Democratic lawmakers are defending redistricting efforts across the country, calling their efforts a necessary foil to similar Republican-led plans, while arguing vulnerable Republicans should have fought harder to prevent the «arms race» reshuffling district lines nationally.

«I feel like the system is fundamentally broken, but let’s be clear, Republicans began the redistricting arms race. And so, Democrats are left with no choice but to level the playing field for the sake of democracy,» Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., told Fox News Digital.

Lawmakers’ comments come as the Supreme Court handed down a decision on Wednesday, reshaping the framework of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and opening the door to the possibility of fresh redistricting efforts ahead of the 2026 midterms.

In its 6-3 decision delivered along ideological lines on Wednesday, the court struck down Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2024 to have a predominantly Black electorate. The court also ruled that states may not use race to either draw districts that disenfranchise voters or help minority communities support their preferred candidates.

SUPREME COURT ORDERS NEW ARGUMENTS IN PIVOTAL ELECTIONS CASE

It’s unclear which states may re-evaluate their maps in light of the decision.

«This is a very nefarious thing that the Supreme Court has done, and it’s a very desperate thing that Republicans are doing to cling to unearned power,» Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., said.

Since President Donald Trump urged state lawmakers to expand the GOP’s 217-213 majority by eliminating five Democratic seats in Texas, states including California, Utah, Missouri, Louisiana, Ohio, Virginia and North Carolina have followed suit.

Most recently, the Florida legislature approved a plan to eliminate up to four Democratic districts.

DESANTIS LAUNCHES FLORIDA REDISTRICTING PUSH TO POTENTIALLY ADD MORE GOP HOUSE SEATS

Florida state Rep. Angie Nixon, a Democrat, attempted to disrupt final approval of a Gov. Ron DeSantis-backed redistricting bill by shouting on the House floor with a bullhorn. (Wilfredo Lee, File/AP Photo; Rep. Angie Nixon, official government website)

While most Democrats have laid blame for the avalanche of redistricting efforts on Trump, others believe a desire to use redistricting to carve out partisan advantages goes back much farther.

«I put this all on Democrats,» Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Texas, said.

«In 2003, when Tom DeLay was majority leader, and he said that he wanted to get rid of five Democrats in Texas, we didn’t respond. We let him slap us around, we let him come around and slap us, and we didn’t do anything about it,» Veasey said, referring to another mid-decade Republican redistricting effort that went unchallenged by Democrats in other states.

Veasey believes this time around, vulnerable Republicans in Democratic-leaning states invited their own demise by not voicing opposition to the Republican efforts in Texas.

«They didn’t say anything. The time to speak up, especially the Republican members from California, the time for them to speak was back then and they didn’t,» Veasey said.

BETO ENCOURAGES DEMOCRATS TO FIGHT ‘FIRE WITH FIRE’ IN TEXAS REDISTRICTING BATTLE

Rep. Marc Veasey speaks during a news conference outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on July 23, 2025. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Rep. Christian Menefee, D-Texas, like many of his Democratic colleagues, lamented the redistricting struggle but argued that pretending that the situation didn’t exist was unrealistic.

«Look, in a perfect world, we would not have any political gerrymandering. We wouldn’t have folks trying to draw black and brown people out of their districts and then putting the partisan cover over the top. But because we don’t live in that world, we’ve got to fight fire with fire,» Menefee said.

La administración del presidente estadounidense Donald Trump aprobó ventas militares por más de USD 8.600 millones a sus aliados de Medio Oriente. Israel, Qatar, Kuwait y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos figuran entre los países beneficiados por estas transacciones, anunciadas por el Departamento de Estado el viernes.

El secretario de Estado estadounidense, Marco Rubio, determinó que existía una emergencia que requería la aprobación inmediata de las ventas, por lo que quedaron exentas de los procedimientos habituales de revisión por parte del Congreso.

Entre las operaciones autorizadas se encuentra la venta a Qatar de servicios de reabastecimiento de defensa aérea y antimisiles Patriot por USD 4.010 millones, además de sistemas avanzados de armas de precisión (APKWS) por USD 992,4 millones.

El permiso para Kuwait incluyó un sistema integrado de mando de batalla por USD 2.500 millones, mientras que Israel recibió autorización para adquirir sistemas APKWS valorados en USD 992,4 millones. Los Emiratos Árabes Unidos podrán acceder también a APKWS por USD 147,6 millones.

El Departamento de Estado especificó que BAE Systems (BAES.L) es el contratista principal en las ventas de APKWS a Qatar, Israel y los Emiratos Árabes Unidos. RTX (RTX.N) y Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) lideran los contratos para el sistema de mando de batalla a Kuwait y el sistema Patriot a Qatar. Northrop Grumman (NOC.N) figura como contratista principal en la venta a Kuwait.

En paralelo, la agencia de telecomunicaciones de la ONU condenó los ataques de Irán contra la infraestructura de telecomunicaciones en Medio Oriente desde el inicio de la guerra. La Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones (UIT) indicó que mantiene una supervisión sobre las consecuencias de estos incidentes.

El Consejo de Cooperación del Golfo, con el respaldo de Jordania, presentó una demanda ante la UIT por los ataques dirigidos a las redes de comunicaciones en Bahréin, Kuwait, los Emiratos Árabes Unidos y Jordania.

La aprobación de las ventas de armamento coincide con el contexto de la guerra entre Estados Unidos e Israel contra el régimen iraní, que suma nueve semanas desde su inicio y más de tres semanas de un alto el fuego. Las negociaciones, pausadas por las exigencias de Teherán, no vislumbran un final concreto del conflicto.

Desde Estados Unidos, el inquilino de la Casa Blanca expresó el viernes su insatisfacción con la nueva propuesta de Irán para iniciar negociaciones de paz con Washington, en un contexto marcado por el estancamiento de las conversaciones y la vigencia de un alto el fuego desde hace varias semanas.

