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 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 how the claims of Trump officials warrant extreme suspicion.

Please, won’t somebody think of the billionaires?

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren defended mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s plan to tax the wealthiest New Yorkers in order to make the city more affordable for working people during a CNBC interview Monday.

Journalist David Faber repeated a common talking point about wealthy New Yorkers and businesses being “chased out” of the city if they were to be taxed at a higher rate, and Warren was having none of it.

“The issue is affordability. Do you know how many working families are chased out of New York City every day?” she asked, resolute. “What Zohran is saying is, ‘I want people to be able to afford to live in New York City, that’s what keeps it a vibrant city.’”

Faber interjected: “Nobody disagrees with that, Senator, but raising taxes in order to do it?”

Voice dripping with faux-earnestness, Warren responded, “Oh my goodness! Oh dear! Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry?”

ELIZABETH WARREN: What Zohran is saying is 'I want people to be able to afford to live in NYC'

FABER: But raising taxes in order to do it?

WARREN: Oh my goodness! Oh dear! Are you worried that billionaires are going to go hungry? pic.twitter.com/9FHkAKSv4X

Mamdani’s affordability-centric message proved to be a winning one, landing him the New York City Democratic mayoral nomination by 12 points in ranked-choice voting, a margin that shocked the media ecosystem and Democratic establishment. Disgraced former Governor Andrew Cuomo had been seen as a shoo-in for the nomination, with most polls predicting his win up until the primary. But Mamdani’s simple, progressive goals,........

© New Republic