Politics

(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and dealt a blow to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, landmark legislation that has long prohibited election practices that have the effect of diluting the influence of racial minority voters.  

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority effectively raised the bar for challenges to election maps that limit the equal opportunity of minority voters to elect candidates of their choosing, even if lawmakers did not have deliberate intent to discriminate.

Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion, which said that states only violate the Voting Rights Act when “evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After a top Democrat introduced a resolution to hold former Attorney General Pam Bondi in civil contempt, a GOP spokesperson for the House Oversight Committee said Bondi will appear on May 29 for a deposition as part of the panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the committee’s top Democrat, on Wednesday morning introduced a resolution to hold Bondi in civil contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena.

“Just a few minutes ago, we filed official contempt charges against Pam Bondi,” Garcia announced to reporters at the Capitol.

Moments later, a House Oversight Committee spokesperson said that “former Attorney General Pam Bondi is appearing on May 29. We will have more details to share later.”

Garcia applauded the news as he spoke to reporters.

“Clearly, we’re being effective, because it’s interesting how only when we take action and when we actually have to force Republicans to do anything, to call subpoenas, to get in front of our committee that they actually ever do anything,” he said.

“So, I am so glad that Chairman [James] Comer is scared of this group back here, and then we’ll continue to push every single time,” Garcia continued. “So, that’s great to hear. If that’s the truth. I’m glad he told him he made that announcement today.”

Bondi had been expected to testify behind closed doors on April 14 pursuant to the committee’s bipartisan subpoena. But after she was removed from her role by President Donald Trump, the Justice Department said the subpoena no longer obligated her testimony in the Epstein matter.

Bondi’s handling of the Epstein documents and the Justice Department’s compliance with the Epstein Transparency Act was a point of bipartisan criticism, and stoked frustration within the Trump administration.

Garcia’s civil contempt effort, if successful, would elevate the matter to a federal court where a judge would be tasked with deciding whether Bondi is legally obligated to comply with the subpoena.

According to the Congressional Research Service, civil contempt allows Congress to “seek a civil judgment from a federal court declaring that the individual in question is legally obligated to comply with the congressional subpoena.”

In January, the GOP-controlled House Oversight Committee voted to hold former President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton in criminal contempt. The Clintons ultimately agreed to testify, and Republicans dropped the contempt effort.

Comer has depositions scheduled with several other witnesses in the probe through June, prolonging the committee’s Epstein investigation into the summer. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is on Capitol Hill Wednesday for what is formally billed as a routine hearing on the Pentagon’s budget request.

But the appearance — the first before Congress for Hegseth since the war in Iran began in February — lands just two days before a 60-day deadline to wind down hostilities.

It also comes amid intensifying questions on the Hill about how quickly the Pentagon is depleting weapons stockpiles, and as lawmakers continue to scrutinize Hegseth’s unusual spate of firings of senior defense officials without a public explanation.

Questions over civilian casualties in the Iran war, as well as whether the U.S. was properly prepared for retaliatory strikes, and broader questions over the strategic rationale for the conflict, are likely to be a key part of committee members on both sides of the aisle questioning of Hegseth, multiple congressional aides explained.

This week marks Hegseth’s first return to Capitol Hill in nearly a year — with testimony Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee and Thursday on the Senate side — and his first exposure to sustained scrutiny since the war with Iran began. He is joined by Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at both hearings.

While Hegseth has appeared before the press since the conflict began in late February, he has largely limited engagement to reporters viewed as sympathetic to the administration.

At the center of this week’s hearings is the administration’s request for $1.5 trillion in defense spending, the largest amount in the Pentagon’s history and a jump of 50% over current levels, which would mark the largest single-year increase in a generation.

The proposal would triple spending on drones and related technologies to more than $74 billion, while directing over $30 billion toward munitions procurement. But that budget request was developed months ago: not account for spending in the war with Iran.

“The overlap, you’ll see, is the request for munitions, which is something we always need,” Jules Hurst III, acting undersecretary of defense and the Pentagon’s comptroller, told reporters last week. “We always need to increase our magazine depth. But outside of that, there aren’t any operational costs in here from Iran.” Hurst is set to join Hegseth and Caine at the Senate hearing on Thursday.

That means the Pentagon may require additional funding to cover the cost of the vast quantities of munitions being expended as U.S. forces have struck more than 13,000 targets in Iran since February, along with other significant war-related expenses.

