(WASHINGTON) — Elon Musk called President Donald Trump on Monday night, two sources familiar with the conversation told ABC News, after their bitter public feud last week.
Musk posted on X early Wednesday morning, “I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far.”
Musk, however, did not not clarify which posts he was referring to in his statement. The posts included slamming Trump for “ingratitude” over the 2024 election, agreeing with a call for Trump’s impeachment, knocking the president’s “big, beautiful bill” signature legislation, and even claiming Trump was in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Musk’s call with Trump came after Vice President JD Vance and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles spoke with the billionaire late last week and urged him to end the feud, sources familiar with the call told ABC News.
The president had previously told Vance to speak diplomatically when asked about Musk publicly, according to a White House official.
The White House declined to comment.
In her press briefing on Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt would not comment on whether the relationship would be reconciled.
“The president acknowledged the statement that Elon put out this morning and he is appreciative of it. And we are continuing to focus on the business of the American people,” Leavitt said.
Last Friday, Trump told ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent Jonathan Karl that Musk was a “man who has lost his mind.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(LOS ANGELES) — There are currently 4,100 California National Guardsmen and 700 Marines in the greater Los Angeles area after President Donald Trump ordered them to protect federal buildings and federal law enforcement as protests opposed to ICE raids increased over the weekend.
Most of the attention has been focused on the crowd control assistance that these troops could provide around federal buildings, but Trump’s memo calling up National Guardsmen also said they would “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions, including the enforcement of Federal law.”
On Tuesday, the X page for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) posted photos of California National Guardsmen on the scene of a detention being carried out by an ICE agent with the caption “Photos from today’s ICE Los Angeles immigration enforcement operation.”
One of the photos was later reposted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s personal X account with the caption “This We’ll Defend.”
A U.S. official told ABC News that the photos showed National Guardsmen providing force protection to federal personnel and were not conducting law enforcement duties.
The Posse Comitatus Act prevents active-duty U.S. military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement duties though that restriction can be lifted when a president invokes the Insurrection Act, which President Trump has not done.
In the photos, the National Guardsmen were armed with rifles but it was unclear if they were loaded with ammunition. ABC News has previously reported that while the federalized troops are carrying weapons, their guns will not have ammunition loaded in the chamber, according to U.S. officials. But they will carry ammunition as part of their regular uniforms that can be used in the rare case of needed self-defense.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state of California have asked a federal court to stop the Trump administration from using federalized National Guardsmen and Marines to accompany ICE agents on immigration raids saying it will “escalate tensions” and raises questions if the force protection they are providing constitutes law enforcement duties which they are not allowed to do by federal law.
“Defendants intend to use unlawfully federalized National Guard troops and Marines to accompany federal immigration enforcement officers on raids throughout Los Angeles,” said the lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Rob Bonta on behalf of Newsom. “They will work in active concert with law enforcement, in support of a law enforcement mission, and will physically interact with or detain civilians.”
“To preserve the peace, Plaintiffs respectfully urge the Court to grant the circumscribed emergency relief requested through this motion for a temporary restraining order, which will prevent the use of federalized National Guard and active duty Marines for law enforcement purposes on the streets of a civilian city,” the motion requested.
A hearing on the state’s motion will be held on Thursday.
On Tuesday, Hegseth told a congressional committee that he and President Trump have the power to send National Guard and active-duty troops anywhere in the country to ensure that ICE agents can enforce the law.
“We believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country,” Hegseth told a House Appropriations Defense subcommittee.
“ICE ought to be able to do its job, whether it’s Minneapolis or Los Angeles,” he added.
On Wednesday, testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee, Hegseth again defended using troops with ICE agents on immigration raids, saying it was needed to keep them from being attacked.
Democratic Sen. Jack Reed shot back, calling it “illegal.”
“Law and order is a civil function under the Constitution of the United States — civil enforcement, law enforcement authorities — not the U.S. military,” Reed said.
“This is not only, I think, illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and focus of the military,” he added.
(NEW YORK) — Harvey Weinstein has been convicted on one count of engaging in criminal sex but acquitted on the second in his sex crimes retrial in New York.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the rape count.
