Trump Media CEO and former Representative Devin Nunes has lost yet another lawsuit, this time against Rachel Maddow and NBC Universal.

This case, which has dragged on for more than four years, hinged on Nunes’s accusation that the MSNBC host was acting with malicious intent and malice when she mistakenly stated that Nunes “refused” to hand to the FBI documents given to him by a suspected Russian spy.

Nunes argued that Maddow and MSNBC hold “an institutional hostility, hatred, extreme bias, spite and ill-will” toward him. Maddow and the network simply stated that the Politico reporting they were following at the time of the statement was not up to date.

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel dismissed the case on Friday, arguing that Nunes failed to prove that Maddow demonstrated actual malice toward him.

Nunes has had two other high-profile, highly unsuccessful lawsuits. In 2019, he tried to sue Twitter and two parody accounts on the site—one pretending to be his mother and another pretending to be his cow. He lost, and the cow account is still active on X. That same year, Nunes sued Esquire for libel after the magazine published a story stating that Nunes’s family dairy farm employed undocumented workers, a massive political contradiction for the Trump confidant. Nunes’s case was tossed four years later, as a judge deemed Esquire’s reporting to be correct.

A Republican representative has waded into the redistricting war—but not on Donald Trump’s side.

California Representative Kevin Kiley introduced legislation Monday to prevent congressional districts from being redrawn mid-decade. The bill, though ostensibly targeted at California Governor Gavin Newsom, would nullify any new districts drawn before the 2030 census.

“This is already the law in California under our State Constitution, which provides that redistricting is done once a decade by an Independent Commission,” Kiley posted on X about his new bill’s boundaries. “But Newsom is planning to blow all of this up so he can impose his own partisan map on voters before the next election.

“Fortunately, Congress has the ability to protect California voters using its authority under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This will also stop a damaging redistricting war from breaking out across the country,” he continued.

Kiley conveniently left out the reason this war has broken out in the first place: President Donald Trump’s push for Texas to gerrymander its districts beyond recognition in a quest to maintain a Republican majority in the House of Representatives.

Some powerful blue-state governors, such as Newsom and Kathy Hochul of New York, have abandoned their traditional resistance to gerrymandering, threatening to redraw their own districts to create more Democratic representatives in response.

“This is war. We are at war. And that’s why the gloves are off, and I say, bring it on,” Hochul said Monday.

Democratic representatives from Texas aren’t playing around, either. They’ve fled the state, making it impossible for the Texas House to reach a quorum and vote on the new maps.

Despite his stated focus on fighting Newsom in California, if Kiley were to pass his bill, it would also nullify any new districts drawn in Texas.

And to be fair, Kiley’s loud silence on Texas’s redistricting may not just be an attempt to fly under the radar of a vengeful, gerrymander-happy president: It could also be a purely self-motivated attempt to keep his seat!

A new report from Harvard’s student newspaper suggests that Trump administration officials planted a lie in The New York Times about the university capitulating to the president.

The Times reported last Monday that Harvard has “signaled a willingness” to shell out up to $500 million to settle with the Trump administration, which accuses the university of being “run” by “antisemitism and DEI.” The story, based on “four people familiar with the negotiations,” seemingly detailed a prominent domino falling as Ivy League universities and other institutions increasingly submit to the president’s shakedowns.

But reporting by The Harvard Crimson cuts against the Times’ story and even suggests that it may have been based on misinformation propagated by Trump’s team.

Citing anonymous Harvard faculty members, the Crimson reported Sunday that President Alan Garber told others that it’s “false” that the university is considering a $500 million settlement, and a deal “is not imminent.” In fact, per the Crimson, the university is actively considering fighting the matter out in court rather than settling. The president also reportedly told a faculty member that the rumor about a hefty potential payment was leaked to the media by the Trump administration. (The Crimson notes that a Harvard spokesperson declined to provide comment but, after the story was published, “disputed the characterization of Garber’s remarks.”)

The Trump White House lying about its battle with Harvard to give a false impression of victory would certainly track with its strategy elsewhere; take, for example, its misleading braggadocio on tariffs and trade deals. It also underscores yet again........

© New Republic