#trump + #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.

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 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.

“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.

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.

If it wasn't for the tariffs, would Colossus be solar-powered? It would be much easier to make it solar powered, yeah. The tariffs are nuts, several hundred percent. Don't you know some people? The president has... we don't agree on everything and this administration is not the biggest fan of solar. We also need the land, the permits, and everything. So if you try to move very fast, I do think scaling solar on Earth is a good way to go, but you do need some amount of time to find the land, get the permits, get the solar, pair that with the batteries.

I just repeatedly tackle the limiting factor. Whatever the limiting factor is on speed, I'm going to tackle that. If capital is the limiting factor,
20:52 20 minutes, 52 seconds then I'll solve for capital. If it's not the limiting factor, I'll solve for something else.

If it wasn't for the tariffs, would Colossus be solar-powered? It would be much easier to make it solar powered, yeah. The tariffs are nuts, several hundred percent. Don't you know some people? The president has... we don't agree on everything and this administration is not the biggest fan of solar.

The Trump administration announced two more payouts Monday for energy companies to walk away from U.S. offshore wind projects under development.

Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind have agreed to end their offshore wind leases in exchange for reimbursements totaling nearly $900 million.

Interior said it’s following the model of its recent deal with the French energy company TotalEnergies, which is getting a $1 billion payout to walk away from projects off the coasts of North Carolina and New York. TotalEnergies agreed in March to what’s essentially a refund of its leases, and will invest the money in fossil fuel projects instead.

Bluepoint Wind and Golden State Wind were slated to be major offshore wind projects, each capable of powering more than 1 million homes when complete and helping the states of New Jersey, New York and California meet their clean energy goals. If the projects were to ever move forward, a developer would have to buy new leases. But under the Trump administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has rescinded all designated wind energy areas in federal waters.

Bluepoint Wind is a partnership between Ocean Winds and Global Infrastructure Partners. Global Infrastructure Partners, a part of investment giant BlackRock, has committed to invest up to $765 million into a U.S.-based liquefied natural gas facility. Interior said it would cancel the offshore wind lease and reimburse the company for the amount invested in the LNG project.

Golden State Wind is a joint venture by Ocean Winds and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. Under its agreement, Golden State Wind can recover about $120 million in lease fees after the same amount is invested in oil and gas assets, infrastructure or projects along the Gulf Coast, Interior said.

In his second term, Trump has gone all in on fossil fuels, which he says will lower costs for families, increase reliability and help the U.S. maintain global leadership in artificial intelligence.

President Donald Trump said Congress must extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) even if it means giving up “rights and privileges.” Section 702 allows for the collection of Americans’ data without a warrant.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie attempted to introduce three amendments to the legislation that would have required law enforcement to obtain a warrant before collecting Americans’ data. His amendments were rejected.  Trump argued that he and Americans should be willing to sacrifice their 4th Amendment right to privacy in exchange for security.

“Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation,” Judge Lin wrote in the order. A final verdict in the case could still be months away.

“Nothing in the governing statute supports the Orwellian notion that an American company may be branded a potential adversary and saboteur of the U.S. for expressing disagreement with the government,” she wrote.

Judge James Boasberg said that the government has “produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime” and called its justifications for the subpoenas so “thin and unsubstantiated” that they were simply a pretext to force Powell to cut interest rates, as Trump has repeatedly demanded.

“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” he wrote.

President Donald Trump’s military strikes in Iran have likely cost American taxpayers over $1 billion using cursory estimates—with hundreds of millions lost on lost aircraft over the weekend—with a price tag that could approach $100 billion, depending on how long it can stretch on.

As Congress returns to session this week amid a new conflict in the Middle East, a crucial question hangs over Washington: Who gets to decide when America's military can be sent to war?

The Constitution says that only Congress has that power, with limited exceptions. In the four days after hostilities began, the Trump administration has struggled to articulate whether any of those exceptions apply to this situation. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has called this a "war," undermining the argument that it's a different kind of military action that doesn't require congressional authorization. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others have said the strikes against Iran were in response to an imminent threat against American troops in the region—only to later back down from that claim. President Donald Trump has made overlapping and contradictory claims about the conflict's aims, and on Tuesday seemed to claim responsibility for initiating Saturday's attack.

Video from bystanders showed that Pretti had not attacked officers, as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said immediately after the shooting. Critics raised further complaints after Noem and Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller both called Pretti a domestic terrorist before an investigation had concluded.

Even without adding in Trump’s own $5.5 billion net worth, Forbes estimates that his top advisors are worth $7.5 billion, more than doubling the $3.2 billion combined worth of Trump’s 2019 Cabinet. (By contrast, Biden’s Cabinet of regular Joes was barely worth $110 million combined in 2021.)

In just the past week, President Donald Trump has ordered defense companies to halt dividends and stock buybacks, and limited executive compensation to $5 million a year; ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion of mortgage-backed securities; ordered an array of energy firms to invest in Venezuelan oil infrastructure, called for a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates; announced steps to ban institutional purchases of single-family homes; and opened a criminal investigation into Jerome Powell's handling of Federal Reserve building renovations in an attempt to influence monetary policy.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday a transcript and video of a closed-door interview Smith gave about two investigations of Trump. The document shows how Smith during the course of a daylong deposition repeatedly defended the basis for pursuing indictments against Trump and vigorously rejected Republican suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated.

“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit,” Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were meant to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.