The verdict comes after some apparent discord in the jury room during deliberations.
On Monday, the jury foreperson wrote in a note to Judge Curtis Farber, “I need to talk to you about a situation that isn’t very good.” The foreperson was called into the judge’s chambers, where he said some jurors were “attacking, talking together, fight together” — adding, “I don’t like it” — according to a transcript of the closed encounter.
The foreperson said jurors were discussing Harvey Weinstein’s past.
When the judge summoned the entire jury that day, he reminded them to discuss only the evidence presented at trial and to be cordial.
Prosecutors said Weinstein “preyed on three women” as “he held unfettered power for over 30 years” in Hollywood, while the defense countered the producer did not coerce the women and claimed they were using him for his connections.
Weinstein, 73, pleaded not guilty and has said his sexual encounters were consensual. He did not testify during the trial, where he is being retried for sexually assaulting two women, Mimi Haley and Jessica Mann, after an earlier conviction was overturned on appeal. He is also charged with sexually assaulting a third woman, Kaja Sokola, who was not part of the first trial. All three women have publicly come forward and testified during the trial.
“Harvey Weinstein had enormous control over those working in television and film. He decided who was in and who was out,” the prosecutor, Shannon Lucey, told the jury of seven women and five men at the start of the trial. “He held the golden ticket. The chance to make it or not.”
Lucey claimed that “no” was “not a word the defendant was used to hearing.”
Weinstein’s defense attorney, Arthur Aidala, agreed with prosecutors that Weinstein was a powerful man in the television and film industries, but he told the jury Weinstein did not coerce the women he’s accused of assaulting. Instead, Aidala claimed Weinstein engaged in “mutually beneficial relationships” that the attorney said have been going on in Hollywood for a hundred years.
“They’re fooling around with him consensually,” Aidala claimed. “The casting couch was not a crime scene.”
In detailing the alleged sexual assaults, Lucey claimed that when Haley went to Weinstein’s Crosby Street apartment in July 2006 to discuss a production role on “Project Runway,” he allegedly “held her down” and subjected her to forcible sexual conduct.
Sokola was 16 when she first met Weinstein in 2002 at a restaurant in the West Village shortly after signing a modeling contract to come to New York from Poland. Several years later, in 2006, Weinstein cast Sokola as an extra in “The Nanny Diaries.” After a lunch at a Manhattan hotel that year, Weinstein allegedly “pressed on her shoulders with enough force to get her down on the bed” and forced oral sex on the 19-year-old as she said, “Please do not do this,” Lucey claimed.
Lucey also claimed Weinstein allegedly forced Sokola to touch his genitals in a Manhattan apartment when she was 16. Weinstein is not charged in that alleged 2002 incident in the indictment, as it is outside the statute of limitations. But the judge has allowed Sokola to testify about it during the trial, along with a second alleged incident involving Weinstein she says occurred in 2004. Sokola previously filed a lawsuit in New York under the Child Victims Act over the alleged 2002 incident, which prosecutors said has since been settled.
In 2013, Weinstein allegedly subjected Mann to sex without her consent at a hotel, according to Lucey. Mann testified that Weinstein raped her after finding out she had a serious boyfriend who was an actor. Lucey claimed Mann had also engaged in sexual encounters with Weinstein that were not coerced out of fear of his power in the industry.
The new trial comes after the New York Court of Appeals overturned Weinstein’s initial 2020 conviction last year, finding the trial judge “erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.”
Weinstein has also appealed his conviction in December 2022 on sex offenses in Los Angeles. He was sentenced to 16 years in prison there.
(LONDON) — At least 66 Palestinians have been killed in shootings near aid distribution sites on back-to-back days in Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health.
At least 30 people were killed in a shooting on Wednesday near an aid site close to the Netzarim Corridor in central Gaza, according to the Hamas-run Gaza Ministry of Health. This is one of the four operational aid sites run by the U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation.
In relation to the shooting, the Israel Defense Forces said in a statement it was “currently unaware of IDF fire during daylight hours that corresponds with the footage circulated in the media.” The video was “under review,” the IDF said.
