Supreme Court declines to block California’s new mid-decade congressional map
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by California Republicans to block a newly redrawn congressional map backed by Democrats and endorsed by voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The move allows the state to move forward with a map enacted by Proposition 50, approved in November, that could potentially allow Democrats to flip five seats currently held by Republicans.
California’s mid-decade map change was backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party in response to efforts by Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps — at President Donald Trump’s urging — in order to give Republicans a better chance at retaining majority control of Congress.
“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” Newsom posted on X on Wednesday after the Supreme Court’s order.
The California Republican Party in January filed an emergency application with the nation’s high court to try to prohibit California from using the map while their appeal moved forward, arguing it was drawn predominantly based on race.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday did not explain its decision in a single-sentence order. There were no noted dissents.
Late last year, the Supreme Court declined to block the Texas map, citing a desire to refrain from interference in the political process too close to an election and broad deference to state legislators who insisted they acted in good faith and no racial animus.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem testifies before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on March 04, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A Democratic senator says Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided false testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In her appearance before the committee on Tuesday, Noem was asked by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., whether her adviser Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a special government employee, has any role in approving DHS contracts, and she said no.
“Evidence suggests that your testimony was false. Internal DHS records show that Mr. Lewandowski has personally approved contracts at DHS, including, but not limited to, a multimillion-dollar contract,” according to a letter Blumenthal sent to Noem on Wednesday. “And current and former DHS employees have stated that Mr. Lewandowski’s signature is a green light for money to be transmitted to contractors.”
Blumenthal sent the letter on Wednesday night, after Noem’s testimony in front the House Committee.
In a follow-up appearance before a House committee on Wednesday, Rep. Jared Moskowitz asked Noem if she would like to correct her answer from Tuesday.
“What I would say is that he is an adviser to the Department of Homeland Security,” she said.
Sources have told ABC News that Lewandowski is Noem’s de facto chief of staff, despite having a 130-day cap on being able to work at the department, due to his status as a special government employee.
According to multiple sources, Lewandowski and Noem both approve contracts and “nothing” gets to the secretary without Lewandowski’s approval.
Oftentimes, Lewandowski travels with the secretary to her public events, and on multiple occasions ABC News has seen Lewandowski behind the scenes at events the secretary is speaking at.
When asked by two Democratic representatives if the two were romantically linked, Noem did not deny it and instead called the two Democratic members’ line of questioning “garbage.”
Lewandowski and Noem have both previously denied any romantic relationship. Both are married to other people.
The department didn’t immediately respond to the letter, or about Lewandowski’s role at DHS.
Paratroopers assigned to 2nd Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division conduct live fire exercises at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, July 28, 2025. (Spc Jayreliz Batista Prado/US Army, File)
(WASHINGTON) — Elements of the 82nd Airborne Division are poised to deploy to the Middle East, amid the U.S. and Israel’s war with Iran, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The deployment is set to include both a headquarters unit and ground combat forces. A headquarters company, around 250 personnel, would handle logistics, coordination and operational planning for the deployment.
One brigade — about 3,000 soldiers — of the 82nd is constantly on standby as the Immediate Response Force, tasked to be able to deploy anywhere in the world within 18 hours.
It remains unclear how many combat troops would ultimately be mobilized — or what role they would play in a potential conflict with Iran. Any move to introduce U.S. ground forces would mark a significant escalation, opening the door to a far broader and more complex phase of the war.
President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. has effectively won the war and that Iran’s military is nearly annihilated. But strikes against U.S. troops in neighboring countries has continued. So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
“I don’t like to say this. We’ve won this — this war has been won,” Trump told reporters Tuesday.
So far, 13 U.S. troops have been killed in action and at least 290 have been wounded.
The 82nd Airborne Division is the Pentagon’s premier ground force, designed to deploy on short notice anywhere in the world and trained in parachute assaults to quickly seize contested terrain — though that doesn’t mean that’s how they could be deployed into the Middle East.
Signs of a potential deployment have been building for weeks. Earlier this month, the same 82nd Airborne headquarters unit was suddenly pulled from a significant training event at Fort Polk, Louisiana, three U.S. officials told ABC News, fueling speculation the division was being prepared to deploy to the Middle East.
The 82nd, which is based out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, could join the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) as potential ground forces swell into the region. A MEU is a 2,200-troop force which is expected to arrive in the Middle East this week.
Experts say the MEU would likely be used to conduct raids across the Iranian shoreline to gain a foothold in areas around the crucial Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil flows by ship.
And three Navy ships carrying 2,200 Marines left San Diego last week for a previously scheduled deployment to the Indo-Pacific, but two U.S. officials tell ABC News their ultimate destination is likely the Middle East.
