President Donald Trump had harsh words for Eric Holder's plan of expanding the number of Supreme Court justices to water down its conservative leanings, Breitbart reported. The president was specifically reacting to a video that echoed the sentiments of many on the left.
Democrats have been trying to undermine the court since the balance shifted to 6-3 in favor of conservatives. Since justices are appointed for life, the only way the left can retake the court is by adding more justices until the balance comes back to their side, so they can push their radical agenda items through without resistance.
Although there are currently nine justices on the court due to tradition, there's no rule against adding as many as an administration sees fit. Meanwhile, Holder, who served as attorney general under Barack Obama, called the Supreme Court "a broken institution" that "cannot be left in place without a discussion, at least," he claimed.
"Without substantive reforms being put in place, this Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted — if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028 — Supreme Court reform is something that has to be considered. Potentially expanding the Court is something, I think, that also should be considered."
Trump shared the video of Holder's remarks. He responded strongly to this in a post to his Truth Social, where he obliterated Holder, including calling him "FAST AND FURIOUS" after the gun-running scandal he was embroiled in along with the Obama administration.
He went on to say that Holder is an "Obama sycophant...who did so much to hurt our Country, and who weaponized the Obama Administration against the Republican Party (and ME!)," Trump said. He then laid out the plan to stop the Democrats' effort to pack the court.
"The word is, he wants 21 Radical Left Activist Judges, not being satisfied with the heretofore 15 that they were seeking. It will be 21, they will destroy our Constitution, and there’s not a thing that the Republicans can do about it unless we TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, which will lead to an easy WIN of the Midterms, and an even easier WIN in the Presidential Election of 2028," Trump wrote.
"Why would the Republicans even think about giving them this opportunity? The American People don’t want gridlock, they want their Leaders to GET THINGS DONE — TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, AND HAVE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FOUR YEARS IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY, BY FAR, WITH NOT EVEN THE HINT OF A SHUTDOWN OF OUR GREAT NATION ON JANUARY 30TH!" Trump said.
The left has been beating the drum to regain control of the Supreme Court by creating a majority just by adding more judges exactly at the time when Republican appointees overtook the court.
In fact, it was Holder who said during a Brookings Institution event in January 2021 that there was a "crisis of legitimacy" at the high court after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed in 2020.
He says Republicans' refusal to confirm Merrick Garland in 2016 and then Barrett's last-minute appointment just before Trump left office as a sign that Democrats "must use the power that they now have” to change that. "I believe it would be totally appropriate to add additional seats to the Supreme Court, in response to what has transpired over the past few years," Holder said.
The former attorney general also claimed that courts were "political bodies" and that the federal court system was full of "ideologues who consistently reach rulings based on their stunted mindsets." Holder said that justices should be term-limited to just 18 years and that a minimum age of 50 years should be required to serve on the court.
As recently as January 2024, Holder said on MSNBC’s The ReidOut that the Supreme Court faced a crisis after it sided with Trump in one of several cases that challenged his ability to run for president again. "There is again no constitutional basis for it, no historical precedent for it," Holder claimed even though the court used both to decide.
The left was fine when they were the majority and their issues always won the day at the Supreme Court. Ever since the right has restored the balance and the justices returned to true constitutional law and American values, they have been trying to tear it down.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is requesting a travel ban to be placed on as many as 32 nations that send criminal immigrants to the U.S., Fox News reported. The announcement came on Monday following a meeting with President Donald Trump after two National Guard members were shot last week.
"I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies," Noem wrote in a post to X on Monday.
"Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS. WE DON'T WANT THEM. NOT ONE," Noem concluded.
I just met with the President.
I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies.
Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign…
— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) December 1, 2025
The inciting incident involved a shooting that occurred on the day before Thanksgiving in Washington, D.C. Law enforcement officials believe that two West Virginia National Guard troops, who were placed there as part of Trump's crackdown on crime in the nation's capital, were allegedly shot by Afghan immigrant Rahmanullah Lakanwal, The Hill reported.
U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died from her wounds on Nov. 28, while U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is in serious condition. Following the shooting, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) put an indefinite halt to immigration applications from Afghans.
