Early voting begins in Virginia’s redistricting election, which could determine control of the House in midterms
The Virginia State Capitol in Richmond, Va., Jan. 17, 2026. (Kendall Warner/The Virginian-Pilot/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(RICHMOND, Va.) — Early voting begins Friday in an unusual off-cycle election in Virginia that could have major implications for control of the House of Representatives in the 2026 midterm elections.
Voters in Virginia are heading to the polls for a statewide election, set for April 21, on a constitutional amendment that would allow their legislature to redraw the state’s congressional map.
This would let the Democratic-controlled legislature implement a new proposed map that would make four GOP-held congressional districts favor Democrats. Given the razor-thin margins of the House — where Democrats only need to net three seats in November to regain control — even flipping that many seats in Virginia could be decisive for control of the chamber.
It’s a gambit that Democrats both in Virginia and nationally say is necessary after Republican-led redistricting in 2025 gave the GOP nine redrawn seats that now favor Republicans across four states.
Former President Barack Obama, in a video released Thursday to promote a yes vote on the amendment, claimed that Republicans pursued mid-decade redistricting “for a simple reason: to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms this fall … This amendment gives you the power to level the playing field in the midterms this fall.”
Republicans have called the plan to redraw seats a political power grab, decrying the move as going against the will of voters in Virginia who previously voted in favor of a redistricting commission.
Rep. Ben Cline, one of the Virginia Republicans whose seat is among those targeted, wrote on X on Wednesday, that “The Democrats’ plan to steal Congressional seats and disenfranchise Virginians is unconstitutional, but we’re going to have to defeat it at the ballot box on April 21.”
Democrats in Virginia’s legislature have already passed their proposed congressional map through the legislature and it has been signed by the governor; it gets implemented if voters approve the amendment. While the map is technically not on the ballot, Democrats have argued that it’s important that voters see the new lines that they are essentially voting on.
Virginia’s Supreme Court ordered twice to let the election proceed in the face of legal challenges to how Democrats passed the amendment through the legislature, although litigation continues to play out.
House Speaker Mike Johnson faces an incredibly tight margin as he can only afford to lose one Republican vote if all members are present and voting on the funding package.
First, Johnson has to clear a procedural vote before debate can begin on the floor and a vote on final passage can be held.
Johnson told reporters on Tuesday that he is confident the package, passed in the Senate after an 11th-hour deal between Senate Democrats and the White House, will pass.
“This may be hard for some of y’all to believe, but I never doubted this,” Johnson said at his weekly news conference Tuesday morning.
The agreement separates a Department of Homeland Security funding bill from five others funding other agencies for the rest of the fiscal year, and grants two weeks of extended DHS funding to negotiate Democratic demands for restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement amid its immigration enforcement operation, including requiring agents to wear body cameras turned on and to not wear masks.
The funding fight over DHS erupted in the aftermath of the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis on Jan. 24.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Johnson over the weekend that Democrats would not help Republicans expedite the funding package.
Meanwhile, hard-line Republicans also threatened to hold the package up in hopes of attaching an unrelated bill that would require a proof of citizenship in federal elections known as the SAVE Act. Though some hard-liners, including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Tim Burchett, appear to be backing down on their demands.
President Donald Trump said Monday that he has spoken to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle and expressed confidence in a resolution coming soon.
Justices of the US Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s monumental 2024 decision granting President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from prosecution, the ruling’s broader impact on American government is beginning to come into focus as Trump and his lawyers repeatedly invoke the case in an effort to get the justices to endorse expansive presidential power.
“That’s not a coincidence, it’s a strategy,” said James Sample, a constitutional scholar at Hofstra Law and ABC News legal contributor. “They’re not just invoking a precedent, they’re building an architecture.”
An ABC News review of the unprecedented 29 Trump emergency applications to the Supreme Court in his second term found that nearly a third directly cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in the immunity case, Trump v. U.S.
Trump attorneys reference portions of the court’s immunity decision at least 21 times to argue for “unrestricted” presidential power to fire executive branch employees; unreviewable control over “matters related to terrorism, trade and immigration;” and absolute authority as commander-in-chief to deploy troops to aid domestic law enforcement.
The Constitution “creates an ‘energetic, independent executive,’ not a subservient executive,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote the court, quoting Roberts, in a September request to allow Trump to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook.
“These aren’t random citations,” Sample said. “The White House Counsel’s Office has read that opinion very carefully, and they are using it methodically.”
The court is still crafting a decision in the Cook case but has generally embraced the administration’s broad view of presidential authority to remove federal employees and supervise agencies.
Since January 2025, however, the justices have not referenced Trump v. U.S. to justify any of its decisions in favor of the Trump administration, leading some court analysts to question why the conservative majority has avoided explicitly invoking its own precedent.