Defense experts have long raised concerns about stockpile constraints even before the war with Iran, with some estimates of a potential conflict with China suggesting the United States could exhaust long-range missile inventories within the first few weeks of fighting.

In less than two months of exchanging fire with Iran, the U.S. has used roughly half of certain missiles and other munitions, according to an analysis published last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Retired Col. Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at CSIS and an author of the report, said Operation Epic Fury “does create a window of vulnerability” for a period of as many as four years – the time it would take to replenish stocks.

“The United States has enough munitions to fight this war if it stubs up again,” Cancian said. “But the risk is in a future war with China, where inventory levels are far below where war planners would like them to be.”

Pentagon officials have maintained the U.S. has enough ammo to fight Iran. Though rearming the force with new munitions can take years, with some missiles requiring one to two years to build, reflecting an inherent limit on how many complex munitions the defense industry can produce each year, spurring much of the interest in huge investments in relatively cheap, easier-to-produce drones, which the Pentagon continues to surge into the Middle East.

Hegseth is also likely to face questions on his unprecedented firing or sidelining of two dozen senior military officials, particularly during a time of war, where he recently fired Gen. Randy George, who was the Army’s top officer and John Phelan, the Navy secretary.

Hegseth has also fired numerous lower-profile generals, without explanation, including Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., who was the chief of the Army Chaplain Corps, a collection of clergy from different faiths within the service. He has also blocked the promotion of four colonels to brigadier general, two of whom are women and two are Black, according to two U.S. officials, who both described a secretary of defense intervening in promotions as unprecedented.

Meanwhile, Democrats have failed in their multiple attempts to rein in President Donald Trump’s authority to wage war in Iran without Capitol Hill’s approval.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution gives the president latitude to conduct military strikes for a 60-day window, which closes Friday. The law allows for a one-time 30-day extension for the president to act without the consent of lawmakers, though it is unclear whether Trump intends to do so or whether Republicans will take into account the ceasefire in a way that relieves any deadline pressure.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to self-surrender today in the Eastern District of Virginia, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina on Tuesday indicted Comey over a controversial Instagram post from last year that President Donald Trump and members of his administration claimed was a threat against the president.

The new indictment centers on a controversy that erupted nearly a year ago when Comey, in a since-deleted Instagram post, shared a picture showing the numbers “86 47” written in seashells on the beach with the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.” Citing the slang meaning of “86” as to “nix” or “get rid” of something, allies of the president allege that the post was a veiled threat against Trump, who is the 47th president.

As outlined in the short, three-page indictment, Comey faces one charge of threats against the president and successors, and one charge of transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.

Prosecutors in the indictment say the post constitutes a threat that any “reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

Prosecutors will likely face a high legal bar to prove that the Instagram post constituted a “true threat,” which the Supreme Court in 2023 found required showing an individual understood their message would be perceived as threatening. With the phrase “86 47” increasingly adopted by protesters of the Trump administration, the case could carry sweeping implications for the First Amendment.

Comey was indicted last year on unrelated charges for allegedly lying to Congress and obstruction related to his testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020. Comey’s lawyers moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the case was politically motivated and that the grand jury never saw the charges in their entirety, and the case was ultimately dismissed over issues with the legitimacy of the prosecutor who brought the case.  

“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again, and my attitude is going to be the same,” Comey said in a video posted to social media after the previous indictment was thrown out in November. “I’m innocent. I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary — the gift from our founders that protects us from a would-be tyrant.”

The new indictment comes as the Department of Justice in recent weeks has ramped up investigations of some of Trump’s perceived political foes under Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who is heading up the Justice Department following Trump’s ouster of Pam Bondi.

“Nothing has changed with me,” Comey posted online Tuesday in response to the indictment, echoing what he said after the previous indictment was thrown out last year. “I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary so let’s go.”

“But it’s really important that all of us remember this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be and the good news is we get closer every day to restoring those values,” he added. “Keep the faith.”

This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth heads to Capitol Hill Wednesday for what is formally billed as a routine hearing on the Pentagon’s budget request.

But the appearance — the first before Congress for Hegseth since the war in Iran began in February — lands just two days before a 60-day deadline to wind down hostilities.

It also comes amid intensifying questions on the Hill about how quickly the Pentagon is depleting weapons stockpiles, and as lawmakers continue to scrutinize Hegseth’s unusual spate of firings of senior defense officials without a public explanation.

Questions over civilian casualties in the Iran war, as well as whether the U.S. was properly prepared for retaliatory strikes, and broader questions over the strategic rationale for the conflict, are likely to be a key part of committee members on both sides of the aisle questioning of Hegseth, multiple congressional aides explained. 

This week marks Hegseth’s first return to Capitol Hill in nearly a year — with testimony Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee and Thursday on the Senate side — and his first exposure to sustained scrutiny since the war with Iran began. He’ll be joined by Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff at both hearings. 

While Hegseth has appeared before the press since the conflict began in late February, he has largely limited engagement to reporters viewed as sympathetic to the administration.

At the center of this week’s hearings is the administration’s request for $1.5 trillion in defense spending, the largest amount in the Pentagon’s history and a jump of 50% over current levels, which would mark the largest single-year increase in a generation.

The proposal would triple spending on drones and related technologies to more than $74 billion, while directing over $30 billion toward munitions procurement. But that budget request was developed months ago: not account for spending in the war with Iran.

“The overlap, you’ll see, is the request for munitions, which is something we always need,” Jules Hurst III, acting undersecretary of defense and the Pentagon’s comptroller, told reporters last week. “We always need to increase our magazine depth. But outside of that, there aren’t any operational costs in here from Iran.” Hurst is set to join Hegseth and Caine at the Senate hearing on Thursday.

That means the Pentagon may require additional funding to cover the cost of the vast quantities of munitions being expended as U.S. forces have struck more than 13,000 targets in Iran since February, along with other significant war-related expenses.

Defense experts have long raised concerns about stockpile constraints even before the war with Iran, with some estimates of a potential conflict with China suggesting the United States could exhaust long-range missile inventories within the first few weeks of fighting.

In less than two months of exchanging fire with Iran, the U.S. has used roughly half of certain missiles and other munitions, according to an analysis published last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Retired Col. Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at CSIS and an author of the report, said Operation Epic Fury “does create a window of vulnerability” for a period of as many as four years – the time it would take to replenish stocks.

“The United States has enough munitions to fight this war if it stubs up again,” Cancian said. “But the risk is in a future war with China, where inventory levels are far below where war planners would like them to be.”

Pentagon officials have maintained the U.S. has enough ammo to fight Iran. Though rearming the force with new munitions can take years, with some missiles requiring one to two years to build, reflecting an inherent limit on how many complex munitions the defense industry can produce each year, spurring much of the interest in huge investments in relatively cheap, easier-to-produce drones, which the Pentagon continues to surge into the Middle East. 

Hegseth is also likely to face questions on his unprecedented firing or sidelining of two dozen senior military officials, particularly during a time of war, where he recently fired Gen. Randy George, who was the Army’s top officer and John Phelan, the Navy secretary.

Hegseth has also fired numerous lower-profile generals, without explanation, including Maj. Gen. William Green Jr., who was the chief of the Army Chaplain Corps, a collection of clergy from different faiths within the service. He has also blocked the promotion of four colonels to brigadier general, two of whom are women and two are Black, according to two U.S. officials, who both described a secretary of defense intervening in promotions as unprecedented.

Meanwhile, Democrats have failed in their multiple attempts to rein in President Donald Trump’s authority to wage war in Iran without Capitol Hill’s approval.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution gives the president latitude to conduct military strikes for a 60-day window, which closes Friday. The law allows for a one-time 30-day extension for the president to act without the consent of lawmakers, though it is unclear whether Trump intends to do so or whether Republicans will take into account the ceasefire in a way that relieves any deadline pressure.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday is considering whether the Trump administration unlawfully ordered hundreds of thousands of immigrants living in the U.S. from Haiti and Syria to return home, abruptly cancelling their legal status out of alleged racial animus and without proper consideration of risks to their safety and the nation’s economy.

The outcome in the pair of cases being argued before the court will directly affect the futures of roughly 350,000 Haitian nationals and about 6,000 Syrians.

The Trump administration contends in court documents that the immigrants were never intended to be permanent residents and that cancellation of their temporary status is “critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States.”

Those immigrants were granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) under separate government declarations first issued more than a decade ago and later renewed multiple times, most recently by the Biden administration.

TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation – as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.

Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.

“There is no functioning healthcare system for the disabled and elderly to return to, no reliable housing infrastructure, no legal framework that can guarantee anyone’s safety,” said Syrian TPS-holder and health care worker Adam, a pseudonym used to protect his identity.

Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.

Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.

The Supreme Court is now reviewing those findings.

“If the government is correct, then they can terminate TPS without conducting any country conditions review at all,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy. “The statute requires, in our view, that there be consultation with the State Department.”

Immigrant advocates and some American business groups, particularly in the healthcare and senior caregiving sectors, say TPS holders play an indispensable role in the nation’s labor force and contribute billions of dollars in tax revenue to state and federal governments.

Immigrants make up 28% of the U.S. long-term care workforce – nearly double their share of the entire labor force, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America’s seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.

“The effects of [DHS’s] hasty TPS terminations are too serious to ignore,” a senior living community and ageing services provider jointly wrote the Court in an amicus brief. “The government has largely failed to address the impact that stripping thousands of caregivers of work authorization will have on elderly and medically vulnerable adults in U.S. communities.”

The Trump administration contends that courts have no authority to second-guess the DHS determinations on whether countries should qualify for TPS or not. They note that Congress, in creating the special status, put a time limit on it of 18-months, subject to extension.

“Congress, in short, prescribed substantive and procedural guardrails to keep TPS designations temporary,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer wrote the Court in a brief, “but left further accountability to the political process, not federal courts.”

Sauer also disputed claims that the TPS cancellations rested on racial animus, calling it a “legal and factual nonstarter.”

The cases are the latest high court test of President Trump’s bold assertion of executive authority in his second term. The justices are already preparing to rule on his authority to redefine birthright citizenship, fire members of independent agencies, and remove a member of the Federal Reserve.

The Supreme Court last year handed the Trump administration a temporary win when it allowed them to terminate TPS for 350,000 Venezuelan nationals as litigation continues.

TPS status for Haitians and Syrians remains in place for now, but many immigrant advocates worry that if the Court allows the Trump administration to cancel the status, protections for immigrants of other countries may also end. The Department of Homeland Security has attempted to end protections for at least 11 countries since President Trump took office.

The Court is expected to hand down a decision by the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Kid Rock and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth took a ride in AH-64 Apache attack helicopters around the Washington, D.C., area on Monday, just weeks after the Army drew scrutiny for allowing the same type of aircraft to hover near the pro-Trump musician’s home.

Both helicopters are assigned to the 101st Airborne Division, according to a U.S. official, the same formation whose aircraft initially flew near Kid Rock’s Nashville-area home, where the musician later posted video of himself waving at and saluting the Apaches as they hovered near his backyard.

“Joined my friend @KidRock — and some of our great @USArmy Apache pilots — for a ride this morning. (More to come on that!),” Hegseth said in a statement on social media. “Kid Rock is a patriot and huge supporter of our troops.”

After the Apaches visited the home of Kid Rock, whose real name is Robert James Ritchie, in March, the pilots were initially suspended. Hegseth immediately intervened, saying at the time, “No punishment. No investigation. Carry on, patriots.”

One U.S. official with knowledge of the situation said that the flight on Monday will be made into a promotional video for the Pentagon. 

ABC News has reached out to Kid Rock for comment.

The reversal of the suspension marked an unusual end run around the military’s normal chain of command and investigative process. Hegseth has repeatedly sidestepped traditional Pentagon channels, much of it aimed at the Army, where he has had internal clashes with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. 

Driscoll, who is relatively popular in national security spaces and Capitol Hill, has long been rumored as a potential successor should Hegseth be fired or depart the Pentagon. Hegseth also recently blocked the promotions of four Army colonels to brigadier general and fired the service’s top officer, Gen. Randy George, without public explanation. 

Kid Rock, the rock musician and conservative activist, has become one of President Donald Trump’s most visible celebrity allies, regularly appearing at campaign rallies and other political events.

Military flyovers are not unusual, but they are generally coordinated for major public events, including sporting events, air shows or large ceremonial gatherings, rather than conducted in close proximity to private residences.

“The visit today provided an opportunity for Kid Rock to thank service members, highlight the professionalism of the men and women supporting the mission, and recognize their continued sacrifice in honor of our nation,” Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement. 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans unveiled a bill on Monday that would provide $400 million for President Trump’s White House ballroom project, arguing that such a space is needed following the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, revealing their plans hours before the Department of Justice filed a scathing response to a judge’s injunction on the project.

Senior leadership of the Justice Department overnight filed a motion demanding U.S. District Judge Richard Leon dissolve the injunction he put in place in March, a ruling that said Trump couldn’t build the planned ballroom without authorization from Congress.

In an extraordinary filing, parts of which echo President Donald Trump’s social media post style, the DOJ officials repeatedly accuse the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit of suffering from “TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME” and describes Leon’s injunction as “intolerable,” “unsustainable” and “indefensible.” It also makes a side reference to former President “Barack Hussein Obama,” using his full name in the way Trump often does.  

That filing was submitted to the court hours after Republicans proposed a bill that would provide $400 million in funding for the facility, which they officials have said would feature a newly built ballroom along with military and secret service security infrastructure beneath it.

Trump has said repeatedly that the ballroom would be privately funded.

Both the court filing and the proposed legislation used Saturday’s incident, during which a suspect allegedly rushed through security at the Washington Hilton during an event where Trump was present, as part of their rationale. The suspect, Cole Allen, was charged on Monday with the attempted assassination of the president. Allen did not enter a plea during a court appearance.

“I am convinced if there had been a presidential ballroom adjacent to the White House the guy never would have gotten in,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who is sponsoring the legislation, said in reference to the alleged perpetrator.

Graham said it would be “insane” to hold the dinner in the Hilton in the future.

“Anybody who suggests that we have an event like this in the times in which we live in a facility like Hilton, that’s crazy,” he said. “We are going to have to accommodate the times in which we live.”

The motion was filed following a warning from the leader of DOJ’s Civil Division, Brett Shumate, to plaintiffs in a letter that was posted on Sunday on social media by acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

ABC News asked Blanche on Sunday during a news conference about some of DOJ’s statements in the letter — specifically their determination that the Washington Hilton was a “demonstrably unsafe” site for the president and his Cabinet and whether that was evaluated prior to Saturday’s dinner.

“When he says demonstrably, it’s demonstrated by what happened on Saturday night,” Blanche responded. “So it doesn’t mean that the Secret Service were –would ever let the president go into to an unsafe environment. I know that the director of the Secret Service will be focused on making sure that we always keep him safe. And by the way, as we said before, and as anybody that was in that room knows we were safe. We were safe.”

Blanche on Sunday said that “law enforcement did not fail,” with hundreds of armed agents between the alleged would-be assassin and the president, but the overnight filing included an assertion on its fourth page that the suspect “came horrifically close.”

In their motion to the court, however, the DOJ’s top officials argued that a secure space for the president to attend large gatherings in Washington “currently does not exist” and — even though the proposed ballroom plan schedule has said it would not be completed until at least 2028 — current national security issues require it to continue construction “immediately.”

The ballroom, according to the senators who are proposing additional funding, could be a secure facility where events like Saturday’s gala could take place in the future. Graham said it would ultimately be up to the White House Correspondents’ Association whether they’d want to use the ballroom for the event, but their bill aims to give them the choice about whether to do so.

“We are going to build this facility, and I would suggest to the next president don’t go to the Hilton don’t do an event at the Hilton or any other facility outside the White House given the times in which we live,” Graham said. “The problem is you don’t have a choice. We are going to give people that choice.”

The senators are proposing to offset the cost of the ballroom by using customs fees. Their proposal follows months of assertions by Trump that the ballroom — a proposed 89,000-square-foot expansion of the White House — would be funded “at no charge to the taxpayer.” The initial proposal for the ballroom placed construction costs at an estimated $200 million, according to the White House.

Sen. Katie Britt, R-Al., said on Sunday that the ballroom was about protecting future presidents, not just Trump, since it isn’t expected to be completed until near the end of his term.

“This isn’t even about him. This will not be done until the end of his term. This is about future presidents,” Britt said. “This isa bout our nation having a place to gather where the president of the united states of America can be a part of it. This is about presidents both now and in the future.”

The funding bill would require 60 votes to pass a bill to fund the ballroom in the Senate. It seems unlikely Democrats would furnish those votes, but Graham said he’d like to put the bill up for a vote to put everyone on the record.

-ABC News’ Steven Portnoy and Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s attempt to remake the Kennedy Center faces a critical legal test on Tuesday morning.

A federal Judge in Washington, D.C., is set to hear arguments about an attempt by Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, to block the renaming, planned closure and renovation of the performing arts center.

Beatty, an ex officio trustee of the Kennedy Center, initially brought her lawsuit last year to challenge its renaming to the Trump-Kennedy Center, an action she described as “more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic.”

“This is a flagrant violation of the rule of law, and it flies in the face of our constitutional order. Congress intended the Center to be a living memorial to President Kennedy—and a crown jewel of the arts for all Americans, irrespective of party,” her lawsuit said.

In the months since her lawsuit was filed, the board of the Kennedy Center – handpicked by Trump, who serves as the chairman of the board – voted to shutter the famed institution for a two-year renovation project.

Beatty’s lawsuit has grown to cover both the renaming and the closure of the center, arguing the moves were unlawful and violated the duties of the organization’s board.

“Turning the Kennedy Center into a lifeless husk for two years would also constitute a fundamental breach of Defendants’ most basic fiduciary obligations as trustees,” lawyers for Beatty argued in a court filing.

Lawyers for the Trump administration pushed back on the lawsuit and argued that the renovation is in the best interest of the Kennedy Center.

“Renewal will affirmatively fulfill the Board’s responsibilities to repair and improve the Center in a manner consistent with ‘high quality operations’ while minimizing costs to taxpayers and reducing safety risks that result from conducting renovations during public operations,” lawyers with the Department of Justice argued.

Judge Christopher Cooper handed Beatty a win last month when he ruled that she is entitled to a “meaningful opportunity to provide input” and should not be “categorically barred” from speaking during board meetings. However, Judge Cooper stopped short of ruling on the weightier questions of Beatty’s ability to vote during board meetings or the legality of the changes to the Kennedy Center.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday unveiled a proposed new congressional map for the Sunshine State that his office indicates could let Republicans flip up to four seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

It’s a move that could help the party gain seats and counter Democrats’ recent redistricting victory in Virginia, if the map passes the Legislature and survives likely legal challenges. But some in the state are concerned about how a new map might backfire on the GOP. It is also another volley in mid-decade redistricting around the country, as another state starts the process usually only done once a decade in the wake of Texas, California and other states doing so.

The new map, provided to ABC News by the governor’s office, appears to aim to allow Republicans to flip up to four seats in the U.S. House, leaving just four Democratic-held districts in the state.

The office did not provide any details on how it conducted its analysis, and DeSantis said the redraw is about representation. “Florida got shortchanged in the 2020 Census, and we’ve been fighting for fair representation ever since. … Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting, and it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today,” DeSantis told Fox News Digital, which was first to report on the new map being unveiled.

Dave Wasserman, senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report, wrote on Monday that the map appears to target Democratic Reps. Darren Soto, Kathy Castor, Jared Moskowitz and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Soto wrote on X, “Gerrymander or Dummymander? This map is an absolutely unlawful violation of the Florida Constitution. The Legislature should reject it. The courts should strike it down. That being said, there are 12+ seats that Democrats could still win under this map in this cycle.”

Florida currently has 20 Republican U.S. House members and 7 Democratic ones, as well as one vacant Democratic-leaning district.

The speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, Daniel Perez, confirmed in a memo on Monday that the state House had received the new map and would begin considering it on Tuesday.

An aggressive approach

DeSantis has said Florida’s potential redistricting has nothing to do with Virginia’s efforts to redraw its congressional map, which passed last week and could net Democrats four congressional seats if it survives court challenges.

Some within the Republican Party have said Florida should aggressively redraw its map to counter Virginia, although others have hedged.

President Donald Trump, for instance, was asked by Fox News in an interview on Sunday about his reaction to Virginia’s redistricting and if Florida should ‘make a go at it.’ (Florida is Trump’s home state.) “I do, but that Virginia case is terrible,” Trump responded. 

A Republican strategist in Florida told ABC News, “I think the people who are interested in taking the most aggressive, fighteresque approach … feel a bit emboldened” by what happened in Virginia. “The people taking a more strategic, long-term take on this whole process — I don’t think what happened in Virginia changes their opinion at all.”

Democrats ready to counter

DeSantis had called a special session that’s currently set to begin Tuesday that will include considering mid-decade redistricting, although he had previously delayed the initial date of the session by a week and expanded it to add other issues.

The Legislature also has a complex relationship with the governor, and legislators have been relatively tight-lipped over how it will vote.

The governor has spoken often about mid-decade redistricting in Florida in recent months, but framed his thoughts in terms of Florida needing to redraw its maps due to population reasons — not for political gain.

But Democrats, flush off of a victory in Virginia, say that they’re ready to counter GOP moves. The Virginia election’s certification is currently being litigated in courts.

Could it backfire?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, during a press conference last Wednesday, called potential redistricting in Florida a “DeSantis dummymander” that would backfire on the GOP by weakening seats they currently hold. 

“Our message to Florida Republicans is, ‘F around and find out’,” Jeffries said. “If they go down the road of a ‘DeSantis Dummymander’, the Florida Republicans are going to find themselves in the same situation as Texas Republicans who are on the run right now.”

DeSantis, responding to Jeffries on Wednesday without bringing up redistricting, taunted, “There’s nothing that could be better for Republicans in Florida than to see Hakeem Jeffries everywhere around this state … please, be my guest to come down in Florida. We would love to have you.” 

Some Republicans, however, have openly expressed concerns that any new map in Florida would endanger GOP-held districts because it would weaken those districts politically as it tries to flip other ones, due to how voters could be moved around or respond to redistricting. It’s a key concern in Florida for the GOP, where Hispanic voters — a major bloc — who had moved towards the GOP in 2024’s elections now appear to be moving towards Democrats.

Democrats have also overperformed in Republican-held districts or even flipped seats in recent Florida special legislative elections, including one held in the district that includes Trump’s home of Mar-a-Lago.

“Don’t do it. I’ve said it from the beginning. I’ve been around enough reapportionments to know it’s a slippery slope,” Florida Rep. Daniel Webster told Punchbowl News last week.

And Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar told NBC News last week, “Look, I may be at a disadvantage, because my lines in district number 27 in the state of Florida may be moved, but there’s nothing I can do about it. And I always look at the bright side. This is American democracy. This is the American electoral system.” 

The law and Florida’s Constitution

There are legal considerations at play as well that were not the case in other states such as Texas, California and Missouri that redistricted — as Florida’s state Constitution also has strict restrictions on redrawing constitutional maps for political gain, thanks to provisions known as the Fair Districts Amendments that voters approved in 2010. 

The state’s Constitution says that “In establishing congressional district boundaries … No apportionment plan or individual district shall be drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.” 

“It imposes an explicit prohibition on intentionally redrawing districts to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent,” Jonathan Marshfield, a state constitutional law expert at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, told ABC News.  

“And so this is significant in Florida, because the United States Supreme Court has held … that these were sort of partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court; [there’s] essentially no recourse in the same way in federal court as there is in a state court. One of the challenges, I can imagine, is that these new congressional maps are going to be challenged as not complying with the Fair District Amendment of 2010.”

Marshfield added that “the law is structured such that challenges will, in fact, focus on their actual intent in drawing the lines where they draw them. And so that is a legally relevant inquiry that will be investigated in the course of the litigation.

DeSantis did not address the amendments in his comments to Fox News. But his general counsel, David Axelman, in a letter sent to the Florida Legislature along with the proposed map, argued that the amendments themselves may be unconstitutional.

“Florida’s representation in the U.S. House has also been distorted by considerations of race. Passed in 2010, the Fair Districts Amendments (FDA) to the Florida Constitution require the Legislature to account for race when drawing congressional districts … This requires the use of race in redistricting-something that the U.S. Supreme Court has signaled is unconstitutional.”

A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don’t have procedural mechanisms or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break “quorum” in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won’t matter, and that it doesn’t matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.

A strategist working with Florida House Democrats told ABC News that Democrats in the Legislature don’t have the same procedural mechanism or leeway to slow down the process of passing a map, unlike in Texas in 2025 where Democrats were able to depart the state and break “quorum” in order to hold up legislation. But the strategist said that won’t matter, and that it doesn’t matter if the new map benefits Republicans or not.

“Regardless of if it backfires or not, it’s still illegal,” the strategist argued.

But Marshfield said that those drawing the map will likely have taken the amendment into account: “I’m sure in light of that, that the people drawing the lines, I would assume — I think the courts assume — that they have taken care to comply with the law, so that they are taking care to draw the lines in ways that comply with that amendment.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.