Federal court blocks Alabama effort to use GOP-friendly congressional map
The Alabama Capital Building in Montgomery, Alabama, U.S., on Saturday, Sept. 24, 2022. (Andi Rice/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A three-judge panel in a federal court in Alabama ruled unanimously on Tuesday that state Republicans are still blocked from using their 2023 congressional map, which would have potentially helped Republicans in November.
The judges, including two appointed by President Donald Trump, concluded that the high court’s recent ruling on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has no bearing on this case, in which lower courts found the 2023 map represents a constitutional violation.
“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the judges wrote in their ruling.
In 2024, Alabama had been required to use a map with two majority-Black districts, one of which was won by Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. But in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, some state lawmakers and the governor delayed some of Alabama’s House elections, although others were held on May 19 as scheduled.
As of now, Alabama must move forward with the 2024 map, unless, the court noted on Tuesday, lawmakers want to attempt to enact a new congressional district plan at this late hour, which it is free to do.
Figures, in a statement to ABC News, said that he also expected further legal battles. The 2023 map was expected to potentially help Republicans flip Figures’ seat in November.
“I am pleased with the Court’s decision, but this case is still not over,” Figures said. “Although we expected the Court to reach this decision given the overwhelming evidence, we fully expect the State to immediately appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled.”
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said he is “disappointed” by the decision and said there will be an appeal effort.
“I am disappointed, but not at all surprised, that the three-judge panel has again struck down Alabama’s blandly unobjectionable congressional map that has been in place for decades. I find nothing in the U.S. Supreme Court’s vacatur order of May 11 that would provide a basis for this outcome; thus, we will immediately appeal this decision to the Supreme Court,” Marshall said in a statement.
“This is a very fluid situation, and I will do my best to keep the People of Alabama apprised of our efforts. Know this—in my mind, it is not a matter of whether we win this case, only when.”
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meets with Ahmed al-Sharaa, President of Syria (L) for bilateral talks at Beştepe Presidential Compound during the NATO Summit on July 08, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, sitting next to Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa at the NATO summit in Turkey, said Wednesday that he will remove Syria from the State Department’s State Sponsors of Terrorism list.
“He’s done a great job. Maybe he would have brought that up. That’s a good question. Yeah, any problems with that? I think we should. Yeah, I will,” Trump said of al-Sharaa when asked about removing Syria from the list.
Trump offered high praise for al-Sharaa during their meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit, a remarkable turnaround for the man who once led an al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
Al-Sharaa at one point had a $10 million bounty on his head and served time in the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
He then then led a coalition of Islamist rebel factions in late 2024 to topple former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
“He’s done a really fantastic job as president. He’s unified the country in a very short period of time,” Trump said Wednesday, describing the Syrian leader as a “strong person” who is “respected by everybody.”
“We’re proud of the job he’s doing,” Trump said.
What it means for Syria Trump’s commitment to potentially remove Syria from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list would mark one of the final obstacles blocking the country from fully rejoining the international financial system.
The U.S. designated Syria a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979 — the longest such designation for any country on the list. The other countries on the list are Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Syria was designated as such because of the former al-Assad regime’s historical support for designated terrorist groups.
But U.S. officials have said there are a number of steps needed ahead before the designation can be removed.
U.S. lawmakers are cautiously optimistic.
A bipartisan trio of lawmakers wrote to Trump earlier this month lobbying for Syria’s removal from the list. But they argued al-Sharaa’s government has more work to do to follow through on equal representation for women and minority constituents in Syria and ensuring security in the region.
The new US-Syria relationship
In May 2025, Trump announced he would lift sanctions on Syria to create a new relationship between the two countries.
Last November, the United Nations Security Council formally adopted a U.S.-led resolution that lifted sanctions on al-Sharaa so he could travel to the U.S. to meet with Trump in the Oval office, the first offical visit by a Syrian president.
Congress also approved repealing comprehensive sanctions under the Caesar Syrian Civilian Protection Act. Trump signed it into law in December.
The repeal provided a way for Syria to begin transacting with regional and U.S. businesses, but the state sponsor of terrorism designation blocks it from accessing significant U.S. foreign assistance.
Lifting this designation on Syria could facilitate a whole range of investments in the country, including in oil, banking, technology, and real estate — which could lead to an economic sea change for the country and more overall stability.
cting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill on May 19, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is facing questions Tuesday on the $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to compensate those who allege they were wrongly targeted under the Biden administration.
Blanche, testifying on the Justice Department’s 2027 budget request, is making his first appearance before lawmakers since he was tapped by President Donald Trump to serve as acting attorney general in early April after Pam Bondi was removed from the position.
The fund, which was first reported last week by ABC News, has already drawn condemnation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle amid growing questions over how the funds will be distributed and whether they could be awarded to political backers of the president and even potentially the rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Blanche, in defense of the fund, sought to compare it to an Obama-era initiative that set up ways to settle claims brought by Native Americans who had alleged they had been subject to widespread mistreatment by the government.
He also argued that the fund won’t solely be used to compensate supporters of the administration.
“It’s not limited to — to Republicans, … it’s not limited to Biden weaponization, it’s not limited to in any way, scope or form to Jan. 6 or to Jack Smith,” Blanche said. “There’s no limitation on the — on the claims.”
Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen lambasted Blanche for seeking to compare the $1.776 billion fund to the Obama-era initiative for Native Americans.
