Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen filed an emergency motion requesting expedited review of the state’s redistricting case. The motion follows the Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down a provision of the Voting Rights Act requiring majority-minority House districts. Supreme Court Hands Republicans A Major Win In Louisiana Map Fight “As the appellant in Alabama’s redistricting case, I have taken the legal measures necessary, in cooperation with Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall to ask the US Supreme Court to take quick and decisive action which will allow Alabama to pursue congressional maps that reflect the will of the people,” Allen said. “It is my hope that our right as Alabamians to draw districts will be swiftly restored and that the days of court appointed mapmakers will be behind us," he added. Press Release: Secretary of State Wes Allen Files Motion with US Supreme Court on Alabama Redistricting Read more here: https://t.co/MQXQ1r290T#alpolitics pic.twitter.com/Zh7rhKYoTy — Wes Allen Alabama Secretary of State (@alasecofstate) April 30, 2026 WSFA has more: The motion seeks to lift the Supreme Court’s injunctions blocking Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map, which the Court ruled had intentionally diluted the voting power of Black Alabamians. The decision led to the formation of a second majority-Black congressional district now represented by Congressman Shomari Figures. Marshall claimed that the injunctions cannot survive the court’s ruling on Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais. Marshall filed the motions in three key redistricting cases: Allen v. Singleton, Allen v. Milligan, and Allen v. Caster. “The Supreme Court has now made clear that you cannot assume race and politics are the same thing, you have to actually show they’re separate,” Marshall said, according to the outlet. “Because the lower court’s injunction cannot stand in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, we have asked the court to lift the injunction. Alabama deserves the right to use its own maps, just like every other state," he added. More below: JUST IN: The red state of ALABAMA is now moving to get a new Congressional map drawn by asking the Supreme Court to step in following the anti-racial gerrymandering ruling Alabama has districts that are CLEARLY racially drawn! SCOTUS should step in and let ALL states with… pic.twitter.com/1O1nDaSrie — Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 30, 2026 AL.com shared further: Gov. Kay Ivey cited ongoing court cases when she said she would not ask the legislature to redraw maps immediately. On Thursday, she said she remains “hopeful that Alabama receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.” In 2023, the Supreme Court decided in Allen v. Milligan that Alabama’s new, legislature-drawn map violated the Voting Rights Act. That decision led to Alabama’s current map, which sent two Black officials from the state to Congress for the first time. Alabama tried again to challenge the maps, the case currently pending before the Supreme Court. In 2025, a three-judge panel ruled Alabama can’t use its maps that were struck down and ordered that the state use new maps until new districts are drawn based on the 2030 census. For the past day, Alabama Republicans have tried to figure out how to speed up the process. “I think they should move on this as fast as they possibly can,” said Terry Lathan, former chair of the state GOP.

The House of Representatives has passed a 45-day clean extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In a 261-111 vote, the House passed the short-term extension after the Senate failed to approve a three-year extension. House Votes On Extending Controversial FISA Surveillance Program Axios shared further: House GOP leaders tacked on a ban on a central bank digital currency to win over conservative holdouts who had pushed for broader surveillance reforms. But that provision drew bipartisan opposition in the Senate, where lawmakers opted instead Thursday to pass the 45-day patch. Congress passed an initial short-term FISA extension earlier this month after a group of House Republicans blocked attempts to pass five-year and 18-month renewals of the program. The first short-term patch didn't turn out to be enough time to pass a full extension. Congressional leaders now have an additional 45 days to try to break the impasse. "Today Republicans and Democrats tried to use 'unanimous consent' to pass a 45-day extension of warrantless spying on Americans without voting," Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said. "I did not consent. I was able to force a vote and a debate. I used a rare parliamentary procedure to control half the time," he added. Watch below: Today Republicans and Democrats tried to use “unanimous consent” to pass a 45-day extension of warrantless spying on Americans without voting. I did not consent. I was able to force a vote and a debate. I used a rare parliamentary procedure to control half the time. Watch here: pic.twitter.com/rP5njeHNLF — Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) April 30, 2026 FISA Section 702 empowers U.S. intelligence agencies to collect and review the electronic communications of foreign nationals located outside the United States without obtaining individual court orders. The provision has faced intense scrutiny for enabling the intelligence community to collect information on Americans without a warrant through its surveillance of foreigners. The Hill noted: While some have demanded that intelligence officers go to court to secure a probable cause warrant before querying the Section 702 database on Americans, the intelligence community and its allies in Congress have said they’d be unable to meet that standard, cutting off their ability to access critical information. In the House, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) has pushed a proposal that would require intelligence agencies to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court before looking at information on Americans. But they’d only have to convince the court the search would be reasonably likely to return foreign intelligence information — a lower standard than probable cause.

