreds of energy projects, including electrical grid upgrades in California and Oregon, methane leak reduction efforts in Colorado, and clean hydrogen fuel hubs in California and the Pacific Northwest. The cuts came in October alongside a broader White House push to pressure Democratic lawmakers during a government funding standoff, with Trump publicly threatening to slash what he called Democrat agencies. Some grant recipients have since sued to try to recover their funding, and this is not the first time the Energy Department has admitted politics played a role, since a federal judge already ruled in two earlier cases that more than a dozen grants were improperly canceled for political reasons, though this latest admission is far broader and more detailed.

Democrats say it exposes a dangerous pattern with more to come. Senator Patty Murray and Representative Marcy Kaptur called the cancellations an outright un-American weaponization of government and accused the administration of corruptly abusing its power to punish states over how they voted. The controversy lands as the administration finalizes new rules, expected by October, that would give Trump’s political appointees direct control to review, block, or revoke federal grants across the entire government, worth more than a trillion dollars annually. Budget office director Russell Vought has defended the changes as necessary to ensure democratic control of spending, but critics, including antipoverty groups, scientists, and city leaders, have flooded the government with comments warning the rules would let the administration extend this kind of political targeting far beyond energy grants. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities fellow Devin O’Connor said the willingness to be this blatant in court should be taken as a serious warning about what the new framework could enable nationwide.

Since I posted two scathing commentaries on the life of Lindsey Graham, I thought it only fair to finish with an admiring tribute to the late Senator. It was written by Jonathan Martin, Politico’s senior writer, and posted in Politico.

The setting on the article or website does not permit me to copy anything. I hope you can open it.

Martin praises Graham as a deft politician who held enormous power and wielded it skillfully. He was a war-hawk and a national security expert. He whispered into Trump’s ear, to keep the U.S. in NATO, to calm NATO about Trump’s demand for Greenland, to maintain relations with Ukraine, to support Israel. He had just returned from Ukraine shortly before he suffered cardiac arrest. He was evidently very charming and able to build bipartisan coalitions.

He was not my favorite Republican but Martin says that he had many friends on both sides of the aisle.

I strongly supported Graham Platner as the likeliest candidate to beat Senator Susan Collins in November. I was wrong, as were many others who took him at his word.

I didn’t care about his tattoo. He told us that he had gone through PTSD after four tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like many others, I forgave him his trespasses because he was a viable progressive candidate who had energized a large following in Maine. He held town halls all over the state, and his popularity grew. Bernie Sanders endorsed him, as did other prominent Democrats.

The latest allegation against him was the last straw. A woman he dated said he raped her. She had corroboration, from friends and her therapist. Rape is a bright red line.

Platner is finished. It’s over. He was not honest with the voters.

Susan Collins is running for her sixth term in the Senate. She has already served in the Senate for 30 years. She should have retired and let someone else take her place. It’s time for a change.

Collins should never be forgiven her endorsement of Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court. He told her he would never overturn Roe v. Wade. She believed him. He lied. Other Republicans would have voted no if she had voted no.

There are other well-qualified people ready to join the race. The Senate should not be a gerontocracy.

Maine Democrats must choose a replacement for Platner by July 27. Can they do it? Of course they can.

David Dayen, editor of The American Prospect, wrote previously about Platner’s character flaws and Collins’ corruption. He believes that Maine Democrats should hold a snap election. He calls it a “lighthouse primary.”

Good luck to Maine Democrats in picking someone who can defeat Collins and help create a Democratic majority in the Senate.

The stakes are high.

The Fairbanks North Star Borough School Board has made some charter fans big mad, and now the courts will be involved.

FNSBSD last fall dealt with a request to open a charter school in the district, to be the Pearl Creek Steam Charter School. The board voted unanimously to deny the request. They had plenty of reasons– 52 pages worth, in fact. Those reason included a lack of a facility plan, lack of a clear enrollment projection, a mess of a contract, no transportation plan, an inadequate instructional plan that doesn’t fully address state standards, no student lunch plan, no professional development plan, an admission plan that is probably illegal, an error-filled and incomplete budget, and the fact that this would have a big financial impact on the district. FNSBSD has already been closing schools to deal with dropping enrollment and funding. “Hey, the district is financially strapped, so let’s open a new building,” said no responsible school board ever. The Pearl Creek proposal is to reopen one of the closed schools as a charter school.

Also, said the FNSBSD board, this school is probably going to fail. “The plans in the application do not demonstrate likelihood of success,” is how the board put it. Again, 52 pages of details covering the above.

The charter crew offers an estimate of $830,000 cost to the district. The district COO says it’s more like $2.8 million. Coverage of the “controversy” has been extensive, especially from reporters Patrick Gilchrist and Shyler Umphenour at KUAC and Corinne Smith at the Alaska Beacon.

But Governor Mike Dunleavy would really like to see more charters, and so would Education Commissioner Deena Bishop, and so would the Dunleavy-appointed members of the Alaska State Board of Education, which has the power to overrule local school boards.

So in April, the state board went ahead and approved the charter over the objections and explanations of the duly-elected local school board. The state board declared that, essentially, the charter board had filled out all the paperwork, and that was good enough. Took them a whole fifteen pages to say it.Bobby Burgess, the president of the FNSBSD Board of Education, had a comment for KUAC.

“Basically, my read of the state’s decision is that, if the application is filled out in full, the contents don’t really matter, even if the plan described is impossible to execute,” Burgess said. “It kind of seems like a lower standard than we hold students to on homework assignments.”

Cue the lawyers. The district appealed the state board decision. The charter board filed a civil lawsuit with request for a preliminary injunction in state Superior Court to force the district to sign the charter and get the building re-opened and ready. Last week Superior Court Judge Kirk Schwalm in Fairbanks denied the charter’s request for preliminary injunction.

Now, in the newest twist, Acting Attorney General Cori Mills has filed an emergency petition to force the district to get that school opened. Because nothing says “We do too have an adequate plan for this charter school” than insisting you can get it up and running in two months. (Mills is Acting AG because the legislature rejected Dunleavy’s first choice.)

Meanwhile, Pearl Creek STEAM Charter is still announcing that it will be open in the fall on both its website and Facebook page.

There are other issues at play here. Veteran reporter and columnist Dermot Cole points out that Pearl Creek will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots, part of a larger charter trend in Fairbanks:

I believe that nearly all of the charter schools in the Fairbanks area have tended to attract enrollment from families with higher incomes or families where the parents have the time, energy and ability to be directly involved in their children’s education…

There are far fewer economically disadvantaged students in Alaska charter schools than neighborhood schools. There are also fewer students for whom English is a second language. Most charter schools do not have bus transportation for students, school lunch programs or other features that would make them more accessible to poor families.

I’m guessing, based on what I know about Fairbanks, that most charter school families have more flexibility built into their lives, whether it’s because of economic status, help from extended family members or the sense of mission that the best parents share.

Beyond all that, Fairbanks now has the bizarre situation of a district that has tried to cut costs by closing a school now being told by the state that they must reopen the building and pay for someone else to run a school there, reversing the decision of the elected local school board. 

It’s not the most extreme version of state governments usurping the power of local school boards (take Ohio, where school districts can get in legal trouble for failing to hand buildings over to charters). But it is one more literal example of how running multiple parallel school districts costs the taxpayers extra. If only choice fans were honest enough to say, “We want choice, so we are going to levy a new School Choice Tax to pay for it.” Good luck, Fairbanks.

Trying to retain control of the House of Representatives, Trump urged states to redraw their Congressional districts, although this redistricting usually happens every 10 years, after the census is reported. Texas, led by ultra-MAGA Governor Greg Abbott, was first to redistrict, creating a likely four additional Republican seats. California countered with a referendum, in which voters approved a temporary redistricting. Other states followed.

Now Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has produced a new map, drawn to eliminate four Democratic members of Congress. If his map is approved (which is likely since Republicans have a supermajority in both legislative houses), the Florida delegation to Congress will have 24 Republicans and only 4 Democrats.

Forget the fact that Florida voters passed a state constitutional amendment to ban partisan gerrymanders in 2010. The State Constitution also bans funding for religious schools, which was reaffirmed by voters in 2008. Now, billions of dollars are spent by the state for religious schools. The State Constitution. Just a piece of paper.

Please note that DeSantis gave his new map to FOX News before sharing it with the legislature.

The New York Times reported:

Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida proposed a redraw of the state’s congressional districts on Monday that could give Republicans as many as four new seats, an aggressive gambit that could also set the party up for some losses in the November midterms.

The map appears to eliminate two Democratic-held districts in South Florida, a third in the Tampa area and a fourth in the Orlando area, leaving Democrats with perhaps only four of the state’s 28 congressional seats. There are currently seven Florida Democrats in Congress; an eighth, former Representative Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick, resigned last week after being charged with embezzlement.

Florida, which does not hold primary elections until August, is the last state aiming to redraw congressional maps ahead of the midterms. A Supreme Court decision expected soon on a key provision of the Voting Rights Act could provide opportunities for other states to do so, but with many holding primaries in the next month or two, time is running out.