Van Hollen noted that specific fund received sign off from a federal judge, whereas Monday’s announcement had no judicial involvement or approval.
Blanche won’t rule out payouts for individuals who assaulted law enforcement
Pressed whether individuals who assaulted Capitol Police officers would be eligible for payments, Blanche said, “Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they’re a victim of weaponization.”
Blanche wouldn’t commit to setting a policy that bans funds being distributed to anyone who assaulted police, saying the commissioners overseeing the fund will be tasked with deciding who is eligible.
Blanche claims there will be ‘full transparency’ on fund, but with caveats
In an exchange with Democratic Sen. Chris Coons, was questioned over whether disbursements from the $1.776 billion will be subject to public disclosure.
Blanche said he wanted to be “careful” in his answer given privacy laws that might restrict the Justice Department from disclosing certain information, but otherwise said there would be “full transparency” via regularly quarterly reports that will be released by the department regarding the commission’s actions.
“The reason why I want to be careful of my answer is because there’s obviously laws that exist around privacy that would — may prevent some of the information that commission takes in from being fully public,” Blanche said. “Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that beyond the … laws that exist around privacy and privileges and whatnot.”
U.S. sailors carry a fuel hose on the flight deck of Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, May 24, 2026. (US Navy)
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon is increasingly strained by a growing list of unplanned and rising expenses over the last year, with fuel costs emerging as one of the most significant pressures.
Defense Department records show the average price the agency paid for fuel climbed from $154.14 per barrel in October to $195.72 in April – a nearly 27% increase in just six months, documents show. Those costs are averages across two dozen types of fuels the military uses, including gasoline and jet fuel.
Oil and fuel prices have surged during the Iran war. That surge could saddle the Pentagon with more than $1 billion in unplanned costs this year to power its jets, tanks and other military equipment, based on the department’s fuel consumption in recent years. The Defense Department purchases some 80 million barrels of fuel annually.
Commanders are also grappling with surging civilian fuel and commercial airfare costs, adding to the financial strain on a military that depends heavily on both. Troops typically use commercial flights and rental cars to travel to different training events, and are often compensated for miles driven in personal vehicles.
Because of that, travel is being heavily scrutinized, with some formations dramatically reducing travel for training and other events or outright canceling the bulk of it since at least April, multiple U.S. officials explained to ABC News and documents show.
“Current energy market dynamics are increasing fuel costs, which can affect the costs of transporting personnel, supplies and equipment,” Lt. Col. Orlando Howard, an Army spokesperson, said in a statement, adding that the service is prioritizing travel and equipment usage to preserve funding for critical operations and readiness requirements.
According to internal documents and multiple U.S. officials, the Army has been forced to make sweeping cuts to training as it grapples with a $4 billion-$6 billion shortfall through the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
That shortfall is attributed to a confluence of factors, including the Iran war, expanding missions on the U.S. southern border, and the National Guard’s ongoing mission in Washington, D.C., which is aimed to double in size to some 5,000 troops for the summer.
Compounding those issues are rising fuel costs, all spurring intense financial scrutiny. The reductions have eliminated dozens of training courses, including programs for medical personnel, engineers and artillery troops. The service has also sharply curtailed helicopter flight hours, limiting many crews to minimum flying requirements, internal service plans show.
But it is not only the Army that is feeling the strain of financial belt-tightening – some of the other services also face unexpected expenses that could impact training cycles.
Adm. Daryl Caudle, the Navy’s Chief of Naval Operations, warned lawmakers in May that the sea service might start running out of money soon.
“You see a large Navy force in the Middle East. So we’re burning bright … but it does come at cost, and it comes at operational costs,” Caudle told the House Armed Services Committee, adding that the service will start running out of money in the summer.
“I will have to start making decisions to change training, operations, certification events, those type of things we do to generate our force, in the July timeframe and their current expenditure,” he said.
One internal Army assessment in April found that the financial pain could leave units slated to deploy to Europe next year with what the assessment framed as an insufficient amount of training. The review, which examined the Army’s III Armored Corps – a roughly 70,000-soldier formation headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas – concluded it could take more than a year to restore affected units to their pre-Iran war training levels.
The military’s complex web of fuel purchasing provides some protection against market volatility. In many cases, the Pentagon purchases fuel through contracts 18 months in advance.
But those agreements include provisions that allow prices to be adjusted if the market shifts, limiting the department’s ability to fully insulate itself from sustained increases.
Fuel prices surged in 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, destabilizing markets. The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed past $5 for one week that summer, according to federal data. That year, Congress twice gave the Pentagon more money for fuel, totaling $5.2 billion.
Additionally, the Defense Department is using far more fuel this year than it projected when budgets were set more than a year ago, with the Air Force burning through 10% more than it projected it would, Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the chief of staff of the Air Force, told lawmakers in May, amid the ongoing war with Iran.
That could mean the use of hundreds of thousands of gallons of extra fuel. The Defense Department is by far the federal government’s largest fuel consumer, burning roughly 227 million gallons of diesel and about 2.2 billion gallons of jet fuel annually since 2021, according to Pentagon data.
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps is not facing any notable funding shortfall, nor has it had to scale back any training, according to the service, though it is significantly smaller than the other branches of the military.
“Annually, we adjust our budgeted spend plans to address various contingencies as they arise, ensuring we prioritize our most critical mission requirements,” a Marine Corps spokesperson said in a statement.
ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
