Congressional Democrats

Order, issued without any noted dissent, is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competitionThe supreme court on Friday rejected Virginia’s bid to restore a congressional map that would have given Democrats a chance to pick up four seats in the closely divided House of Representatives.The court’s order, issued without any noted dissent, is the latest twist in the nation’s mid-decade redistricting competition . It was kicked off last year by Donald Trump urging Republican-controlled states to redraw their lines and was supercharged by a recent supreme court ruling severely weakening the Voting Rights Act that opened up even more winnable seats for the Republican party. Continue reading...

• Congressional Democrats have initiated a formal investigation into whether President Trump's pardons were driven by so-called "pay-to-play" schemes involving financial contributions or other considerations. • Democratic Representative Dave Min of California is one of three lawmakers leading the probe into the suspicious circumstances surrounding select presidential pardons. • The investigation reflects Democratic concerns about potential corruption or quid pro quo arrangements influencing the Trump administration's use of presidential clemency powers.

The case is part of a national redistricting fight with high stakes for the November midterm electionsSign up for the Breaking News US email to get newsletter alerts in your inboxVirginia supreme court justices on Monday questioned whether the state’s Democratic-led legislature complied with constitutional requirements when it sent a congressional redistricting plan to voters, in a case that carries high stakes for the balance of power in the US House.The new districts, which could net Democrats four additional seats, won narrow voter approval last week. But a Republican legal challenge contends the general assembly violated procedural rules by placing the constitutional amendment before voters to authorize the mid-decade redistricting. If the court agrees that lawmakers broke the rules, it could invalidate the amendment and render last week’s statewide vote meaningless. Continue reading...

A Friday report from congressional Democrats highlights that President Trump's tariffs, enacted after Supreme Court invalidation of prior measures, could impose over $2,500 in annual costs on average U.S. households amid efforts to replace lost federal revenue. The analysis critiques the policy as regressive, exacerbating affordability pressures from recent economic strains like energy prices. Trump administration officials defend the tariffs as essential for domestic industry protection and national security. The report fuels midterm election debates on fiscal policy as Democrats push alternative revenue strategies.

A Friday report from congressional Democrats reveals President Trump's expanded tariffs, following Supreme Court invalidation of prior measures, could impose over $2,500 in annual costs on average U.S. households amid efforts to replace lost federal revenue. The analysis highlights economic burdens as Trump pushes replacements for struck-down tariffs, exacerbating affordability concerns. This development matters as it fuels partisan clashes ahead of midterms, with Democrats using the figures to critique GOP economic policies. Upcoming congressional hearings may scrutinize the report's projections and potential legislative offsets.