President Trump announced Thursday that he is removing certain tariffs and restrictions on Scotch whisky, crediting King Charles III and Queen Camilla with persuading him to make a change that others had failed to secure. The move came the same day the U.S. Trade Representative’s office confirmed preferential duty access for whiskey produced in the United Kingdom. Trump connected the decision to Scotland’s ability to work with Kentucky on whiskey and bourbon, a nod to the barrel trade and supply chain links between Scottish distillers and America’s bourbon country. The announcement landed just days after the royal couple’s White House state visit. The story drew immediate international coverage. President Donald Trump said Thursday he is removing certain tariffs on Scotch whisky after this week’s White House visit by King Charles III and Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom.https://t.co/y9S7IoHMwb — PBS News (@NewsHour) April 30, 2026 PBS NewsHour, carrying the Associated Press report by Josh Boak, laid out the trade context and the real economic stakes behind the announcement: The 2025 trade framework had placed a 10% tax on most goods imported from Britain, and the Scotch industry felt the hit fast. The Scotch Whisky Association reported that export volume to the United States fell 15% after those tariffs were announced in April of last year, making the American market a central pressure point for Scottish distillers. Trump connected the change to barrels and the trade relationship between Scotland and Kentucky, where almost all of the world’s bourbon is produced. Scottish officials and spirits industry leaders treated the announcement as relief for Scotch itself, even though the first Trump post left some room for questions about the exact scope. Scotland’s First Minister John Swinney called it a major success and said jobs and millions of pounds in economic value had been at stake. The Distilled Spirits Council in the United States also welcomed the action, framing it as a move back toward reciprocal spirits trade between the two countries. That response matters because the fight was never only about Scotch drinkers. It also touched Kentucky bourbon producers, barrel makers, importers, retailers, and a transatlantic supply chain that had been caught inside the tariff fight. The Financial Times framed the action the same way, reading it internationally as a trade concession tied directly to the royal visit. Trump drops Scotch whisky tariffs ‘in honour’ of King Charles https://t.co/c0Fz1V2jAJ — FT Economics (@fteconomics) April 30, 2026 The official confirmation came from USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer, who issued a same-day statement placing the whisky decision inside the broader U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal: The move was placed inside the continuing implementation of the U.S.-U.K. Economic Prosperity Deal. That framework previously included increased access into the United Kingdom for American beef and ethanol, and it was followed by a pharmaceutical agreement described as a way to drive investment and innovation in both countries. Under the whiskey action, the United States will allow preferential duty access for whiskey produced in the United Kingdom. The same announcement also pointed to preferential treatment for other American and British goods, making the Scotch decision part of a broader trade package rather than a standalone favor after the royal visit. The official trade language gives the announcement a firmer policy frame than Trump’s social-media post alone. The royal visit supplied the public moment, but the duty-access statement tied the decision to an existing bilateral economic deal and to a continuing negotiation over market access for products moving in both directions across the Atlantic. A 15% drop in Scotch exports to the U.S. in a single year is a serious number. Scotland’s distilling sector is one of the U.K.’s most valuable export industries, and American consumers are its biggest foreign market. The tariff pain was real, and the relief, however it shakes out in the fine print, is being received as real on both sides. Trump drops Scotch whisky tariffs ‘in honour’ of King Charles https://t.co/A6mCnHSLG0 — FT UK Politics (@ftukpolitics) April 30, 2026 Trump clearly enjoyed the framing, telling the world that the King and Queen got him to do something no one else could. Whether the credit belongs to Charles’s personal charm, to months of quiet trade negotiation, or to some combination of both, the result is the same: American whiskey drinkers and Scottish distillers are both set to benefit, and the U.S.-U.K. trade relationship just got a little warmer over a shared glass of something aged in Kentucky oak.