The 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit is aboard the USS Boxer, the USS Comstock and the USS Portland — along with 2,000 sailors.
Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, speaks during an interview at DNC headquarters in Washington on Sunday, November 2, 2025. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Members of the Democratic National Committee voted down a symbolic resolution aimed at curbing the “growing influence” of “dark money” corporate groups in Democratic primaries that specifically called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Committee members gathered on Thursday in New Orleans, where a majority of members objected to the resolution for singling out AIPAC and argued it was redundant, since they had already approved a broader measure earlier in the meeting condemning the influence of dark money in the midterms without naming specific groups.
Allison Minnerly, who sponsored the resolution, responded to the criticism that her resolution was singling out AIPAC, the pro-Israel political lobbying group.
“Members like to say that we don’t want to single out AIPAC, but AIPAC will entirely single out them and all of our different progressive leaders when it comes to primary elections,” said Minnerly.
AIPAC’s influence has become a flashpoint inside the Democratic Party, as leaders struggle to respond to rapidly shifting views about Israel among progressives, especially in the wake of the war in Gaza and amid the current U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
DNC Chair Ken Martin posted on X, stating, “We had various resolutions that focused on different industries and groups, and instead of going one-by-one, we passed a blanket repudiation.”
The panel’s rejection of the AIPAC resolution means it will not go before the full body for a final vote on Friday.
“The DNC made clear today that all Democrats, including millions who are AIPAC members, have the right to participate fully in the Democratic process, and we plan to do just that,” AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa told ABC News.
Minnerly’s resolution stated that “the use of massive outside spending to support or oppose candidates based on their positions regarding international conflicts or foreign governments raises concerns about undue influence over democratic debate and policymaking, potentially constraining elected officials’ ability to represent the views of their constituents,” and referenced the millions of dollars spent by AIPAC in the recent Illinois Democratic primaries.
Andrew Lachman, a DNC member and the former president of California Jewish Democrats, said that it was “troubling” that the resolution was focused on calling out AIPAC.
“There are a lot of super PACs, a lot of right-wing organizations out there. There are a lot of left-wing ones out there that take advantage of the super PAC status as well. We need to address that,” Lachman said. “None of those were mentioned … I think respectfully, if it’s about our campaign finance system, let’s take it on. But when you mention only one group, it comes across like you’re not actually interested in the campaign finance issue and transparency issue. It’s about something else.”
In a statement to ABC News, Brian Romick, the president and CEO of the Democratic Majority for Israel said, “We’re pleased that the DNC Resolutions Committee rejected a set of divisive, anti-Israel resolutions. These measures would be a gift to Republicans, would further fracture our party, and do nothing to bring Israelis and Palestinians closer to peace.”
“They should have voted for the AIPAC resolution given the pernicious influence they had in Illinois,” progressive Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told ABC News.
In a video posted on X, Khanna said, “anyone who wants to lead the party must condemn and reject AIPAC money.
2 other measures deferred
During the resolutions committee hearing, members also deferred action on two broad resolutions addressing Middle East conflicts, one of which would recognize Palestinian statehood and another that urged the party to support conditioning military aid to Israel. Instead, the proposals were sent to the party’s newly formed Middle East working group.
The question of how productive this group has been was a topic of conversation from DNC members and was mentioned during the resolutions committee hearing.
“We recommend this going back to the task force, but then we can put som. … expectations that we hear back,” said Ron Harris, co-chair of the DNC’s resolution committee, referring to the measure on Palestinian statehood.
Minnerly told ABC News she sponsored a measure to oppose the war in Gaza last August, but the resolution was defeated. In the wake of that, DNC Chair Ken Martin established a Middle East working group.
“I’m not surprised that members of the resolutions committee are eager for an update … Since that meeting [in August], there has not been consistent progress or even forward motion, and the characterizations of the task force were accurate,” said Minnerly, who is a member of the DNC’s Middle East working group.
In recent weeks, progressives like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Khanna have said they do not support any U.S. military aid to Israel, including defensive systems like the Iron Dome.
When asked if opposing funding for Israel’s defensive systems is a stance more of the Democratic Party should represent, Minnerly told ABC News last week in advance of Thursday’s meeting, “The further escalation has gone, the longer the war has been, we have seen the Democratic Party really migrate towards this ideal of de-escalation and not funding conflict.”
Lachman, however, also speaking in advance of Thursday’s meeting, said that he just sees this change in tune from some Democrats as “pressure from certain segments within the [Democratic Socialists of America]” and “some people who may be future candidates, particularly for president, are just trying to pander to them.”
He added, “I don’t think this is a mainstream view within the party, by any stretch of the imagination.”
