A rare mid-decade redistricting fight, spurred by Trump’s push to boost the GOP’s narrow House majority, erupted in Texas, where Republicans unveiled a new map favoring GOP gains. Over 50 Texas Democrats fled the state to block a quorum, prompting lawsuits, threats of vacated seats, and FBI involvement calls. Other states, including California and New York, consider retaliatory redistricting to counter Texas, despite legal challenges and critiques warning such “redistricting arms races” harm democracy. GOP and Democratic leaders have clashed, with some Congress members proposing bills to ban mid-decade redistricting nationwide amid escalating partisan tensions.
by Shauneen Miranda and Jacob Fischler, Arkansas Advocate August 6, 2025
WASHINGTON — Fueled by President Donald Trump’s aims to bolster the U.S. House’s razor-thin GOP majority in the 2026 midterm elections, a rare mid-decade redistricting fight in Texas grew increasingly bitter in recent days and engulfed other states.
As Democratic legislators in the Lone Star State fled to block a new congressional map, a handful of both blue and red states eyed their own redistricting plans, lawsuits cropped up and members of Congress pledged bills to curb redistricting wars.
While Texas is the only state that has so far taken formal action to redraw its U.S. House lines, a full-blown arms race could be imminent.
Here’s a breakdown on the redistricting battle as the drama unfolds:
How did all of this interest in redistricting kick off?
Republicans in Texas drew a new congressional map at the urging of Trump that could give the GOP five crucial new congressional seats in 2026.
Midterm elections typically lead to the loss of congressional seats for a president’s party.
Meanwhile, the GOP currently holds 219 seats in the House, while Democrats hold 212 spots, with four vacancies. That extremely narrow majority has created immense challenges for U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, as he tries to enact Trump’s sweeping agenda and cater to the president’s demands as well as factions in the GOP conference.
Though congressional districts are typically redrawn every decade following each U.S. Census, the move, particularly in Texas, is not unprecedented and is allowed.
What’s going on in Texas?
Texas Republicans unveiled a draft of the new congressional map in late July, which looks to reshape and flip major metro areas’ districts held by Democrats.
According to The Texas Tribune, the Department of Justice sent Texas’ leaders a letter in early July that said four of its districts violate the U.S. Constitution. The proposed map would dismantle those districts, per the Tribune.
More than 50 of Texas’ Democratic legislators left the state to try to block the legislature from adopting the new map, according to the Tribune.
This move has drawn the ire of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who went so far as to file a lawsuit asking to remove the Texas House Democratic Caucus chair, state Rep. Gene Wu, after Wu left the state.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also said Tuesday that he will pursue a court ruling that declares the seats vacant for the House Democrats who do not return by Friday.
Texas GOP U.S. Sen. John Cornyn has also called on the FBI “to take any appropriate steps to aid in Texas state law enforcement efforts to locate or arrest potential lawbreakers who have fled the state.” Trump on Tuesday, asked by a reporter if the FBI should “get involved,” said, “Well, they may have to.”
How is California reacting?
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been among the most vocal Democratic governors in suggesting retaliating against Texas Republicans by redrawing his populous blue state’s own lines before the 2026 elections.
State laws in California and other Democratic states make mid-decade redistricting tougher than it is in Texas.
While pro-democracy groups have praised California’s nonpartisan commission as the “gold standard” of independent redistricting, Newsom has indicated he would ask state lawmakers to temporarily scrap it to join the arms race he says Trump started in Texas.
At a Monday press conference, Newsom justified his exploration of mid-decade redistricting in the Golden State by describing Trump’s recent and historic record as anti-democratic.
“These folks don’t play by the rules,” Newsom said. “If they can’t win playing the game with the existing set of rules, they’ll change the rules. That’s what Donald Trump has done … Here is someone who tried to break this country, tried to light democracy on fire on Jan. 6. He recognizes he’s going to lose in the midterms.”
What other states are looking at potentially redistricting?
Vice President JD Vance is slated to visit Indiana Thursday in an attempt to push redistricting, according to the Indiana Capital Chronicle.
Indiana GOP Gov. Mike Braun said that as of now, no commitments have been made, when asked about redistricting efforts in the Hoosier State, per the Capital Chronicle.
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun was careful in his comments Tuesday about potential redistricting in Indiana to net a GOP seat — or two — in Congress. (Photo by Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle)
Leaders of large Democratic states, in addition to California, are considering their own redistricting in response to Texas.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote in an op-ed published in the Houston Chronicle Tuesday that she would “not sit on the sidelines” and watch “Republicans dismantle democracy.”
“What Texas is doing isn’t a clever strategy, it’s political arson — torching our democracy to cling to power,” Hochul wrote. “The only viable recourse is to fight fire with fire.”
