#politics

In 2024, the Republicans narrowly retained control of the House with 220 seats to the Democrats' 215, the slimmest majority since 1930. That razor-thin margin is why the redistricting battle matters so much.

Every 10 years after the US census, the country’s 435 House seats are reapportioned based on population shifts, triggering a nationwide redrawing of congressional districts. The number of seats in the House has been 435 since 1912, and the only exception was made in 1929 to allow the admission of Alaska and Hawaii into the US.

The most recent census was in 2020, and states completed their redistricting by 2022. Since 2024, however, several states have redrawn their congressional maps again - some successfully, some blocked by the courts - with accusations of gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favour one political party over another. The tactic exists in many countries with district-based voting systems but is most closely associated with the US.

Florida’s new congressional map is expected to strengthen Republican control of the state’s 28 House seats and could help the party gain up to four additional Republican-leaning districts before the midterms.

Texas Republicans redrew congressional districts before the midterms as Democrats fled the state, leaving lawmakers missing during key votes. The new map added five more seats for the Texas Republicans.

Missouri Republicans redrew congressional maps before 2026, aiming to gain one extra House seat for their party.

In October, the North Carolina Senate approved a new congressional map that is expected to make one more US House seat Republican-leaning by reshaping several previously competitive or Democratic-leaning districts.

California voters approved a new Democratic-backed map under Proposition 50, known as the Election Rigging Response Act, in a 2025 special election.

The new boundaries are designed to help Democrats protect and potentially expand their existing 43-seat majority in the state.

Ohio was once considered a major presidential swing state, but Republicans now hold 10 of its 15 House seats, and the redraw is expected to further strengthen the party’s advantage.

...these systems sit squarely in the center of a recent high-stakes battle between the US government and AI startup Anthropic. Anthropic is seeking to preserve two “red lines”: bans on domestic mass surveillance and on weapons that can identify, track, and kill targets with zero human involvement. Since the start of the year, it’s emerged as the only military AI contractor to place meaningful limits on what experts call one of the final frontiers of AI warfare.

At the center of the debates is DOD Directive 3000.09, one of the only policies governing the use of lethal autonomous weapons. Originally written in 2012, it defines such a system as one that, “once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator.” And it decrees that both fully autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons be designed to allow humans to “exercise appropriate levels” of judgment over the use of force.

The directive set up the “first policy on the use of autonomy in warfare,” said Hamza Chaudhry, who leads AI and national security at the Future of Life Institute.

Depending on how you interpret the definition, however, certain missile defense programs may have crossed that line decades ago. Take the Phalanx CIWS, for instance. It’s an automated weapon system resembling a very large gun, built to defend naval vessels from incoming missile attacks. That type of system wouldn’t work if there were a human in the loop, since it has to respond in milliseconds.

The difference, some experts say, is that these systems operate solely in a defense-only, fixed environment. They’re engaging, this interpretation goes, but not deciding — just reacting to an incoming threat. “The ‘and’ is doing a lot of work inside of that statute — we have systems that can decide and systems that can engage but you can’t have a system that does both,” Reddie said.

They're also "killing" missiles not humans.

Google employees argued their company should take a stand — and it did, choosing not to renew its contract amid the controversy in mid-2018. But Amazon and Microsoft quickly swooped in to pick up tens of millions of dollars in contracts for the same work. Palantir soon took over, and Project Maven became the Maven Smart System (MSS), which not only allows for object detection and tracking but also analyzing surveillance data on a large scale.

The sheer volume of targets could make any meaningful human supervision difficult, said Shoker. “What we know about MSS is that it reduces the number of human beings in the targeting cycle — and that’s actually by design.”

While Anthropic might have been all right reducing human intervention, it’s pushed back against setting it to zero. As Google found with Project Maven, though, competitors are more than willing to fill the gap.

OpenAI quickly signed onto the terms Anthropic had spurned. And in the months after snubbing Anthropic, the Department of Defense signed deals with eight companies to deploy their AI on classified networks: Google, Microsoft, Amazon Web Services, Nvidia, OpenAI, Reflection, Oracle, and SpaceX.

Silicon Valley executives are aggressively pushing back against employee organizing and speaking out, including by using AI to identify leakers. And many tech workers already fear for their jobs in an era when AI is set to replace entry-level roles at their own firms.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has held firm on mass surveillance for Americans, but he’s demonstrated no problem with — and in fact expressed his support for — such surveillance for everyone else.

Anthropic’s “very narrow” red lines “do not go far enough to protect human rights or to comply with international law,” said Tech Justice Law’s Batt. “Anthropic specifically talks about mass domestic surveillance of US persons as posing grave civil liberties concerns, but the same civil liberties concerns apply with equal force to non-US persons,” she added.

In a blog post, he said that “fully autonomous weapons (those that take humans out of the loop entirely and automate selecting and engaging targets) may prove critical for our national defense.” Amodei even said he was happy to “work directly with the Department of War on R&D to improve the reliability of these systems” and speed up the timeline for the company’s help in deploying them.

A panel of federal judges blocked Alabama from using Republican-supported congressional district maps that would dilute the votes of Black people in November’s midterm elections.

The ruling in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Alabama, which found that the maps “intentionally discriminated based on race,” sets the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the maps, which were first proposed in 2023, can be used by Alabama this year.

Earlier this month, the Virginia Supreme Court blocked maps for Democratic-leaning congressional districts in that state, which had been approved in a statewide referendum in April.

Republicans last year began a series of congressional redistrictings in an effort to retain their ultra-thin majority in the House. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 4 signed a law creating a new congressional map that is projected to help Republicans add control of four House districts from the state.

Two judges on the panel were appointed by President Donald Trump: Anna Manasco and Terry Moorer. The third judge, Stanley Marcus, was first nominated to a federal district court by President Ronald Reagan and then was nominated to the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, where he currently sits, by President Bill Clinton.

“We do not lightly intrude in state affairs, but our previous review of the undisputed evidence left us in no doubt that Alabama’s legislatively enacted plan (the ’2023 Plan’) intentionally discriminated based on race in violation of the Constitution,” the panel said. “Our re-examination in light of Callais yields the same conclusion. We again cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than intentionally discriminatory.”

“Every cycle, AIPAC shows just how broken our democracy is and how corrupt our political finance system is,” said Usamah Andrabi, a spokesperson at Justice Democrats, a progressive group.

“Every cycle, they are at the forefront of exploiting those gaps for their right-wing donors and at the expense of voters.”

While the Chicago Progressive Partnership — the group whose name appeared on the Amiwala advertisement — was widely believed to be linked to AIPAC, it did not have to reveal the source of its funding until after the elections, which took place in March.

Now that the vote is over, Federal Election Commission receipts show that the sole funder of Chicago Progressive Partnership was Elect Chicago Women (ECW), another PAC. It contributed $1m to the partnership.

In turn, ECW had raised more than $4m from United Democracy Project (UDP), the election arm of AIPAC, and another $1m from investor Blair Frank, one of UDP’s largest donors.

AIPAC also contributed $1.3m to a third PAC, Affordable Chicago Now, in what critics call an effort to conceal its spending in Illinois.

Palestinian rights advocates say this use of “shell PACs” is evidence of how the pro-Israel group has become “toxic” among the US electorate. They argue AIPAC has taken a Russian doll approach — hiding its spending by funnelling funds from one PAC to another — to hide its involvement in primary races.

“They are so unpopular amongst the Democratic Party that they have to hide themselves,” Andrabi told Al Jazeera. “We have to keep exposing them and looking under every rock to see whether or not this shell PAC or that shell PAC is funded by AIPAC.”

Just this week, The New York Times and Siena College released a survey showing that 37 percent of US voters now sympathise with Palestinians, while 35 percent sympathise with Israelis.

That number was even higher among Democratic respondents, 57 percent of whom felt greater sympathy for the Palestinians.

The Pew Research Center suggested an even stronger left-wing backlash. Its survey earlier this year found 80 percent of Democratic respondents said they have unfavourable views of Israel.

Despite its well-documented clout, AIPAC’s organisational structure remains murky, as well as its spending.

On Wednesday, DAWN, the rights group, released a report that relied on LinkedIn disclosures to track the group’s current and former staff members and their professional connections.

It found that many people who worked for AIPAC also held jobs with the US and Israeli governments.

“DAWN’s analysis shows that 66 former AIPAC staffers currently work in the US government, from Congress to the White House to various branches of the military; nearly two dozen current AIPAC staffers previously worked in US government bodies,” the report said.

“The personal and professional relationships that result from this type of revolving door form the backbone of political influence in Washington, which is indicated in the hundreds of professional connections between AIPAC staffers and US federal and state employees.”

Trump's second presidency was described by political commentators as having fewer prohibitions on business activity and guardrails against potential conflicts of interest than his first, and for having more opportunities to directly influence Trump.[567][568] Trump repealed and rolled back anti-corruption measures and ethical standards for himself and his allies, dropped corruption charges against political figures with ties to him, and fired inspectors generals investigating fraud and abuse.

His second presidency was described as breaking with decades of ethical norms,[570] and raising substantial corruption concerns.[571][572] Congressional Republicans largely downplayed or ignored the concerns.[573][570]

Federal judges found many of the administration's actions to be illegal and unconstitutional,[13][14][15] and by mid-July, a Washington Post analysis found he defied judges and the courts in roughly one third of all cases against him, actions which were described by legal experts as unprecedented for any presidential administration.[16] His defiance of court orders and a claimed right to disobey the courts raised fears among legal experts of a constitutional crisis.[574] By August 2025, several grant terminations and spending freezes were found by judges and the Government Accountability Office as being illegal and unconstitutional.[575][576]

The Department of Justice formally announced the fund in a filing on May 18, 2026.[30] The fund, known as the Anti-Weaponization Fund, would compensate individuals who claim that the Department of Justice had been weaponized against them, and is set to end in December 2028. As part of the settlement, Trump dismissed complaints filed against the government over the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago and the Mueller special counsel investigation. According to the Justice Department, Trump and his sons would receive a formal apology, but not monetary payment or damages[31], though the publicly available terms of the fund do not prohibit Trump or his family from receiving payments from it, according to some legal observers.

The following day, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche gave Trump and his family permanent immunity from inquiries into their taxes.[33] According to The New York Times, the settlement likely eliminated a dispute over a US$72.9 million tax refund Trump claimed as the host of The Apprentice (2004–2017).

In response to the settlement, Brian Morrissey, the general counsel for the Department of the Treasury, resigned.[40] The settlement fund was met with skepticism from Maine senator Susan Collins and Kansas senator Jerry Moran, who oversee the Senate Committee on Appropriations.[41] Senate Majority Leader John Thune cast doubt on the fund.

The incident comes amid heightened Islamophobia in the US, where politicians and commentators have repeatedly launched broadsides targeting the Muslim community.

US Congressman Randy Fine, an ally of President Donald Trump, said late last year that Muslims should “be destroyed”.

Later on Monday, Laura Loomer, a right-wing activist close to Trump, said the ICSD should be raided by the FBI and immigration authorities.

She shared a 2023 social media post by the wife of the mosque’s imam, accusing Israel of killing children.

“The mosque that was ‘supposedly’ shot up today,” Loomer wrote in an accompanying post. “Just remember the people who attend this mosque want us all to be killed.”

The justice department announced on Monday it was creating a loosely controlled and secretive $1.776bn fund to compensate Donald Trump allies as part of an agreement in which Trump and his sons dropped a $10bn longshot lawsuit against the IRS.

The money, which critics said was essentially a slush fund, will be overseen by five commissioners – four of whom would be appointed by the attorney general and removable by Trump – who would oversee the body’s work. A fifth commissioner will be appointed “in consultation” with congressional leadership. The fund also has the power to issue “formal apologies” and will send a quarterly confidential report to the US attorney general outlining who has been paid from the fund. There is no requirement that the fund’s work be made public.

There did not appear to be any restrictions on who can seek compensation from the fund. A copy of the agreement released on Monday evening says that claims will be evaluated based on a number of factors, including “the strength of the claim and supporting evidence, the claimant’s actions, any time the person making the claim spent in prison, attorney’s fees, and “other factors the Anti-Weaponization Fund deems just and appropriate”.

Any money left in the fund at the end of Trump’s term would be returned to the federal government.

The agreement was signed by Stanley Woodward, the associate attorney general, and number three official at the justice department. Woodward represented January 6 defendants as well as many Trump allies who came under scrutiny for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election and in the classified documents case.

“I don’t actually see any legal precedent for that. We are a nation of laws, you can’t just make up things whole-piece,” Cassidy told reporters when asked about the legal compensation fund for Trump allies who were prosecuted or investigated by the Biden Justice Department. The administration announced the creation of the compensation fund after Trump withdrew his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service demanding $10 billion in damages for an IRS contractor leaking his tax returns to media outlets. “Somebody explained it to me this way, an attorney. … It is as if somebody sued themselves and agreed upon a settlement with themselves that’s going to be funded by the rest of us. If that’s the case: What?!” he said. “Wait a second, I just came off the campaign trail. People are concerned about making their own ends meet, not about putting a slush fund together without a legal precedent. We’re a nation of laws,” he added. “If there needs to be a settlement, let’s consider it and Congress should come together and decide on that.”

“I voted to uphold the Constitution. When I die, if that’s put in my obituary: He voted to uphold the Constitution, it’s going to be better obituary,” he said.

A larger number of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris and President Trump say they agree, with 80 percent of Harris voters saying there’s too much money in U.S. politics and 77 percent of Trump voters who say the same. Five percent of Harris voters and 4 percent of Trump voters say they disagree. Pollsters also found that a majority of Americans say they think money shapes election outcomes, with 39 percent telling Politico’s pollsters that money can outright buy results. Another 34 percent say money can influence elections, but not buy them. Most U.S. adults, at 61 percent, say billionaires have too much influence in politics, with 15 percent who say billionaires have the right amount of influence. Nearly half of adults polled, or 46 percent, say political parties have too much influence, while 25 percent of respondents say the influence is the right amount. Americans mostly agree that campaign spending by special interest groups is a form of corruption and should be restricted. Fifty-three percent of Americans overall agree, along with 61 percent of Harris voters and 56 percent of Trump voters.

“The CDC is not even a player,” said Lawrence Gostin, an international public health expert at Georgetown University. “I’ve never seen that before.”

Not until late Friday did CDC actions accelerate.

The CDC’s diminished role in this outbreak is an indicator the agency is no longer the force in international health or the protector of domestic health that it once was, some experts said.

The hantavirus outbreak is “a sentinel event” that speaks to “how well the country is prepared for a disease threat. And right now, I’m very sorry to say that we are not prepared,” said Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, chief executive officer of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

For decades, the CDC partnered with the WHO in such situations. The CDC acted as a mainstay of any international investigation, providing staff and expertise to help unravel any outbreak mystery, develop ways to control it and communicate to the public what they should know and how they should worry.

Such actions were a large reason why the CDC developed a reputation as the world’s premier public health agency.

But this time, the WHO has been center stage. It made the risk assessment that has told people the outbreak is not a pandemic threat.

“I don’t think this is a giant threat to the United States,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of Brown University’s Pandemic Center. But how this situation has played out “just shows how empty and vapid the CDC is right now,” she said.

Proponents of work requirements argue that they incentivize people who are “work-ready” to seek and keep jobs, reducing dependence on government assistance and upholding the “dignity of work.”

Rhonda Rogombé serves as health and safety net policy analyst for the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy. She and her colleagues have studied the effects of SNAP work rules and found that requiring recipients to work does not lower an area’s unemployment rate.

Previous work requirements were suspended nationwide during the covid pandemic and reinstated in fall 2023. The researchers found that the average number of people employed in Mingo County each month actually went down after the requirement was reimposed.

A 2018 federal research project that examined several data sources, including SNAP data from nine states, found that work requirements “have no impact on labor force participation and the number of hours worked.”

Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has resulted in the loss of nearly a billion barrels of oil, with the shortage growing worse every day the sea lane remains closed.

Governments and industry will prioritize energy security, Le Peuch and Simonelli said. It is “no longer simply a talking point,” said Jeffrey Miller, the CEO of Halliburton , the other big oilfield services firm.

Investment in oil exploration and production will increase as a consequence, the CEOs said. Low carbon solutions like geothermal, nuclear and grid modernization will continue to see investment, Simonelli said.

U.S. crude oil will become more important that it has ever been in helping the world preserve energy security, said Kaes Van’t Hof, the CEO of Diamondback Energy , one of the biggest U.S. shale oil producers. U.S. crude exports have hit record highs during the war.

The oil market is now “fundamentally tighter” due to supply disruption, Miller said. The market has shifted from expectations of a surplus this year to a big deficit, he said.

Five out of the seven Trump-backed candidates defeated Republican state lawmakers in the Hoosier State who dared to block the president’s calls for redistricting. Additionally, Trump’s backed candidates in Ohio, home to what are slated to be competitive Senate and gubernatorial races, won their primaries.

The U.S. has killed more than 180 people in eight months in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. While the headlines have slowed, the Southern Spear strikes on alleged drug runners have not.

The military continues to release virtually no information about who was killed, on what basis, or with what weapons.

"If the administration wants to compete with China — that seems to be central — and wants to maintain this presence in the hemisphere and wants to be involved in a foreign conflict, then you need a bigger Navy," Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Axios.

Trump took aim at seven Republican state senators in Indiana who opposed his plan to redraw congressional district boundaries to help the party gain seats in the U.S. House. His intervention mostly paid off.

Groups allied with the president spent more than $8.3 million on advertising, an extraordinary surge of money into races that are typically low-profile.

Five Trump-backed challengers won. One incumbent won. A seventh contest was too close to call on Tuesday night.

The races were a test of Trump’s enduring grip over his party as Republicans grow increasingly anxious about

The U.S. Dollar Index, which measures the greenback against other major currencies, logged its steepest six-month drop in more than 50 years in the first half of 2025. Though the decline hasn’t deepened, the dollar index is still about 10% lower than the start of Trump’s term.

A strong dollar makes imports cheaper and can help keep inflation in check. A weak one can increase prices on foreign goods but boost American exports.

Trump has suggested a strong dollar puts the U.S. at a disadvantage and that a weak dollar helps American industry. And as with most things with Trump, he’s been blunter in his messaging.

“You make a hell of a lot more money with a weaker dollar,” he said last year, one of a number of public statements showing his preference for seeing the dollar decline.

Trump isn’t alone in seeing benefits of a weaker buck.

In recent months, corporate earnings calls have been peppered with talk of how a weaker dollar has helped companies from Philip Morris to Coca-Cola, with executives pulling out C-suite phrases like “favorable currency impact” to note how the dip brought tailwinds outside the U.S. that added to bottom lines.

Currency values are constantly moving and, while the dollar’s recent fall is notable, it has reached lower levels at points in the presidencies of each of Trump’s predecessors, back through the creation of the Dollar Index in 1973, when Richard Nixon was at the helm.

Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economist and former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, says while “a lot of policies that Trump is doing are something of a cancer for the dollar,” he believes that it was destined to fall no matter who was in charge.

“The dollar had been on a 15-year bull run,” he said. “I would argue the dollar is still wildly overvalued, and over the next maybe five or six years, it might fall 15%.”

What does that mean for American consumers? Rogoff says commodity prices are likely to rise, particularly with the impact of the Iran war on fuel prices.

“They’re just going to go up,” he says, “no matter what the dollar’s at.”

The Saver's Credit can be used by low- and moderate-income individuals and families to reduce their tax bills.

The Saver's Credit is applied directly to your tax bill to reduce the amount of federal income tax you owe. For instance, if your tax bill is $1,000 and your credit is $400, you'd only owe $600. If your tax bill is $1,000 and your credit is $1,000, it's a wash. You'd owe nothing.

To qualify, you must be 18 or older, not a full-time student, and not claimed as a dependent on someone else's tax return. Then you have to meet the AGI requirements. AGI is your gross income minus adjustments such as deductible retirement contributions, self-employment taxes, educator expenses, and student loan interest.

Of course, the final qualification is that you make a contribution to a retirement account. It's important to note that rollover contributions do not qualify for the credit, and eligible contributions may be reduced by recent retirement account distributions. Contributions to a wide range of retirement accounts qualify for this credit, including:

Traditional IRA
Roth IRA
Traditional 401(k)
Roth 401(k)
403(b)
457 plan
SARSEP
SEP IRA
SIMPLE IRA
Thrift Savings Plan
ABLE account

What is the Saver's Match, and how is it different from the Saver's Credit?

Beginning in tax year 2027, the Saver's Credit for retirement contributions will be replaced by the Saver's Match. While both incentives are designed to encourage lower‑ and moderate‑income workers to save for retirement, they work in different ways.

The Saver's Credit is a nonrefundable tax credit that reduces the amount of federal income tax you owe. By contrast, the Saver's Match provides a government matching contribution—worth up to 50% of the first $2,000 ($4,000 per person for joint filers) you contribute each year—that is deposited directly into an eligible retirement account.