Mr. DeSantis’s map, initially made public without detailed county borders or other critical information, was first reported by Fox News, which received the map before the State Legislature did Monday morning. Lawmakers are scheduled to meet in a special redistricting session starting Tuesday, which means they have less than 24 hours to examine the proposal before they convene.

The short turnaround is likely to upset some state lawmakers, few of whom have expressed much interest in redistricting, as well as many members of the Florida congressional delegation, who will have to introduce themselves to new voters between now and the midterms. State lawmakers are not expected to propose any maps of their own, but rather to vote on Mr. DeSantis’s redraw as early as Wednesday. It is almost certain to pass, given the Republican supermajorities in the State House and Senate.

Should the map pass, it could give Republicans nationwide an edge of roughly two to four seats heading into the midterms. That would hardly be the multiseat advantage that President Trump and national Republicans envisioned when they kicked off the national redistricting battle in Texas last summer.

But should the fight for the U.S. House come down to a few districts, any seat that flips from Democrat to Republican could prove critical. Republicans currently control the chamber by just a handful of seats.

Any redistricting effort in Florida faces a significant legal hurdle. In 2010, voters in Florida passed the Fair Districts amendments, which effectively ban partisan gerrymandering in the state. Mr. DeSantis told Fox News that his proposed map — colored red and blue to indicate the expected political leanings of new districts — “more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today.”

Here is the current party registration in Florida, according to Florida government data:

Current proportions (≈ February–March 2026)

  • Republican: ~41%
  • Democrat: ~30%
  • No Party / Independent (plus minor parties): ~29%  

But DeSantis’ gerrymander awards 85% of Congressional seats to Republicans.

As many of you know, I was born and raised in Texas. I grew up in Houston, third of eight children. I went to public schools, then to college in Massachusetts. I have never stopped being a Texan. I live in Brooklyn now but a part of my heart will always be in Texas. So I keep a close watch over developments in my home state.

The victories of James Talarico for Senate and Gina Hinojosa for Governor put Texas Democrats in a good position to turn Texas blue.

Gina Hinojosa coasted to victory in the Democratic primary over seven opponents. Soon after the polls closed, she had 61% of the vote. She will face incumbent Greg Abbot in November.

Talarico won the primary by 52.8% to Crockett’s 45.9%.

(Full disclosure: I contributed to all three campaigns.)

Talarico was a member of the state legislature. He has studied theology and is working towards a Master of Divinity at the Austin Presbyterian Seminary. He hopes to win independents and Trump voters with his deep religious faith and his rhetoric of love and reconciliation.

Under Governor Greg Abbot–now seeking his fourth term–Texas became an extreme MAGA state. Abbot echoes whatever Trump says , or says it first. Abbot is mean and has a stone heart.

Gina Hinojosa swept the Democratic primary for Governor. She is smart, articulate, beautiful, and Hispanic. One of the reasons that Democrats have not won a statewide office since 1994 is low turnout and growing Hispanic support for Trump. Gina was a featured speaker at the last conference of the Network for Public Education in Columbus, Ohio, and she was wonderful! As she explains in her PBS interview, strengthening neighborhood public schools is her top priority.

The Republicans running for Senate will compete in a May run-off. Jon Cornyn, the incumbent, is a reliable vote for Trump but not really MAGA. He seems like a moderate Republican who votes with Trump to protect his hide. Cornyn is running for his fifth term.

His opponent Ken Paxton is Attorney General of Texas, and it’s fair to say that he’s been scarred by scandals. His wife is a state senator. He cheated on her. Some of his staff blew the whistle on him and said he took payoffs from men he was investigating. The Republican House impeached him; the Republican Senate cleared him, thanks to generous donations by hard-right MAGA billionaires.

Paxton and Cornyn will have a runoff in May.

Talarico will be a strong candidate for the Senate. Hinojosa will be a strong candidate against Abbot, if Texans are sufficiently sick of pay-to-play politics.

The outcome will depend on turnout. Right now, Texas is run by a handful of oil billionaires. They want low taxes and minimal public services. They are Christian nationalists who love money and power.

If Talarico can attract the support of non-MAGA Republicans and if Gina can bring Hispanic voters to the polls, Texas will flip blue.

To learn why Gina Hinojosa ran for governor and what she wants to do, watch this excellent interview.

Watch Gina Hinojosa explain why “we don’t want handouts,” we want the services we paid for.

See Gina Hinojosa speaking at the Network for Public Education conference in April 2025, before the Republican-dominated Texas legislature passed vouchers. The passage of vouchers happened only after Governor Abbot primaried anti-voucher Republicans with the millions given him by billionaire Jeff Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania.

To see Talarico in action, watch him talk on the power of love.

See Talarico on how the worst people quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on MLK Day and then violate his teachings every other day of the year.