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker appeared alongside Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin and a group of exiled Texas Democratic lawmakers at a news conference Tuesday. Pritzker said it was “possible” the state would pursue redistricting, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Other Democratic governors — even including Laura Kelly of ruby-red Kansas — raised the prospect during a Democratic Governors Association meeting in Wisconsin last week of pursuing mid-decade redistricting if Texas follows through.
Republican states are also considering jumping in the fray.
Missouri Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, told a news radio station last week that it was “likely” lawmakers would convene in a special session to redraw district lines after pressure from Trump.
And Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican who holds the most competitive of Nebraska’s three U.S. House seats but plans to step down, told the Nebraska Examiner that Republicans in the state were having conversations about potential redistricting.
What downside do some see?
An arms race to shorten the cycle for redrawing congressional lines could come at a cost for efforts to overhaul the redistricting process.
Common Cause, a national pro-democracy group that advocates for election reforms including nonpartisan redistricting, urged Democrats not to respond to Texas.
A redistricting arms race would only result in “rigged elections across America,” Emily Eby French, the policy director for Common Cause Texas, said on a press call last week. It was wrong for Republicans to put “a thumb on the scale” through redistricting, she said, but also wrong for Democrats to do the same.
“The real solution is for Democrats to help us lift the Republican thumb off of the Texas scale and every other scale in America until we reach free and fair elections for everyone.”
Are party leaders egging this on?
Trump, whose urging appeared to prompt Texas Republicans to action, has consistently pushed lawmakers in that state to reinforce the GOP advantage there.
Tuesday, he said on CNBC that Republicans were “entitled” to five more House seats in Texas.
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin stands outside of a coffee shop in Portland, Oregon, on July 31, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)
Martin, the DNC chair, responded in Illinois.
“No party is entitled to any district,” he said. “We have to go out and earn the votes.”
Still, Martin advised Democrats in blue states to do the opposite by responding in kind to Texas Republicans.
“We’re not here to tie one of our hands behind our back,” he said. “We can’t be the only party that’s playing by the rules.”
How is Congress reacting?
At least two GOP House lawmakers — representing blue states looking at retaliatory redistricting efforts against Trump — are taking it upon themselves to introduce bills in Congress that bar these initiatives.
GOP Rep. Kevin Kiley of California introduced a bill in the House this week that would ban mid-decade redistricting across the country.
Kiley said Newsom “is trying to subvert the will of voters and do lasting damage to democracy in California,” in a statement earlier this week.
“Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country.”
Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican, also said he plans to introduce legislation to prohibit “partisan gerrymandering and mid-decade redistricting.”
The New York Republican told CNN on Tuesday that “this is fundamentally why Congress is broken,” adding that “you do not have competitive districts and so, most members are focused on primaries and not actually engaging in a general election.”
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents a generally factual and balanced overview of the redistricting conflict, detailing actions and responses from both Republican and Democratic actors. However, the language slightly leans toward a Center-Left perspective by emphasizing concerns over GOP-led redistricting efforts described as attempts to “dismantle democracy” and “political arson,” while highlighting Democratic efforts as defensive or retaliatory measures. The article includes critical quotes from Democratic leaders and organizations, framing GOP actions as aggressive and problematic. Yet, it fairly covers Republican viewpoints and legislative responses, maintaining overall journalistic balance without overt partisan endorsement.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that President Trump’s freeze on $8 billion in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds was illegal, violating the Impoundment Control Act by withholding congressionally approved money. The freeze delayed around 1,800 health research grants related to diversity, transgender issues, and environmental harms. GAO emphasized the Constitution grants Congress the funding power, and the executive must execute appropriations lawfully. While brief delays during administration transitions may be permissible, a full funding block, including terminated grants, was unlawful. Democrats condemned the freeze, urging release of funds, critical for research on diseases like cancer and Alzheimer’s.
President Donald Trump’s freeze on $8 billion of congressionally appropriated funding to the National Institutes of Health was illegal, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday.
Orders Trump signed in the early days of his return to office and related administration directives violated the Impoundment Control Act by failing to spend money that Congress, which holds the power of the purse under the Constitution, had approved, the GAO report said.
Roughly 1,800 grants for health research were held up by the administration, the report said.
Trump’s Inauguration Day order ceased funding for a variety of health research grants that related to diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender issues or environmental harms. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a memo directing its agencies, including NIH, to cease publishing notices in the Federal Register of meetings of grant review boards.
GAO, an independent investigatory agency that reports to Congress, called those meetings “a key step in NIH’s grant review process.” HHS has since restarted notices of the meetings.
From February to June, the NIH released $8 billion less than it obligated in the past two years, representing a drop-off of more than one-third, according to the GAO. The gap between 2025 spending and that of previous years continued to grow, GAO said, with NIH obligating a lower amount of grant funding each month.
