The Supreme Court’s ruling narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act is already prompting calls from Republicans to redraw congressional maps, a move that could create more GOP-friendly seats, particularly across the South. In Tennessee, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) on Wednesday encouraged state lawmakers to reconvene and redraw district lines in a way that could flip a Democratic-held seat. “I urge our state legislature to reconvene to redistrict another Republican seat in Memphis. It’s essential to cement [Donald Trump’s] agenda and the Golden Age of America,” Blackburn, who’s running to succeed Tennessee Republican Gov. Bill Lee, posted to X following the decision. “I’ve vowed to keep Tennessee a red state, and as Governor, I’ll do everything I can to make this map a reality,” she added. Memphis is currently represented by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) in a heavily Democratic district. I urge our state legislature to reconvene to redistrict another Republican seat in Memphis. It’s essential to cement @realDonaldTrump’s agenda and the Golden Age of America. I’ve vowed to keep Tennessee a red state, and as Governor, I’ll do everything I can to make this map a… pic.twitter.com/qljW0mxiqG — Marsha Blackburn (@VoteMarsha) April 29, 2026 The court’s 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais found that the state violated constitutional limits by drawing a majority-minority district predominantly on the basis of race. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,” adding that “lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s […] precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.” “The State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Alito wrote. The full implications of the ruling remain unclear, but it could open the door for challenges to similar race-based districts in other states. In Alabama, Attorney General Steve Marshall, a Republican, said the state would move quickly to ensure its maps “reflect the will of the people, not a racial quota system the Constitution forbids.” “The Court rightly acknowledged that the South has made extraordinary progress, and that laws designed for a different era do not reflect the present reality,” Marshall stated. Mississippi Republican Gov. Tate Reeves signaled even before the ruling that he was prepared to call a special session to redraw maps, particularly affecting the state’s deep blue 2nd Congressional District. “It is a decision that could (and in my view should) forever change the way we draw electoral maps,” Reeves wrote last week. In Georgia, Republican state Sen. Greg Dolezal called on lawmakers to revisit district lines, arguing that the current maps should be redrawn to benefit Republicans. “The last thing that Republicans need to do is be weak-kneed in this moment. This is a time to be bold. This is a time to be aggressive,” Dolezal, who’s running for lieutenant governor, said in a video. Democrats, meanwhile, blasted the decision. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the court “just turned its back on one of the most sacred promises in American democracy—the promise that every voice counts.” The ruling lands amid an already intensifying redistricting battle ahead of the 2026 midterms, with both parties seeking an edge in the fight for control of the House during the final stretch of President Donald Trump’s term.

The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged on Wednesday as Jerome Powell presided over his last meeting as chairman. The Fed held the rates steady at 3.5-3.75%, set after the last cut in December of 2025, in a split (8-4) vote — the highest dissent level since 1992. Amid the ongoing tensions in Iran, the Federal Reserve has been engaged in a difficult balancing act, facing threats from inflation — with oil prices up 70% on the year — and a weakening labor market, but the split vote suggests that at least a few members favor lowering rates. The Wednesday Federal Reserve meeting was Powell’s last as Fed chair, as his term is set to conclude on May 15. Despite the fact that he was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018, the two have had a rocky relationship. Trump often complained that Powell was not moving quickly enough to lower interest rates, nicknaming him “Too Late Powell.” Critics of Powell also argue that he was too late in raising interest rates during the Biden administration.  “In retrospect, if you look at the data we now have, the Fed should have moved in the fall and maybe even the summer,” said Scott Lincicome, director of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute.  Trump appointee Kevin Warsh is expected to move more quickly on interest rates, having criticized the Fed for reacting too slowly to inflation. At the same time, Warsh is likely to push for a reduction in the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, which expanded rapidly when the Federal Reserve resumed quantitative easing (QE) in 2020 during the COVID pandemic. Quantitative easing injects liquidity into the market through the purchase of bonds — and Warsh argued that the adoption of similar contingency policies had continued long after the crisis had ended, contributing to rising inflation. Warsh’s appointment was initially held up due to a criminal investigation into the Federal Reserve’s $2.5 billion renovations under Powell. Although Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he had full confidence in Warsh as a qualified nominee, he blocked the confirmation from proceeding because he disagreed with the DOJ’s decision to investigate Powell. “Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable,” he said. Tillis chalked up the criminal allegations against Powell to a “young U.S. Attorney with a dream trying to get the president’s attention.” Others, like Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), echoed the sentiment, saying he thought Powell made a “gross error in judgment,” but did not believe Powell committed a crime. The DOJ ultimately dropped the investigation against Powell, clearing the way for Warsh and ensuring that Wednesday’s meeting would be Powell’s last as Fed chair.

A Democratic congresswoman highlighted criticism of President Donald Trump from podcasters Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, and Candace Owens while questioning War Secretary Pete Hegseth during a fiery committee hearing on Wednesday. Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) asked Hegseth if he believes Trump “is mentally stable enough to be the commander-in-chief” and brought up a number of former Trump-supporting podcasters who are now questioning the president’s mental acuity. “In fact, many, many Republicans have had the same questions,” Jacobs said. “Marjorie Taylor Greene said he’s out of control and he’s gone insane. Candace Owens said the 25th Amendment needs to be invoked — Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, who you used to work with, Alex Jones, Stephanie Grisham, the list could go on.” Hegseth dismissed Jacobs’ question and ripped Democrats for raising questions on Trump’s ability to lead after the party turned a blind eye to issues around former President Joe Biden. “Did you ask the same question of Joe Biden for four years?” Hegseth shot back. “You did not, and I won’t even engage with the level of disparagement that you’re putting on the commander-in-chief … he’s the sharpest and most insightful commander-in-chief we’ve had in generations. And you want to ask that question after you and your fellow Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak and didn’t know what day of the week it was. He governed with an autopen. You had a secretary of defense who went AWOL for a week.” The heated exchange took place during a House Armed Services Committee hearing, where Hegseth and Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, faced questions about the ongoing war in Iran. The war has enraged Democrats and podcasters who used to support Trump — like Carlson, Kelly, and Owens — who have ramped up their criticism of Trump in recent weeks. Carlson, who recently apologized for endorsing Trump in 2024, has repeatedly accused Trump of conducting the military operation in Iran at Israel’s bidding. He also claimed earlier this month that Trump was considering using a weapon of mass destruction “on the population of Iran.” Kelly has also claimed that Trump is being played by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and said the president is “too weak” and “too gullible” to push back on Israel’s demands. Owens, meanwhile, has called the Trump administration “satanic” and referred to Trump as a “Mad King,” while urging the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove the president from office. Trump blasted the podcasters earlier this month, calling them “nut jobs,” “troublemakers,” and “stupid people.” The president also pointed out that the podcasters are being hailed by the Left for their opposition to his administration. “These so-called ‘pundits’ are LOSERS, and they always will be! Now Fake News CNN, The Failing New York Times, and all of the other Radical Left ‘News’ Organizations, are ‘hailing’ them, and giving them ‘positive’ press for the first time in their lives,” Trump said. “They’re not ‘MAGA,’ they’re losers, just trying to latch on to MAGA.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply limited the ability of states to consider race when drawing congressional maps, a decision that could reshape the balance of power in Washington and intensify redistricting battles ahead of the 2026 midterms. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito struck down Louisiana’s congressional map, which included two majority-black districts, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In the court’s 36-page opinion, Alito emphasized that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race,” framing the central question as whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act justifies such actions. For the court’s conservative wing, the answer was no. “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” the court’s opinion held. The 6–3 ruling stopped short of overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but it significantly restricts how states can use race in redistricting, a shift that could weaken a key mechanism for creating majority-minority districts. In a bitter dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned of sweeping consequences that “are likely to be far-reaching and grave.” “Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote. “In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process.” Louisiana will be required to redraw its maps, and other Republican-led states will likely revisit their own districts amid an escalating nationwide redistricting battle. Ryan Girdusky, a conservative political consultant and host of the podcast “It’s A Numbers Game,” said he expects the White House to pressure Republican-led states to act ahead of the November elections. “I think the White House was genuinely caught off guard with how ambitious blue states would be, like California and Virginia, to redistrict their states in retaliation to Missouri and Texas,” Girdusky told The Daily Wire. “And because they are on the losing side of this calculation, as of right now, of this redistricting calculation, and because Indiana failed to redistrict, there’s going to be immense pressure on all southern states to redistrict black, majority, mostly rural districts, into Republican districts.” New maps in Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee could net Republicans as many as 12 seats in Congress, according to a New York Times analysis.  Blue states, including California and Virginia, have passed referendums expected to add Democratic seats. The Virginia Supreme Court is currently considering Republican-backed legal challenges. “If Virginia cannot redistrict, if Virginia has to go back to its old district lines, and we have a situation where they go back to their old lines, and the South is able to redistrict, it absolutely could be game-changing as far as the midterms go,” Girdusky added. Democrats sharply criticized the ruling. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin called Wednesday’s ruling a “dark day for America,” arguing the court “effectively killed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a major step back in the fight for racial justice and fair representation.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) described the decision as a “sledgehammer to one of the most important civil rights laws in American history.” For Justice Clarence Thomas, who grew up in the segregated South, the court’s ruling didn’t go far enough. “As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all,” Thomas wrote, calling the court’s prior approach a “disastrous misadventure.”