Talarico on Christian nationalists, who–he says–are “more committed to the love of power than to the power of love.”

I love these two and will support them both. There will be a tidal wave of money pouring into Texas Republican coffers from other states to try to stop these two exciting Democrats!

It’s typical in American politics that the party that wins the Presidency usually loses the mid-term elections two years later. The other party picks up seats, sometimes enough seats to dominate one or both Houses, enough to stymie the President’s agenda and enough to hold investigations that embarrass the President.

With Trump’s low standing in the polls, the rising cost of living, the backlash against tariffs, and the evident cruelty of ICE, Republicans have worried about an electoral wipeout in November 2026.

Some clever Republican strategist devised a plan to protect the Republican dominance in the House of Representatives. Simple. Persuade red states to redistrict (gerrymander) their Congressional maps, creating more Republican seats while eliminating Democratic seats. This was out of the ordinary, because states usually redistrict every ten years, after the latest census.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a loyal MAGAT, was first to act. He pushed through a new map that split up Democratic districts and created five new Republican seats. The U.S. Supreme Court supported the Trump goal, as usual, and approved the Texas gerrymander.

Governor Gavin Newsom of California was quick to respond. He called a referendum that would redistrict the state and produce five new Democratic seats. Newsom’s new map is being changed in the Supreme Court, but it’s difficult to see the Court approving the Texas gerrymander while rejecting California’s.

The administration began pressuring other red state governors to follow the lead of Texas. Some Democratic states set about redrawing their maps.

And then there was Indiana. NBC News tells the fascinating inside story of how the Trump team alienated key Republicans in that state.

Indiana is a deep-red state with a Republican supermajority in both houses of the legislature. Republicans hold seven Congressional districts, Democrats only two. Trump wanted those two seats.

The Trump operatives thought the state leaders would quickly fall in line. When they didn’t, the Trump operatives decided to unleash their usual tools: bullying, pressure, threats, intimidation, even death threats. At least 14 Republican state senators received death threats.

Jane C. Timm of NBC News wrote the story:

INDIANAPOLIS — As the redistricting battle began to pick up steam in Indiana last month, state Sen. Jean Leising’s grandchildren were receiving odd text messages.

Ads from little-known outside groups had spliced the longtime Republican lawmaker’s image next to prominent Democrats like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Some of the messaging was sloppy, referring to Leising as “him.”

A conservative and supporter of President Donald Trump, Leising, 76, was furious. Following months of conversations with her constituents, she felt they were generally opposed to redrawing Indiana’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections — even though such an effort would favor her party and was backed by her president. So in mid-November, she fired off a statement making it official: She wouldn’t support it.

“The negative campaigning just put me over the top,” she said in an interview with 13WTHR in Indianapolis, an NBC News affiliate, at the time. “He may wonder why Indiana is struggling to get on board. Well, it’s probably the antics they used.”

It was a sign of things to come. Ultimately, the months of pressure applied by Trump and his supporters from outside of Indiana to pass a redrawn map that would split up the state’s two Democratic districts backfired. On Thursday, Leising joined a majority of Republicans in the state Senate in voting to sink the map in the face of potential future primary challenges, a flurry of online attacks — and in some cases, violent threats. 

The result was one of the biggest rejections that Trump, who has otherwise largely ruled over the GOP with an iron fist, has faced since returning to office, and it could cost the party in its bid to preserve its narrow House majority….

“You have to know Hoosiers. We can’t be bullied, we don’t like it,” GOP state Sen. Sue Glick said after voting against the map.

Despite intense lobbying by Trump, JD Vance, and Mike Johnston, Republican leaders in the state were not enthusiastic. They resented the pressure.

When Rodric Bray, the leading Republican in the State Senate, warned that there were not enough votes to pass the new map, Trump lashed out at him. He threatened to run an opponent to Bray, but Bray didn’t tremble because he’s not up for re-election until 2028.

Trump wrote on Truth Social:

“In the entire United States of America, Republican or Democrat, only Indiana ‘Republican’ State Senator Rod Bray, a Complete and Total RINO, is opposed to redistricting for purposes of gaining additional Seats in Congress,” Trump wrote in one Truth Social post of the well-liked Republican leader in the Senate. “The Rod Brays of Politics are WEAK and PATHETIC.”

The map passed the Indiana House by The map passed the state House last Friday by a 57-41 vote, with 12 Republicans voting against it.

When the vote shifted to the State Senate, the map was resoundingly defeated, 19-31, with 21 Republicans voting against it.

Trump lost the vote of one State Senator when he called Tim Walz “retards.” The State Senator has a child with Down Syndrome. Others said they would not be bullied.