However, the IDF said it did fire “warning shots” overnight Wednesday toward people who it said were “advancing while posing a threat to the troops.”
“The IDF is aware of reports regarding individuals injured, the details are under review,” the statement said.
The shooting Wednesday came one day after at least 36 were killed, the highest one-day death toll from a shooting near an aid distribution center since the opening of the GHF sites last month, according to the Gaza Ministry of Health. Israeli forces opened fire near an aid distribution site in central Gaza, according to two local hospitals in Gaza. Over 100 people were injured in the shooting, according to the two hospitals.
The IDF said in a statement on Tuesday that troops fired “warning shots to distance suspects,” who were advancing in the area and “posed a threat to troops.”
The Israeli army said the warning shots were fired “hundreds of meters form the aid distribution site,” before it opened.
“The IDF is aware of reports regarding several individuals injured in the area,” it said. “An initial inquiry suggests that the number of reported individuals injured does not align with the information held by the IDF.”
“The details are under review,” the IDF said.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation — which has been running aid distribution in Gaza since Israel lifted its 11-week blockade last month — resumed aid distribution on Monday after previous shootings near aid sites, saying it gave out 1,386,000 meals at two sites. The GHF has not specified what it considers a meal.
The GHF has closed its aid distribution sites several times since it began distributing meals after several shooting incidents. As of Wednesday, at least 224 people had been killed while trying to get aid from GHF aid distribution sites, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
The blockade was instituted to pressure Hamas to release the remaining hostages taken during Hamas’ surprise terror attack on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed 1,200 people and led to the capture of hundreds, Israel said.
The GHF was first announced on May 19 — three days after the Israeli government began its increased military operation in Gaza. After the end of an 11-week Israeli blockade on aid entering Gaza, the GHF — a private contractor backed by the U.S. and Israel — took over distributing aid in Gaza.
Humanitarian groups and the United Nations have said the GHF politicizes aid and criticized the role of IDF forces in the operation.
Palestinians in Gaza remain at risk of extreme starvation and famine even after Israel lifted the blockade on all humanitarian aid entering the Strip, according to aid groups like the U.N., the International Committee of the Red Cross and others.
The death toll in the 20-month Hamas-Israel war also crossed 55,000 on Wednesday, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run Ministry of Health. There have been another 127,394 injuries during the war, the health ministry said.
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump’s challenge to his “one of a kind” felony hush money conviction in New York should be removed from state appellate courts and heard in federal court, an attorney for the president argued Wednesday.
Just over a year after Trump became the first former president to be found guilty of a felony, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard arguments Wednesday on Trump’s efforts to move his appeal of the verdict from state court to federal court.
“The federal officer is entitled to a federal forum, not to have those arguments heard in state court,” attorney Jeffrey Wall told the three-judge panel. “And if that’s true for a normal federal officer in a normal criminal prosecution, it certainly ought to be true for the president of the United States and for what we can all recognize is an anomalous one of its kind prosecution.”
Trump was convicted last year on 34 felony counts after Manhattan prosecutors alleged that he engaged in a “scheme” to boost his chances during the 2016 presidential election through a series of hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels, and then falsified New York business records to cover up that alleged criminal conduct.
New York Judge Juan Merchan, on the eve of Trump’s inauguration, sentenced him to an unconditional discharge — the lightest possible punishment allowed under New York state law — saying it was the “only lawful sentence” to prevent “encroaching upon the highest office in the land.”
At Wednesday’s hearing, an attorney for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, Steven Wu, argued that it’s now too late to move the case.
“After sentencing, removal is no longer available,” Wu said during oral arguments.
Wu also argued the purpose of removal is to decide where to hold the trial.
“It is not to divert a state criminal proceeding into a federal court for direct appellate review,” Wu said.
Wall, who served as an acting solicitor general in Trump’s first administration, argued that the time limit to ask for removal to federal court does not apply if Trump can show good cause.
“Why shouldn’t we be looking for some more specific signs that Congress actually intended this?” Judge Susan Carney asked.
“It’s the first-ever prosecution by a district attorney of a president,” Wall responded. “As long as you have colorable federal defenses, and it has something to do with your job, you get to come into federal court notwithstanding the state’s interest.”
Trump’s lawyers have argued that the conduct at issue during his criminal trial included “official acts” undertaken while he was president, and that the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling last year granting the president immunity for official acts — which was decided after Trump was convicted in May — would have prevented prosecutors from securing their conviction.
“There was evidence that came in at trial that triggered federal immunity,” Wall told the appellate panel.
Wu countered that the evidence offered involved discussion about a crime that related to Trump’s actions before he became president.
“It’s a highly unusual case, would you agree with that?” Judge Raymond Lohier asked.
“This defendant is a very unusual defendant,” Wu conceded — but he argued that should not automatically usurp the state’s interest in enforcing its laws.
The judges did not immediately rule, but said they would take the arguments under advisement.
If the appeals court grants Trump’s request, his conviction would still remain. The only change is that his appeal will play out in a federal, rather than state, courtroom. In either scenario, Trump could ultimately ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
Although Trump has in the past asserted that, as president, he would have the right to pardon himself for federal offenses, Pace University Law School professor Bennett Gershman told ABC News that would not apply in this case.
“It’s still a state crime — you’re now just talking about where the case is litigated,” Gershman said. “I’m not even sure that pardoning yourself is even allowed, but that’s an open question that’s never been addressed.”
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi rejected that President Donald Trump’s pardons for hundreds of rioters who assaulted police during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol creates a double standard with the administration’s aggressive response to violence at immigration protests in Los Angeles.
“Well, this is very different,” Bondi said Wednesday in an on-camera gaggle with reporters at the White House. “These are people out there hurting people in California right now. This is ongoing.”
Trump’s and other officials’ attempts to stoke outrage over videos showing attacks on law enforcement in Los Angeles has been the subject of some mockery on social media — with Democrats and other critics of the administration posting comparisons to the assaults law enforcement were subject to on Jan. 6, when a pro-Trump mob descended on the Capitol.
More than 140 officers suffered injuries during the Jan. 6 riot as they were beaten by objects ranging from baseball bats and hockey sticks to rocks and even an American flag.
Trump’s pardons for nearly all of the 1,600 people charged in connection with the assault on the Capitol extended to more than 450 charged with assaulting or impeding officers — 300 of whom still had not had their cases fully adjudicated.
The dismantling of the Department of Justice’s Jan. 6 investigation further halted investigations of roughly 60 people suspected of assaulting police during the riot who had yet to be charged, according to statistics released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington prior to Trump taking office.
During Bondi’s confirmation hearing prior to Inauguration Day, she said she believed any pardons for Jan. 6 defendants should be evaluated on a “case-to-case basis” and suggested she would be opposed to pardons for people accused of assaulting law enforcement officers.
“Let me be very clear in speaking to you: I condemn any violence on a law enforcement officer in this country,” Bondi said at the time.
Bondi has not publicly commented on Trump’s pardons since then, though FBI Director Kash Patel did notably distance himself during his confirmation hearing from Trump’s pardons for violent Jan. 6 offenders.
“I have always rejected any violence against law enforcement,” Patel said. “And I do not agree with the commutation of any sentence of any individual who committed violence against law enforcement.”
In her gaggle with reporters Wednesday, Bondi repeatedly dodged questions about the administration’s views on the legal standards that must exist in order to invoke the Insurrection Act.
She instead pointed to what she argued appears to be improved conditions on the ground that shouldn’t warrant such aggressive intervention by the administration.
“Right now in California, we’re at a good point,” Bondi said. “We’re not scared to go further. We’re not frightened to do something else if we need to.”
(ISLE ROYALE, Mich.) — Two people were found dead at Isle Royale National Park in a “remote backcountry campground” within the park, according to the National Park Service.
The Isle Royal National Park is a remote island wilderness in the middle of Lake Superior in Michigan. It is only accessible by ferry, seaplane or private watercraft, according to the NPS.
Park rangers received reports of two people found dead at the campground on Sunday afternoon, the NPS said.
Rangers then hiked 11 miles overnight to reach the campground and assess the situation. They arrived early Monday morning and confirmed two unidentified people were found dead, the NPS said.
Their cause of death remains unknown, according to the NPS.
Additional ground and aviation resources responded on Monday, the NPS said.
(WASHINGTON) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard issued a stark warning about the threat of nuclear war in a video posted to her personal account on X, marking a sharp contrast with past comments made by former President Donald Trump on the same topic.
Gabbard, who recently visited Hiroshima, Japan, reflected on the devastation caused by the atomic bomb dropped during World War II in a post on Tuesday. In the video, she warned that political elite and warmongers are fomenting fear and tension, pushing us closer to “the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before.”
The three-minute video shows Gabbard visiting several landmarks in Hiroshima. The video also describes in detail what a nuclear event could mean for the United States — including a simulation of a nuclear attack on San Francisco, California, which appears to destroy the Golden Gate Bridge.
Gabbard’s remarks were similar to previous remarks she’s made on the campaign trail, however, the video was posted days after she traveled to the Shangri-La Dialogue, a major Asian conference held in Singapore, earlier this month.
“This isn’t some made-up science fiction story. This is the reality of what’s at stake, what we are facing now, because as we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite and warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tensions between nuclear powers,” Gabbard said in the video.
“Perhaps it’s because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won’t have access to,” she added.
Gabbard called on people to “speak up and demand an end to this madness.”
“We must reject this path to nuclear war and work toward a world where no one has to live in fear of a nuclear holocaust,” Gabbard said.
Gabbard’s position is in sharp contrast to Trump’s previous remarks on the use of nuclear weapons during WWII.
In 2016, while campaigning in San Diego, California, Trump criticized then-President Barack Obama for visiting Hiroshima, calling him “pathetic.” He added that he didn’t care that Obama visited, “just as long as he doesn’t apologize” for dropping the bomb: “Who cares.”
More recently, on Jan. 20, 2024, in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump brought up Hiroshima again, this time to make a point about presidential immunity: “Hiroshima, not exactly a nice act, but it did end the second World War, probably. Right?”
Alexa Henning, Gabbard’s deputy chief of staff, told ABC News that Gabbard and the president align on their plans for peace and prevention of war.
“Acknowledging the past is critical to inform the future. President Trump has repeatedly stated in the past that he recognizes the immeasurable suffering, and annihilation can be caused by nuclear war, which is why he has been unequivocal that we all need to do everything possible to work towards peace,” Henning said in a statement. “DNI Gabbard supports President Trump’s clearly stated objectives of bringing about lasting peace and stability and preventing war.”
Gabbard’s Tuesday remarks also echoed rhetoric from her time as a Democratic presidential candidate, when she warned about neoconservatives, neoliberals and Trump himself.
In 2019, Gabbard said Trump “tore up the Iran nuclear agreement, and has taken action since, step by step, to further push us closer and closer to the brink of nuclear war, to the brink of war with Iran, that would be far more devastating than the war in Iraq, and leading us to the point where every single day that there is no nuclear deal with Iran, Iran is closer to developing a nuclear weapon.”
But when she endorsed Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign as an independent last August, Gabbard shifted her focus to President Joe Biden. Speaking at the National Guard Association conference, she said the Biden-Harris “administration has us facing multiple wars on multiple fronts and regions around the world, and closer to the brink of nuclear war than we ever have been before.”
Gabbard’s initial bid for president in 2020 was sparked by a mistaken ballistic missile alert that sent people in Hawaii into panic, thinking they were under attack. That moment inspired the former Hawaii congresswoman to center much of her campaign on ending wars and seeking peace. Although she has now aligned herself with the Republican Party and the Trump administration, this moment suggests Gabbard is still staking out an independent position on America’s global posture — one deeply rooted in her long-standing skepticism of the Washington establishment.
Two men are being charged by the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles for possession of an unregistered destructive device for their roles in the Los Angeles protest violence. U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles
(LOS ANGELES) — Two men are being charged by the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for possession of an unregistered destructive device for their alleged roles in the LA protest violence, federal prosecutors will announce Wednesday.
Emiliano Galvez and Wrackkie Quiogue are both accused of trying to throw Molotov cocktails at police, according to federal prosecutors.
When the LAPD approached Quiogue — who officials said was armed with a Molotov cocktail at Sunday’s protest in downtown LA — he allegedly “threw the Molotov cocktail into the air and attempted to flee,” the complaint said. The confrontation was caught on officer body camera.
LAPD officers subdued Quiogue and arrested him, prosecutors said.
Galvez is accused of throwing a Molotov cocktail over a wall toward LA sheriff’s deputies who were “engaging in crowd control activities” during a protest in Paramount, a city in south LA County , on Saturday, federal prosecutors said. The incident was caught on officer body camera.
Galvez was arrested after a foot chase, officials said.
The protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement continue to grip LA; Mayor Karen Bass issued an overnight curfew for about 1 square mile of downtown.
The protests have also spread to other cities including New York City, Seattle, Chicago San Francisco, Boston, and Austin, Texas.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s political operation has approached Texas Republicans about redrawing the Texas congressional map ahead of next year’s midterms, in a bid to protect Republicans’ fragile House majority, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told ABC News.
Texas Republican lawmakers, who met on the topic at the U.S. Capitol Monday night, described the conversations on the topic as preliminary, and most declined to discuss the initial conversations, which were first reported by The New York Times.
“I’m not going to comment on it,” said Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas.
“We’re still kind of cogitating,” said Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas.
Currently, Republicans hold a 25-12 majority of the state’s seats. One Houston-area Democratic seat is vacant, after the death of Rep. Sylvester Turner, D-Texas.
If Republicans in Austin decided to move forward with redistricting, it’s not clear how they would reconfigure the map. One Republican source familiar with the discussions said that as many as five seats currently held by Democrats could be targeted.
But the source pointed out that any effort to draw Republican voters into Democratic seats could backfire — leaving more seats vulnerable to legal challenges, or for Democratic pickups in a wave election.
“There’s an old Southern saying: Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered,” the source said to ABC News about the potential risks of redrawing the map.
A second Republican source familiar with the discussions told ABC News that Texas GOP figures have discussed the potential for redistricting with the White House.
Republicans currently have a 220-213 majority in the U.S. House, with three vacancies. They began the session with a narrow five-seat majority and could face a potential redrawing of the Wisconsin congressional map depending on the outcome of several lawsuits filed with the state supreme court. Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said the conversations show that Republicans are “definitely” worried about losing seats in November, given that the current map, approved in 2021, was drawn by Republicans for the coming decade.
There is one active federal lawsuit over the current map, brought by advocates who have argued it discriminates against voters of color.
“I don’t think there’s any question about that. I mean, why else would you want to do that knowing how unsettled that could make the electorate feel?” Veasey said.
Asked about GOP worries about losing control of the House, Babin said, “We’re always concerned about the midterms. Who wants to go into the minority? I don’t.”
Redistricting before the next census would be unusual, but not unprecedented in Texas.
In 2003, Republicans led by former Rep. Tom DeLay pushed through an early redrawing of the maps to wrestle control of the majority of the state’s seats from Democrats, sparking a political fight that made its way to the Supreme Court.
The White House and Gov. Greg Abbott’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
“I can’t control it, so I don’t care,” said Rep. Dan Crenshaw, R-Texas, who suggested that his district could be one of those redrawn.
“If we were to really go through with it, districts like mine would obviously be the ones that are targeted because I live in the suburbs. I’m the one you have to take from the rural areas and put in the suburbs, so I’d be basically going back to my old district I guess.”
Republicans’ conversations come as some Democrats have, once again, set their sights on making gains in Texas.
The Texas Democratic Party has launched a new organizing effort with the Texas Majority PAC, an outside group backed by liberal megadonor George Soros, the PAC announced this week.
Texas Republicans are expected to huddle on the topic with White House representatives this coming Thursday, lawmakers told ABC News.