Illegal impoundment
The failure to fund grant awards violated the Impoundment Control Act and the Constitution, which certified Congress as the branch of government responsible for funding decisions, said GAO.
If a law is passed by Congress and signed by a president, it must be carried out by the executive branch, the watchdog said.
“The President must ‘faithfully execute’ the law as Congress enacts it,” the report said. “Once enacted, an appropriation is a law like any other, and the President must implement it by ensuring that appropriated funds are obligated and expended prudently during their period of availability unless and until Congress enacts another law providing otherwise. … The Constitution grants the President no unilateral authority to withhold funds from obligation.”
There are specific circumstances that allow for a funding freeze — a rescissions law, such as the one Congress passed last month to defund public broadcasters and foreign aid, is one example — but they did not apply to this case, the GAO said.
Delays may be permissible to allow a new presidential administration to ensure grants are awarded based on its priorities. But a complete block on funding is illegal, the GAO said. There is no evidence that other grant awards — or any other type of funding at HHS — took the place of the $8 billion in unspent grant money, the report said.
“While it can be argued that NIH reviewed grants to ensure that funds were spent in alignment with the priorities of the new administration, NIH did not simply delay the planned obligations of the funds,” the GAO said. “Rather, NIH eliminated obligations entirely by terminating grants it had already awarded.”
GAO can sue the executive branch based on its findings. The report noted there is already litigation from other parties over the frozen grants.
Dems call for reinstatement
Congressional Democrats responded to the report by harshly criticizing Trump and White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and calling for the funds’ release.
“This is simple – Congress passed and the President signed into law investments in NIH research to help find cures and treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, ALS, diabetes, mental health issues, and maternal mortality,” U.S. House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said in a statement. “But now, GAO has determined that President Trump and OMB Director Vought illegally withheld billions in funding for research on diseases affecting millions of American families—research that brings hope to countless people suffering.”
Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said in a statement the funding freeze “dangerously set back” efforts to cure cancer, Alzheimer’s and other diseases.
“Today’s decision affirms what we’ve known for months: President Trump is illegally blocking funding for medical research and shredding the hopes of patients across the country who are counting on NIH-backed research to propel new treatments and cures that could save their lives,” Murray said. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”
An HHS spokesperson deferred a request for comment Tuesday to OMB.
An agency investigated by the GAO is generally given a draft of the watchdog’s findings and asked to respond.
The HHS response, obtained by States Newsroom, said grant reviews were back on schedule, though it did not address grant obligations.
“Despite the short delay in scheduling and holding peer review and advisory council meetings to allow for the administration transition, NIH has been on pace with its reviewing grant applications and holding meetings and has caught up from the pause when compared to prior years,” the response said.
GAO’s summary of the HHS response said the department had restarted meetings of grant review boards and provided some “factual information” but did not justify the lack of grant spending or provide current status of payments for previously approved grants.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents a critical view of former President Trump’s actions regarding NIH funding, emphasizing the legality and negative impact of the funding freeze. It relies heavily on the Government Accountability Office’s findings and includes pointed statements from Democratic lawmakers condemning the freeze and urging restoration of funds. The framing highlights the harm to medical research and patients, using language that suggests disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies. However, it also includes responses from the Department of Health and Human Services, maintaining some balance. Overall, the tone and selection of sources align with a Center-Left perspective focused on accountability and public health funding.
SUMMARY: An Arkansas man, Travis Posey, who admitted to killing four people in a 2024 mass shooting at a Fordyce grocery store, has been sentenced to four life sentences without parole plus 220 years for 11 counts of attempted capital murder, all to be served consecutively. The community remains deeply grieving, with victims’ families expressing disappointment over Posey’s lack of remorse. Posey initially pleaded not guilty but changed his plea after more than a year in custody. The motive remains unclear. Victims included Callie Weems, Shirley Kay Taylor, Roy Sturgis, and Ellen Shrum, leaving lasting pain in the town.
Arkansas man who pleaded guilty to killing four people in 2024 mass shooting sentenced to prison
Arkansas attempted to ban pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning pharmacies, but a federal judge blocked the law as unconstitutional and anti-competitive. The ban, signed by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, would have forced closures of pharmacies like CVS, costing jobs and limiting rural access. Similar laws in Iowa faced legal challenges. PBMs emerged to manage drug prices in a flawed healthcare system distorted by government policies. Critics say banning PBMs ignores real issues like Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement cuts and protectionism favoring select companies. Experts advocate for restoring competition, cutting FDA approval times, and reforming reimbursement to improve healthcare.
Arkansas attempted to become the first state in the nation to ban pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning or operating pharmacies. Instead, it became the first to be blocked by a federal judge for violating the Constitution – and for good reason. This kind of regulatory capture undermines the moral authority behind the legislation, and the court was justified in intervening.