Good-faith skeptics and bad-faith conspiracy peddlers from TikTok live streams to Substack sleuths are flooding the online ether with lies and half-truths about the attempted assassination of President Trump and his senior team at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night. Some, potentially motivated by TDS, insist it was a false flag operation staged by the government. Others claim there was no shooting at all and the only shots were due to friendly fire. Never mind that the Department of Justice has already charged the 31-year-old suspect (whom I won’t name) with, among other felonies, one count of “discharging a firearm during a crime of violence” — a charge that would make zero sense if he never pulled the trigger. The central thesis for many who assert the government is lying to us about the events of April 22, including Garrett Graff, rests on the initial criminal complaint against the 31-year-old suspect. Skeptics and cynics point to the complaint’s use of passive voice, the absence of an explicit allegation or perceived audio evidence that the assailant fired the first round, the timeline, and the employment of TSA agents at magnetometers. Graff specifically notes the absence of a charge for “assaulting a federal officer” under 18 U.S.C. § 111, which one would expect to see if someone shot a Secret Service officer. That’s a fair observation. Except, it ignores the fact that this is the initial charging document filed less than 48 hours after the incident and is designed to focus on what can be immediately proven from preliminary evidence and witness statements — how federal prosecutions are supposed to begin. He goes on to suggest the single unaccounted shot could have been friendly fire from another federal agent. Citing the Wall Street Journal analysis showing six total shots fired on ballroom recordings, Graff argues none of them “sound to me like a shotgun” — implying the first shot wasn’t the gunman’s at all but came from a service pistol. Well, hold on. Nathan Howard/Getty Images The publicly available audio does capture a distinct initial pop followed by five rapid return shots from the officer’s service weapon. A 12-gauge shotgun fired indoors is obviously loud, but so is a 9mm or .40-caliber service pistol fired in a hotel. The presence of six shots, not five, is precisely why the DOJ’s theory is that the gunman fired just once. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has already explained the government’s early working theory of what happened: a preliminary review found an empty spent shotgun shell still inside the chamber of the 12-gauge pump-action shotgun the assailant was carrying when he sprinted through the magnetometer. A spent shell in the chamber of a pump-action shotgun is strong circumstantial evidence that it was cycled and fired. Ballistics experts are still doing the detailed work, including gunshot residue testing, trajectory mapping, and audio forensics, to confirm exactly which weapon produced the first shot. Graff also questions the timeline and the perpetrator’s actions captured on surveillance cameras. In the video, the attacker is seen sprinting past the magnetometer, shotgun in hand. He is off camera for just a few seconds, where he would have presumably readied his weapon before firing. Graff argues that there simply would not be enough time for him to bring his shotgun to bear, and fire at close range — something he calls “challenging” for “someone even far more experienced with firearms than [defendant] appears to be.” Yet, the entire sequence from breach to tackle was recounted by eyewitnesses, body-worn cameras (standard for Uniformed Division officers), and venue security. While the video doesn’t show the exact trigger pull, the audio, the spent casing, the officer’s vest impact, subsequent injury, and the shooter’s immediate arrest with a loaded shotgun and .38-caliber pistol help shape the story as more evidence comes to light. Acting AG Blanche has been explicit, saying more forensic examination is underway. On Monday, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro reinforced that these are just the initial charges by saying, “More to come.” The American public can expect the complaint to be superseded with additional details from the ballistics report and full video review. You can bank on one of the additional charges being §111, “assault against a federal officer.” Perhaps his weakest point, Graff notes that TSA personnel were helping run some of the magnetometers — a fact he presents as evidence that the Secret Service was “overstretched.” Well, speaking as a former Homeland Security official, I know firsthand that supplemental screening by partner federal agencies is routine for mega-events like the Correspondents’ Dinner, which requires layered security. That is standard interagency support. Those who say the DOJ may be “misleading the public” or exaggerating the threat to keep the events of April 25 “scary or threatening” are belied by the investigation’s transparency: releasing the complaint quickly, the president and DOJ officials’ late-night press conference hours after the shooting, and the Acting AG’s daily interviews or press conferences every day since. Six gunshots, an injured officer, a suspect tackled with two loaded firearms, the pre-attack email signed “‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen,” the manifesto found in his hotel room, and his cross-country train trip specifically for this event don’t simply vanish because the first complaint was conservatively worded or because ballistics work takes time. Americans can and should be skeptical about what the U.S. government tells us — we’ve been lied to in the past — but the facts in this case simply don’t fit the fiction that TikTok investigators or Substack sleuths are serving up. Skepticism is wise, sanity is essential. * * * Tricia McLaughlin served as the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the Department of Homeland Security. Follow her on X: @TriciaOhio