“We just don’t know yet what this case means, and it will be up to a future Supreme Court to define it,” said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUS blog editor and ABC News legal contributor.
On several occasions, Trump appeals relying on the immunity decision have been rejected.
The court declined to embrace Trump administration claims in April 2025 that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was interwoven with the president’s “important foreign relations responsibilities,” which Roberts had indicated in the immunity decision were off limits for judicial review.
A majority of justices also rejected Trump’s argument that a lower court block on his National Guard deployment in Chicago infringed on core constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, which were detailed in Roberts’ opinion in the immunity case.
“They have been making a more powerful president — with more complete control over the executive branch and its employees,” said Isgur of the high court’s conservative majority, “but also a weaker presidency that has to go back to Congress if it wants to move the law in any meaningful way.”
Some legal scholars note the Trump v. U.S. decision also broke new ground by putting in writing the idea that the president has exclusive authority to enforce federal law and unchecked prosecutorial discretion — an endorsement that some say has had at the very least a psychological impact on the president and his team.
Roberts’ opinion enshrines the idea that “investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function” and that the president has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.”
“The Justice Department will likely use [the ruling’s] discussion of the exclusive power over prosecution and investigation to push the bounds of this discretion,” wrote Harvard Law professor and former assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration Jack Goldsmith in a recent law review article.
Trump has asserted himself as the nation’s top law enforcer in his second term, personally directing the attorney general and other top officials on whom to investigate and whom to prosecute.
Trump has pushed indictments of many of his perceived opponents, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Sen. Adam Schiff, and former special counsel Jack Smith.
When six Democratic members of Congress posted a video telling military service members that they had the right not to carry out unlawful orders, Trump said the “traitors” should be “arrested and put on trial.” Efforts to secure an indictment subsequently failed.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Trump immunity case explicitly enshrines the president’s right to active involvement in the cases and others like them.
“The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with the Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Roberts wrote, quoting Article II of the Constitution. Later, Roberts adds on behalf of the court, a president has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials, and the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.”
“Those quotes are also just true as a matter of the Constitution,” Isgur said. “That’s what a president is supposed to do. What’s new is using criminal prosecutors for partisan purposes — and there’s no quotes about that in the case.”
A majority of Americans, 55%, believe Trump is using the Justice Department to file unjustified criminal charges against his opponents, according to a November 2025 Marquette Law School poll; 45% think the charges have been justified.
At the same time, most Americans — 56% — disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, compared with 44% who approve, the Marquette poll found.
“The Court has traditionally proceeded cautiously and carefully when marking out exclusive presidential power because the president is known to run hard when the Court recognizes such power. But it did the opposite in Trump v U.S.,” Goldsmith argues.
“The Court issued an incautious and overly broad ruling on exclusive presidential powers that presidents will use to their advantage against the other branches,” Goldsmith wrote, “until the Court, in more considered reflection, acknowledges its imprudence and alters course.”
Construction cranes are seen the White House on April 16, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Amid intensifying scrutiny of the Senate Republican proposal to spend up to $1 billion on security for the new White House ballroom, top Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Secret Service officials say the money would also be spent on “other critical missions.”
Those missions, they said, would include securing “frequently visited venues” outside of the White House.
In a letter to congressional leaders obtained by ABC News, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Secret Service Director Sean Curran described the proposed billion-dollar package as “critical funding to address urgent needs in response to the unprecedented increase in threats against the President and other public officials.”
The letter said the security upgrades to the “East Wing Modernization Project” will “afford needed protection for the President, his family, and visitors, along with the below-ground security functions.”
The officials noted that, per the text of the Senate reconciliation bill, “none of these funds will be used to support non-security improvements at the White House.”
The Senate proposal, released earlier this week, would provide $1 billion for the Secret Service “for the purposes of security adjustments and upgrades, including within the perimeter fence of the White House Compound to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project.”
Without spelling out how much of the billion dollars would be spent on the ballroom construction project specifically, the officials said the funding would also be directed toward other locations, including “frequently visited venues facing heightened risk due to their public visibility and static nature.”
The text of the Senate’s bill makes no reference to “frequently visited venues” outside of the White House that Mullin and Curran mentioned in their letter.
Also, Mullin and Curran said the additional money would also go toward training USSS agents, USSS training facilities, the Secret Service’s Special Operations Division’s work on drones and biological and “other emerging threats,” as well as securing “high profile national events that require significant planning.”
Overall, the $1 billion package is described in the letter as a “critical infusion to ensure the safety of the current President and future Presidents.”
By comparison, to fund all of its operations, USSS receives more than $3 billion a year from Congress via the regular appropriations process.