“En este momento no estoy satisfecho con lo que están ofreciendo”, afirmó Trump ante periodistas, aunque reconoció que el régimen iraní “ha hecho avances” en las conversaciones con Estados Unidos. El mandatario también admitió no estar seguro de que Irán pueda cumplir con los requisitos solicitados por su administración.

Consultado sobre la posibilidad de enviar una nueva delegación a Pakistán para reanudar conversaciones, luego de la cancelación del viaje la semana pasada, Trump respondió: “Sentimos un gran respeto por Pakistán e Islamabad, y un enorme respeto por el primer ministro y el mariscal de campo. Están colaborando con nosotros. Siguen colaborando con nosotros”.

El presidente añadió que, a pesar de la distancia, su administración “está haciendo todo lo posible en cuanto a negociaciones en este momento”, en referencia a las comunicaciones telefónicas sostenidas entre las partes.

Luego, durante un discurso en Florida, Trump atribuyó a los bombarderos B-2 la interrupción del programa nuclear iraní antes de que Teherán pudiera desarrollar un arma atómica. “Si no hubiéramos hecho eso, habrían tenido un arma nuclear. Israel habría quedado destruido. El Medio Oriente habría quedado destruido. Creo que Europa también”, afirmó.

A su vez, describió a Irán como una potencia militar desmantelada. Según sus palabras, el país no dispone de armada, fuerza aérea, equipos antiaéreos, radar ni liderazgo operativo: “Sus líderes han desaparecido. El primer grupo, el segundo grupo, Khamenei, todos se han ido”.

El conflicto comenzó el pasado 28 de febrero, cuando Estados Unidos e Israel atacaron a Irán, que respondió con ataques propios contra Israel y estados del Golfo con bases estadounidenses.

(Con información de Reuters)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on claims this week that ending deportation protections for Haitian migrants was racially motivated, pressing an attorney to explain how that argument works when the policy has been applied broadly to migrants from many countries.

«You have a really large — you have a really broad definition of who’s White and who’s not White,» Alito, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said during oral arguments, challenging a claim leveled by the migrants’ lawyer that the Trump Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intentionally targeted non-White migrants when it decided to terminate their temporary protected status (TPS).

The exchange came as the Supreme Court weighed a high-stakes case over the Trump administration’s authority to end TPS protections for tens of thousands of Haitian and Syrian migrants. 

The high court’s decision could strip their legal protections and have similar implications for hundreds of thousands of other migrants, meaning DHS could then move to detain and deport them.

TRUMP FOES MELT DOWN THAT SCOTUS IS UNLEASHING ‘RACIAL TERROR’ ON US WITH ICE RAID RULING

Congress created temporary protected status as a form of protection for migrants fleeing war and natural disaster, and the law requires DHS officials to periodically review whether an origin country qualifies under those terms.

Attorney Geoffrey Pipoly, representing the migrant plaintiffs during oral arguments, argued the courts had some authority to review the government’s TPS decisions and that the decision to end the protected status for Haitians, in particular, did not follow the law because it was driven by racial bias against «non-White immigrants.»

«The president has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a ‘s—hole country,’ and days after falsely accusing them of ‘eating the dogs and eating the cats of Americans,’ he vowed that he would terminate Haiti’s TPS, and that is exactly what happened,» Pipoly said.

Alito grilled the lawyer over the claim, noting the government’s TPS terminations applied to a range of countries.

«Do you think that if you put Syrians, Turks, Greeks and other people who live around the Mediterranean in a lineup, do you think you could say those people, that all of them, are they all non-White?» Alito asked.

«I don’t like dividing the people of the world into these groups.»

Alito began to test Pipoly on which bucket he would sort various nationalities into, White versus non-White, leading Pipoly to argue that the bar for finding racial animus was low.

SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

A protester raises a sign seeking protection for Haitians in the U.S.  (Lynne Sladky/AP)

«Irrespective of how you do the classification … bare dislike of an unpopular group is a sufficient basis,» Pipoly said.

The case is centered on whether courts can review the government’s TPS decisions and the processes that went into reaching those decisions. Migrants’ lawyers have also made arguments that DHS officials failed to properly assess a country’s conditions or relied on unlawful factors, such as whether termination was of national interest.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) told the Supreme Court those decisions are not subject to judicial review and fall solely under the purview of the executive branch. The DOJ warned that allowing challenges could open the door to widespread litigation over immigration policy. 

The migrants’ lawyers, meanwhile, argued in court papers that the DOJ had taken an «extreme position that would insulate flagrantly unlawful executive action from judicial review.»

COURT OF APPEALS TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN HIGH-PROFILE DEPORTATION SUIT INVOLVING VENEZUELAN NATIONALS

The facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., in October 2024. (Valerie Plesch/picture alliance)

The conservative justices appeared largely sympathetic to the Trump administration’s arguments, while the liberal justices zeroed in on whether the government’s alleged racial bias could be unconstitutional.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, suggested Trump’s public claim that migrants are «poisoning the blood of America» would be a violation of constitutional prohibitions on discrimination by the government, since it was «showing that a discriminatory purpose may have played a part in this decision» to end temporary protected status. 

Homeland Security has already terminated the legal status of migrants from six countries, including Venezuela and Honduras, moves that the Supreme Court temporarily greenlit through previous emergency requests. The high court is making a decision on the merits regarding the Haitians and Syrians, meaning it will carry finality and could apply more broadly.

The status of migrants from seven other countries remains on hold while the case is pending, including more than 6,000 Syrian and almost 350,000 Haitian migrants, as well as those from Ethiopia, Myanmar, Yemen, Somalia and South Sudan.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by the end of June.

Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.