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sat before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday for what turned into one of the more combative Pentagon hearings in recent memory. Appearing alongside Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, Hegseth was there to discuss President Trump’s roughly $1.5 trillion defense budget request for fiscal year 2027. Democrats had other things on their minds. The hearing marked Hegseth’s first congressional appearance since the Trump administration launched military operations against Iran, and Senate Democrats used every minute of it. The questioning covered the legality and duration of the Iran conflict, allegations of insider trading tied to war developments, the firing of senior military leaders, and whether the administration was respecting the War Powers Resolution. Hegseth did not arrive in a conciliatory mood. In his opening statement, he went after what he called “reckless naysayers” and “defeatist words” from congressional Democrats and some Republicans, setting the tone for the hours that followed. Hegseth argues 60-day clock on Iran war stopped with ceasefirehttps://t.co/AW5QDLeR25 — The Hill (@thehill) April 30, 2026 The sharpest legal clash came over the 60-day War Powers clock. President Trump had formally notified Congress when military operations in Iran began, triggering the War Powers Resolution’s time limit for hostilities conducted without explicit congressional authorization. Hegseth told the committee that the current ceasefire with Iran stopped or paused that clock, an interpretation that would buy the administration more time before it would need Congress to vote on continuing operations. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., rejected that reading on the spot. Kaine told Hegseth he did not believe the statute supported a pause and suggested the 60-day window may expire as soon as Friday. The Hill laid out the stakes of the legal disagreement this way: Hegseth told senators the Iran ceasefire stopped or paused the 60-day War Powers clock, a claim that drew immediate pushback from Kaine. The dispute centers on whether the administration’s military operations remain inside the War Powers Resolution’s time limit once active fighting is halted by a ceasefire. The clock matters because President Trump notified Congress when operations began, and Democrats argue that the law still requires congressional authorization once the 60-day window closes. Hegseth’s position gives the administration room to continue treating the conflict as legally paused during the ceasefire. Kaine’s position would force Congress and the White House into a direct authorization fight almost immediately, with Democrats already preparing another war-powers vote. The argument also gives both sides a clean political line. The administration can say the battlefield posture changed when the ceasefire took hold. Critics can say the statute was designed to keep presidents from stretching temporary military action into an open-ended conflict without Congress. That is why a short exchange over legal timing became one of the central moments of the hearing. HEGSETH: On Iran, we are in a ceasefire right now, which I understand means the 60 day clock pauses or stops. KAINE: I do not believe the statute would support that i think the 60 days runs maybe tomorrow… pic.twitter.com/gMRLKibW7d — Moshe Schwartz (@YWNReporter) April 30, 2026 The legal question is genuinely unsettled. The War Powers Resolution was written in 1973, and its application to ceasefires during an active conflict has never been tested in a clean case. Hegseth’s reading gives the administration flexibility. Kaine’s reading forces a vote. Congress has historically struggled to enforce the resolution against any president of either party, but the current climate around Iran has given Democratic war-powers advocates more leverage than usual. Then came the insider-trading line of questioning. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pressed Hegseth on whether individuals with access to classified war planning had profited from well-timed stock trades tied to the Iran conflict. Warren specifically asked whether Hegseth’s broker had purchased defense stocks ahead of market-moving developments. Hegseth denied it. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Thursday on Capitol Hill about potential insider trading surrounding developments in the Iran war. “It looks like insiders are making out like bandits using secret information about the war,” she said. Hegseth… pic.twitter.com/T3lAwwcM7s — CBS News (@CBSNews) April 30, 2026 The New York Post captured how the broader hearing unfolded beyond the Warren exchange: Hegseth testified beside Gen. Dan Caine before the Senate Armed Services Committee while defending President Trump’s roughly $1.5 trillion defense budget request for fiscal year 2027. The hearing quickly moved beyond budget numbers as Democrats questioned him about Iran, alleged insider trading, senior military firings, artificial intelligence, and the administration’s broader use of force. Warren pressed him on well-timed trades in markets tied to the war and asked whether his broker had purchased defense stocks. Hegseth denied that, telling her the answer was a clear negative. Other senators questioned the removal of senior officers, including concerns over whether black and female officers were disproportionately affected. Hegseth defended the personnel moves by saying merit was his standard and declined to walk through individual personnel decisions in public. The hearing also touched on the Pentagon’s use of artificial intelligence and the military industrial base. Hegseth told senators that AI was not making lethal decisions, then argued that President Trump inherited a defense industrial base weakened by years of bad policy. That let him bring the committee back to the budget pitch even as Democrats kept pushing him toward Iran, personnel