On July 28, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller issued a preliminary injunction halting the Arkansas law, which was set to take effect August 5. He ruled that the ban “appears to overtly discriminate against plaintiffs as out-of-state companies,” and that the state “failed to show that it has no other means to advance its interests.”
In short, the law was not only anti-competitive but also unconstitutional.
The ban, signed earlier this year by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, would have forced companies like CVS and Express Scripts to shut down pharmacies across the state. CVS alone projected it would need to close all 23 of its Arkansas locations – eliminating nearly 500 jobs and reducing access to prescriptions, especially in rural areas where pharmacy options are already limited.
This is a policy failure masquerading as populist rhetoric. Banning PBMs may seem politically popular, with similar legislation being filed at both the federal and state levels, but it’s terrible economics and even worse health policy. Other states, including Louisiana and Tennessee, should take note – and reconsider their actions before causing further harm.
Congress should pay attention, too. Several lawmakers are proposing national legislation to ban PBMs from owning pharmacies. That would magnify the damage across all 50 states, stifle innovation, and further entrench government distortion in an already broken system.
Arkansas isn’t the only example of this approach failing in court. Just days earlier, a federal judge in Iowa issued a preliminary injunction against several new PBM regulations, including restrictions on pharmacy networks and reimbursement requirements. The court found that Iowa’s law likely violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and ERISA, reinforcing that these state-level PBM crackdowns aren’t just bad policy – they’re legally suspect and increasingly falling apart in federal court.
Yet lawmakers keep pushing them, hoping to look like they’re “doing something” about high drug prices while avoiding the real structural issues driving costs higher.
Let’s start with the facts: PBMs didn’t break the healthcare system. They are a response to a system that has long been broken by government interference. For nearly a century, federal and state policies have layered on price controls, tax distortions, and third-party payer models that disconnect patients from prices and providers from the outcomes of their care. With Medicare and Medicaid dominating reimbursement, and employer-based coverage distorted by the tax code, market signals are barely present.
As we argue in “Empower Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare,” co-authored with Dr. Deane Waldman, America’s healthcare crisis stems from the third-party payer system. The overwhelming majority of healthcare dollars flow not from patients, but from insurers and government programs. Until we reconnect patients with prices through tools like Health Savings Accounts, Direct Primary Care, and regulatory reform – costs will continue to rise and access will remain limited.
That’s where PBMs come in.
PBMs emerged to negotiate drug prices, promote the use of generics, and manage pharmacy benefit plans in a system already warped by public policy. In a true free market, PBMs might not be needed. But in today’s environment, they serve as one of the few checks on cost escalation – even if imperfectly.
Arkansas didn’t just misunderstand this dynamic, it ignored it. Even worse, lawmakers carved out an exemption for employer-only pharmacies, conveniently shielding Arkansas-based Walmart from the law’s impact. If this were truly about fairness or access, there would be no need to pick winners. That’s not policy, it’s protectionism.
Supporters argue that PBMs are driving independent pharmacies out of business. But that blame is misplaced. The real culprits are shrinking margins from Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, costly federal mandates, and a lack of transparent, direct-to-consumer competition. Targeting PBMs is politically easy but economically backwards.
Banning PBMs won’t fix the system. It will make it worse.
Had the Arkansas law taken effect, it would have closed pharmacies, disrupted care, eliminated jobs, and reduced competition. Vertical integration between PBMs and pharmacies can improve coordination, reduce friction, and cut costs – benefits that disappear when politicians force companies to break apart.
Real reform means restoring competition, not banning it. That means cutting FDA approval times for generics and biosimilars. It means replacing outdated Medicare and Medicaid formulas that reward spending over results. It means decentralizing healthcare power from Washington back to the states – and ultimately, back to patients and their doctors.
Gov. Sanders and other state leaders deserve credit for wanting to fix what’s broken. But this isn’t the way. The Arkansas PBM ban – and similar efforts in Iowa and elsewhere – would fail patients, fail pharmacies, and fail the free market. Thankfully, the Constitution did its job. Now policymakers need to do theirs – by rejecting bans and embracing competition.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is president of Ginn Economic Consulting, host of the Let People Prosper Show, former chief economist at the White House Office of Management and Budget, and co-author of the book Empower Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare. Follow him on X @VanceGinn.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Right
This article presents a clear ideological perspective favoring free-market principles and limited government intervention in healthcare. It critiques state-level legislation banning pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) from owning pharmacies as economically harmful, legally flawed, and protectionist. The tone emphasizes regulatory overreach and government distortion of markets, framing PBMs as necessary market actors within a flawed system. The language endorses deregulation, competition, and decentralization, aligning with conservative and pro-business viewpoints. While critical of populist legislative efforts, it promotes market-based reforms and individual choice, reflecting a center-right economic philosophy rather than neutral reporting.
Patients: Two Doctors’ Cure for Healthcare. Follow him on X @VanceGinn.