This followed a June memo that restricted migration from 19 nations, including Afghanistan, Burundi, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Myanmar, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. "During my first Administration, I restricted the entry of foreign nationals into the United States, which successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld," Trump said in the memo issued June 4.
The president recalled that in a memo on the first day of his second term, he "stated that it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes," Trump continued. He said the government would now be "vigilant" that visas would not be issued to aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" going forward.
He and Noem had compiled a list of nations that were sending immigrants who did not align with American values. "Many of these countries have also taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals," Trump wrote. The total list of countries now banned hovers around 32, CNN reported.
Any time Trump has spoken of measures to prevent such crimes, he has received pushback from the left about it. Democrats. Rather than being outraged that people coming into the U.S. are committing crimes against people, they are worried that keeping them out of the country is the real problem.
According to the UK Guardian, this was the same reaction the first time Trump announced his plan that detractors called "reckless" and "racist" in June. Meanwhile, Trump has said that the decision was made with "foreign policy, national security, and counter-terrorism goals" in mind.
"Trump’s reckless first term travel ban all over again," California Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff said at the time. "Just like before, Trump’s expanded ban on travelers from around the world will not improve our national security and will only further isolate the US from the rest of the world," Schiff claimed.
"Bigotry is not a national security strategy," he added. This has never been about bigotry and instead has been about keeping out people from adversarial nations and places where it's difficult to find information on newcomers.
America has enough crime and criminals without importing more from other nations. The left has never come up with another solution except to push for more of the same, and it's time that Republicans take the lead to prevent this from happening.
Michael Dell, the owner of Dell Technologies, along with his wife Susan Dell, have pledged $6.25 billion to help President Donald Trump's initiative to introduce children to investing as part of his One Big Beautiful Bill.
Under Trump's plan, parents of children born as U.S. citizens between 2025 and 2028 would receive $1,000 grants to open investment accounts in the children's names.
The Dells' contribution would add 25 million to the number of children who could be helped with the grants, giving $250 each for children under 10 years old who were not covered under Trump's window and live in zip codes with median incomes of $150,000 or less.
The donation will be the largest for American children ever given, according to the non-profit Invest America that works with the Dells.
“It’s designed to help families feel supported from the start and encourage them to keep saving as their children grow,” Michael Dell told CNBC in an interview. “We know that when children have accounts like this, they’re much more likely to graduate from high school, from college, buy a home, start a business and less likely to be incarcerated.”
The Trump bill allows any parents of children under 18 with Social Security numbers to open the accounts, which are tax-advantaged, starting on July 4, 2026.
“We want to help the children that weren’t part of the government program,” Dell said.
Invest America, run by hedge fund manager Brad Gerstner, advocated for the accounts to be included in Trump's bill, and it fits his agenda of encouraging investment and combatting poverty among families.
Dell Technologies has said it will match the $1,000 seed money in Trump accounts for new employees of the company.
“It would have been impractical, or maybe even impossible, to impact this many kids in this way without such a program,” Dell said.
Withdrawals fromt the accounts are not allowed until the child is 18, at which point it rolls over into an IRA and withdrawals are taxed.
Some states' versions of 529 plans have more tax advantages than the Trump accounts, but Trump is looking beyond funding college educations.
Michael Dell is hopeful that other companies will join him in funding the Trump accounts.
“What we hope is that every child sees a future worth saving for it,” he said. “You think about the compounding effect of a program like this in 10, 20, 30 years on millions of children. That’s what gets us excited.”
Hold onto your hats, folks—controversy is brewing over a U.S. military strike in the Caribbean that’s got everyone from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office in a tizzy.
On September 2, a strike authorized by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, ordered by Adm. Frank Bradley, targeted a suspected drug trafficking boat, but a second strike killing two survivors has sparked fierce debate over legality and morality, The Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to the start of this saga. Reports indicate Hegseth greenlit the operation as part of a broader campaign against so-called “narcoterrorists” in the Caribbean and Pacific, a push that’s already claimed at least 80 lives. This administration’s hardline stance on drug trafficking isn’t new, but the specifics of this incident are raising eyebrows.
Here’s the rub: after the initial strike left the boat in flames, Adm. Bradley ordered a follow-up attack that took out two survivors clinging to the wreckage. According to sources like the Post, this was in line with a verbal directive from Hegseth to ensure no one was left standing. If true, that’s a chilling escalation, even for those of us who back a tough-on-crime approach.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt didn’t shy away from defending the operation. “President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narcoterrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war,” she stated, adding that Hegseth authorized Bradley to carry out the strikes. While that sounds ironclad, it doesn’t quite address whether targeting survivors was part of the plan.
Leavitt doubled down, insisting the action was justified. “Adm. Bradley worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated,” she declared. But with bipartisan voices in Congress whispering “war crime,” one wonders if the law is as clear-cut as the administration claims.
The controversy isn’t just about the strikes—it’s about who knew what and when. While Leavitt confirmed Hegseth’s authorization, reports from The New York Times, citing unnamed officials, suggest his orders didn’t specify a follow-up if the first strike failed. That ambiguity leaves room for doubt, and Congress isn’t buying the neat and tidy narrative.
Both the House and Senate are gearing up for investigations, determined to untangle this mess. Democrats and even some Republicans are questioning whether the second strike crossed a moral and legal line. For an administration priding itself on law and order, this bipartisan backlash stings.
President Trump, for his part, offered a surprising take on Sunday, saying he wouldn’t have approved the second strike and didn’t believe Hegseth knew about it. Yet, he stood by his Defense Secretary, signaling loyalty even amid the storm. That’s classic Trump—backing his team while subtly distancing himself from the fallout.
Hegseth isn’t backing down, defending both the strikes and Adm. Bradley’s decisions. He’s set to join a Cabinet meeting with Trump, likely to hash out the next steps as scrutiny mounts. With reports of a “kill everybody” order swirling, courtesy of the Post, the pressure is on for transparency.
The broader campaign against narcoterrorists, as the administration labels them, has long been a lightning rod. Critics from both sides of the aisle have decried the body count and aggressive tactics, arguing it’s overreach dressed up as national security. Yet, for many conservatives, it’s a necessary stand against cartels poisoning our communities.
Leavitt’s rhetoric frames this as a righteous fight, emphasizing that these groups are designated foreign terrorist organizations. The administration argues the president has every right to target threats tied to illegal narcotics devastating American lives. It’s a compelling case—until you factor in survivors being picked off a burning boat.
Let’s not pretend this is just about one strike—it’s about a policy that’s dividing even the right. While some cheer the crackdown on drug trafficking, others worry we’re sliding into a moral gray zone where ends justify any means. Balance, not blind zeal, should guide us here.
As investigations loom, the White House must navigate a tightrope. Hegseth’s authorization is under the microscope, and Congress won’t rest until every detail is aired. For an administration that thrives on projecting strength, this could be a defining test.
So, where does this leave us? The Caribbean strike is a stark reminder that fighting crime, even on the high seas, isn’t black and white. While this conservative heart supports smashing narco-networks, let’s hope the truth—and justice—don’t get lost in the waves.
Hold onto your hats, folks—Indiana House Republicans are charging full steam ahead with a bold plan to redraw the state’s congressional districts in a way that could lock in a serious advantage for the GOP.
At the heart of this brewing political storm, the Indiana House has rolled out a draft map that heavily favors Republicans across all nine districts, potentially netting them two more U.S. House seats while facing pushback from within their own party in the state Senate.
This redistricting effort kicked off with a draft map released on Monday, designed to reshape the political landscape ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.
The proposed map takes direct aim at Democratic strongholds, particularly by carving up the Indianapolis-based district of Rep. André Carson into four segments that stretch into rural, Republican-friendly territory.
Similarly, the northwest Indiana district of Rep. Frank Mrvan gets splintered into several GOP-leaning areas, a move that could make his reelection bid a steep uphill climb.
Let’s not mince words—this map isn’t just a tweak; it’s a calculated play to dilute Democratic influence in a state where the GOP already holds significant power.
Adding fuel to the fire, both President Donald Trump and Indiana Gov. Mike Braun have thrown their weight behind this mid-decade redistricting effort, urging swift action to secure a stronger Republican grip on Congress.
Trump didn’t hold back, declaring on Nov. 17, “We must keep the Majority at all costs,” in a pointed message to Indiana lawmakers who might dare to dissent (Trump, Nov. 17 post).
That’s classic Trump—blunt and unapologetic—but it’s hard to ignore the pressure this puts on state legislators to toe the party line, even if the timing feels a bit rushed to some.
Yet, not all Republicans are on board, as Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray has publicly questioned the wisdom of a mid-decade redraw, hinting at a possible roadblock in the Senate despite the GOP’s commanding 40-50 majority.
Bray has warned, “the effort could die in his chamber,” a statement that underscores a rare fracture within Republican ranks on an issue this consequential (Senate President Pro Tem Rodric Bray).
That kind of pushback is a reminder that even in red states, not every conservative is eager to redraw lines just because the opportunity presents itself.
Meanwhile, outside the legislative chambers, Turning Point Action, tied to Turning Point USA, is ramping up the heat with a rally planned for Friday to nudge the state Senate into approving the map.
On the flip side, if this plan does pass, Indiana would join a handful of other Republican-leaning states like Texas and North Carolina in redrawing maps mid-decade, all of which have faced legal scrutiny—hinting at potential courtroom battles ahead.
Throw in the fact that Democrats might gain ground through redistricting in states like California and Utah, and it’s clear this isn’t just an Indiana fight—it’s part of a broader national chess game where every move counts.
Hold onto your hats, folks—New York City’s sanctuary policies are under fire for reportedly shielding thousands of criminal unauthorized migrants from federal deportation.
According to Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, the Big Apple is currently harboring 7,169 known criminal unauthorized migrants, a situation she argues endangers public safety due to the city’s refusal to cooperate with immigration enforcement, Breitbart reported.
McLaughlin dropped this bombshell during a recent interview with Fox News, pointing a finger at sanctuary city rules that prevent local officials from turning over these individuals to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Among this staggering number, McLaughlin highlighted that “hundreds of murderers, hundreds of sexual predators, drug traffickers, the worst of the worst” are housed in NYC jails.
Instead of facing deportation, these individuals are often released back onto the streets, free to potentially commit further crimes in sanctuary havens like New York or Chicago.
It’s a revolving door that McLaughlin warns could have dire consequences for law-abiding citizens.
McLaughlin didn’t hold back in criticizing certain politicians, specifically naming New York Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman for obstructing federal efforts to remove dangerous individuals.
She argued that if local leaders honored ICE detainers, there’d be no need for an increased federal presence on city streets.
“Dan Goldman and these other sanctuary city politicians,” McLaughlin noted, “they should agree to hand over those individuals, honor those detainers, and then we won’t have to flood the zone with our ICE law enforcement.”
Her point is sharp—if cooperation existed, we wouldn’t see federal officers dodging bricks and bottles, a subtle jab at the reported 1,150% spike in violence against ICE agents, as per recent DHS data.
McLaughlin painted a grim picture of what happens post-release, stating, “We’re seeing that these criminal illegal aliens are exiting the jails and going back onto New York or Chicago or these other sanctuary streets to re-perpetuate their crimes.”
That’s not just a statistic—it’s a warning bell for communities already grappling with crime rates.
On the flip side, Congressman Goldman has pushed back, claiming recent anti-ICE unrest in NYC stemmed from what he called “reckless behavior” by federal officers.
While sanctuary advocates argue these policies protect vulnerable populations, critics like McLaughlin counter that shielding known criminals undermines the very safety those policies claim to uphold.
The question remains—how many more chances should be given before public safety takes precedence over ideological stances? If cooperation with ICE could prevent even one tragedy, isn’t that worth a serious conversation, free from the usual political theater?
Hold onto your hats, folks—Alina Habba, once Donald Trump’s personal legal eagle, has been officially grounded by a federal appeals court in her bid to serve as New Jersey’s top prosecutor.
The saga, riddled with political roadblocks and legal tangles, boils down to a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that Habba’s appointment as acting U.S. attorney for New Jersey was not on the up-and-up, Breitbart reported.
Let’s rewind to the beginning of this courtroom drama, where Habba, after serving as Trump’s personal attorney, was tapped as counselor to the president before being thrust into the role of New Jersey’s acting U.S. attorney in March.
Things got dicey fast when her 120-day interim stint ended in July, and district court judges opted for her chief deputy, Desiree Grace, to take the reins instead.
But the Department of Justice wasn’t having it—they fired Grace mere hours after her selection, clearing the way for U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to slot Habba back into a deputy role with acting control over the office.
It’s the kind of bureaucratic shuffle that makes you wonder if anyone in Washington has a flowchart for who’s actually in charge.
The plot thickened when two New Jersey criminal defendants challenged the constitutionality of Habba’s appointment, leading to a pivotal August ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann that declared her placement unlawful.
Monday’s decision by a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit upheld Brann’s call, affirming that the process behind Habba’s role didn’t pass legal muster, though the defendants’ criminal cases weren’t tossed out.
This isn’t just a procedural nitpick—it’s a stark reminder that even in a system craving strong leadership, the rule of law isn’t a suggestion.
Behind the scenes, the Trump administration has fought tooth and nail to keep Habba in the position, despite her nomination stalling in the U.S. Senate due to a lack of blue slips from New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has refused to budge on advancing her nomination without those slips, drawing sharp rebukes from both Habba and Trump himself.
Speaking on Fox News in August, Habba didn’t hold back, saying, “Cory Booker and Andy Kim — who I have never, to this day, spoken to in my life, despite my attempts to meet them — have truly, truly done us a disservice.”
Trump, never one to shy from a fight, took to Truth Social in July to jab at Grassley, stating, “Chuck Grassley, who I got re-elected to the U.S. Senate when he was down, by a lot, in the Great State of Iowa, could solve the ‘Blue Slip’ problem we are having with respect to the appointment of Highly Qualified Judges and U.S. Attorneys, with a mere flick of the pen.”
Let’s unpack that—if loyalty is currency in politics, Trump’s clearly cashing a check he believes Grassley owes, but this blue slip tradition isn’t bending, and it’s stalling more than just Habba’s ambitions.
While Habba has stayed mum on the latest court ruling, the broader implications are clear: this fight over process and power could head to the Supreme Court, as some outlets like The Washington Post have suggested, to finally settle questions around the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
Actor Josh Brolin, who voices Thanos in the Marvel movies and got his start in movies on 1985's "The Goonies," told "The Independent" that President Donald Trump was a longtime friend of his and that he wasn't worried about Trump refusing to leave the presidency in 2029 after his second term.
“I’m not scared of Trump, because even though he says he’s staying forever, it’s just not going to happen,” Brolin told the paper. “And if it does, then I’ll deal with that moment. But having been a friend of Trump before he was president, I know a different guy.”
Brolin and Trump met on the set of Oliver Stone's "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" in 2010. Trump filmed a cameo in the movie but it was cut from the final version of the film.
“There is no greater genius than him in marketing," Brolin said. "He takes the weakness of the general population and fills it. And that’s why I think a lot of people feel that they have a mascot in him.”
“I think it’s much less about Trump than it is about the general population and their need for validation," he added.
The subject came up when Brolin was asked if his recent role as Monsignor Wicks in Glass Onion was meant to be a take on Trump.
Wicks preaches hate in the movie and is generally just a despicable character, but Brolin said the character was not in any way inspired by the current president.
“I could make something up and say it was rooted in a kind of Trumpian greed,” but in reality, it wasn't, Brolin said. He added that once “Wicks garners a sense of power, then there are no boundaries."
It's refreshing to see an A-list actor who doesn't hate Trump and constantly feel the need to attack him.
Brolin has a balanced view--he thinks Trump is on a quest for power, but not like his character Thanos who was willing to obliterate half of the world to do it.
And unlike many actors in Hollywood today, Brolin actually spent time with Trump and knows him on a personal level.
Undoubtedly, Brolin will now be enemy number one among his peers, but his shoulders seem plenty broad.
The left can say, of course Thanos is a friend to Trump, but it sounds like Brolin knows the truth about who Trump is and isn't afraid to say it.
When Joe Biden let 76,000 Afghans into the U.S. under Operation Allies Welcome in 2021 after he disastrously pulled the U.S. military out of the country and left it under Taliban control, he didn't vet them very well.
Turns out, over 5,000 Afghan nationals who were allowed to resettle in the U.S. were flagged by the Department of Homeland Security for national security concerns, and now President Donald Trump wants them gone following the shooting of two National Guard troops by an Afghan national let in as part of that program.
Trump ended Temporary Protected Status for Afgan nationals earlier this year, but an estimated 885 of those flagged by DHS are still here, according to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
She posted about the problem on X on Sunday.
The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan. Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on… pic.twitter.com/DhWUs2E28g
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) November 30, 2025
"The Biden Administration created one of the worst national security crisis in American history with the abandonment of Afghanistan," she wrote. "Biden let into our country nearly 100,000 unvetted Afghan aliens — figuring out who they were and their intentions when they were already on American soil."
She added, "Trump has been working every day since January 20 to clean up this unmitigated national security crisis."
Trump now wants a review on the vetting protocols for foreign nationals let into the U.S. seeking asylum from 19 "high risk" countries, as well as all asylum cases approved by the Biden administration.
The review was precipitated by the alleged actions of Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the suspect arrested for shooting Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and Andrew Wolfe, 24.
Beckstrom later died from her injuries, and Wolfe is still in serious condition after surgery.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ would seek the death penalty for Lakanwal.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told the New York Post that he had tried to raise the issue of unvetted Afghans for "years" but no one paid attention.
“I spent years calling attention to the weak vetting standards in Operation Allies Welcome, despite considerable pushback from the Biden administration and many of my colleagues in Congress,” Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley told the Post. “Sadly, this past week’s tragedy in Washington only validates my concerns further.”
Incidents like these fit in perfectly with much of the Democrats' agenda to destabilize the U.S. by whatever means necessary so that people will think government is the answer to everything. Good for Trump for reversing the damage as much as he can.
The Indiana state House has decided to pursue redistricting to gain a GOP seat in the U.S. House after President Donald Trump pushed the matter, and the Senate plans to reconvene if the House passes a newly drawn map.
Senate GOP leader Rodric Bray said two weeks ago that there wasn't enough support to move forward with redistricting, but reversed course when Trump threatened to primary GOP state senators if they did not act.
"A RINO State Senator, Rodric Bray, who doesn’t care about keeping the Majority in the House in D.C., is the primary problem. Soon, he will have a Primary Problem, as will any other politician who supports him in this stupidity," Trump posted on social media after Bray's initial refusal.
Last week, State House Speaker Todd Huston announced, "House Republicans will gavel in on Monday, Dec. 1, reconvening the 2026 regular session. All legislative business will be considered beginning next week, including redrawing the state’s congressional map."
Subsequently, Bray posted, "The issue of redrawing Indiana's congressional maps mid-cycle has received a lot of attention and is causing strife here in our state. To resolve this issue, the Senate intends to reconvene as part of the regular 2026 session on Dec. 8."
The House now has a razor-thin GOP majority, and is trying to preserve it in the midterm elections.
So far, signs have pointed toward GOP losing some seats, which would quickly deny them the majority.
California will be moving forward with redistricting in the opposite direction, while Texas could gain a significant number of GOP seats if it can overcome legal challenges to its plan.
Meanwhile, Trump is scrapping for every single seat he can possibly get, knowing that a Democrat House will pretty much kill his agenda outside of getting GOP-leaning judges appointed.
In Indiana, seven of nine seats are already Republican-controlled, but it's a solid GOP state, so what's one more?
In California, 25% of voters are registered Republican, but only 17% of districts are currently held by Republicans. If the gerrymandering efforts there are successful, up to five more seats could go to Democrats, making things even more lopsided there.
Every seat could be important in 2026, and Trump knows full well that he won't get much accomplished if he can't pass any of his bills in Congress.
Of course, Democrats have a massive advantage between California redistricting and the historical loss of seats for the ruling party in the midterms.
The bloodbath could be massive, and it seems likely that Republicans will not control the House in 2027, the way things are going.