fights, and market questions. The Associated Press placed the hearing in the context of a broader two-day stretch on Capitol Hill: Hegseth’s two days on Capitol Hill were his first congressional appearances since the Trump administration went to war against Iran. The Thursday Senate hearing gave Democrats their most direct opportunity to challenge the legality, duration, and strategy of the conflict while the administration argued that its posture had changed because of the ceasefire. He defended the administration’s approach and used his opening statement to criticize what he called reckless and defeatist words from congressional critics. Lawmakers also used the hearing to question the Pentagon’s budget priorities, the scope of recent military operations, and whether the administration could keep acting without a fresh vote from Congress. The result was a budget hearing that became a proxy battle over presidential war powers. The questioning showed how quickly a defense-budget hearing can turn into a referendum on a president’s war authority. Iran was the issue Democrats wanted on the table, and Hegseth answered it while trying to keep the committee focused on military readiness, deterrence, and funding. That tension shaped nearly every major exchange of the day. Warren’s insider-trading questioning grabbed headlines, but it is worth noting that she presented allegations and questions, not evidence of illegal conduct. Whether any trades were improperly timed is a matter for investigators, not Senate theatrics. Hegseth’s flat denial puts the ball back in Warren’s court to produce something more concrete than insinuation. The War Powers fight is the bigger story. If Democrats force a vote and the 60-day clock is treated as still running, the administration will have to either secure congressional authorization or argue in court that the ceasefire changed the legal landscape. That is a constitutional question with real operational consequences for American forces, and Thursday’s hearing made clear that neither side is backing down. What the hearing showed most of all is that the Iran conflict has scrambled the usual Washington dynamics. Hegseth walked into a budget hearing and spent most of his time answering for a war. Democrats who normally avoid defense confrontations smelled political opportunity. And the $1.5 trillion budget request that was supposed to be the main event became an afterthought. The fights over war powers, personnel, and trading allegations will outlast the news cycle. The budget will have to wait its turn.

Barry Christian, an Oklahoma Senate candidate, was found dead two days after being reported missing. Christian’s family said his body was discovered on Thursday. “The 54-year-old Republican launched his bid for the Oklahoma Senate last year and received an endorsement from his friend Kid Rock. Christian was first reported missing when he did not show up for a Tuesday meeting. Authorities later found his pickup truck in the Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area,” Collin Rugg wrote. JUST IN: Oklahoma State Senate candidate Barry Christian found dead after being reported missing. The 54-year-old Republican launched his bid for the Oklahoma Senate last year and received an endorsement from his friend Kid Rock. Christian was first reported missing when he did… pic.twitter.com/3islY2nROW — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) April 30, 2026 News 9 has more: Christian was running as a Republican in the race for Oklahoma Senate District 38. District 38 comprises several communities in western Oklahoma, including: Altus, Mangum, Hobart, Elk City, Hollis, Sayre, Fredrick, Davidson, Grandfield, and Gotebo. “We’re at the Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area in Beckham County where investigators found a vehicle belonging to Barry Christian, a candidate running for Oklahoma Senate, reported missing yesterday,” KFOR reporter Spencer Humphrey said. ***BREAKING: MISSING OKLAHOMA SENATE CANDIDATE’S VEHICLE FOUND*** We’re at the Sandy Sanders Wildlife Management Area in Beckham County where investigators found a vehicle belonging to Barry Christian, a candidate running for Oklahoma Senate, reported missing yesterday. @kfor pic.twitter.com/EmoOzaty3T — Spencer Humphrey (@SHumphreyTV) April 30, 2026 “Please pray for our family and friends. Our world is upside down right now. We are still not sure of everything that happened, so please act with grace and treat my dad’s legacy with dignity. We’re extremely grateful for everyone who assisted in the search efforts, and all of the media outlets that shared his information. I know there will be lots of people devastated by his passing,” Christian’s daughter, Brooklyn, said in a statement. Body of missing state senate candidate found in rural Oklahoma https://t.co/SGyGHEWGgr — The Oklahoman (@TheOklahoman_) April 30, 2026 KOCO shared further: The truck was found crashed into a ravine, and because of where the truck was located, the body has not been able to be removed from the area. Because the body was still inside the vehicle, OSBI said they were unable to identify the person inside. However, a large campaign sign for Christian was found in the area by the truck. The news release said that the circumstances surrounding his death are still under investigation. Watch additional coverage below: