Government

Home Government

GOP Lawmaker Unveils Historic Move To ‘Expunge’ Impeachments Against Trump

3

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is launching a renewed push to wipe President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from the House record — calling the proceedings a “maliciously false” partisan campaign that damaged Trump’s reputation and abused congressional power.

The California Republican introduced H.Res.1211, a resolution that would formally expunge both impeachments approved by the House in 2019 and 2021 “as if such Article had never passed the full House of Representatives.”

“The fact is that the Constitution doesn’t spell out what to do when you’ve wrongfully indicted somebody,” Issa told Fox News Digital. “An impeachment is basically an indictment, and it’s an indictment that you can’t really be acquitted from.”

“If you are impeached by the House, famously where do you go to get your reputation back?” he added. “That’s sort of a problem that we’re dealing with.”

The measure, which has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, reignites a fierce constitutional and political debate over whether Congress can retroactively erase an impeachment after it has already become part of the historical record.

Issa argued that newly declassified intelligence documents and revelations about the impeachment investigations justify revisiting the issue years later.

The resolution claims Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 — tied to his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — relied on politically biased and unreliable information supplied by an anonymous whistleblower who allegedly lacked firsthand knowledge.

Issa’s resolution also points to recently declassified material highlighted by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who earlier this year said documents revealed what she described as a “coordinated effort” within the intelligence community “to manufacture a conspiracy that was used as the basis to impeach President Trump in 2019.”

Trump became the third president in U.S. history to be impeached in December 2019 after House Democrats accused him of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress over allegations he pressured Ukraine to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 election. The Senate later acquitted Trump in February 2020, with only one Republican — Sen. Mitt Romney — voting to convict on one article.

The president was impeached a second time in January 2021, just days after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, on a charge of “incitement of insurrection.” That impeachment made Trump the only president ever impeached twice.

Issa blasted the second impeachment as rushed and fundamentally unfair.

“They impeached him for essentially an insurrection, a true high crime, and it’s false,” Issa said.

The resolution argues House Democrats rammed the second impeachment through Congress in just two days without a full evidentiary process, fact witnesses, or an extended investigation. While lawmakers held a brief hearing with constitutional scholars, Republicans argued Trump was denied basic due process protections.

Trump was acquitted by the Senate in February 2021 after falling short of the two-thirds threshold needed for conviction, though seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting guilty — the largest bipartisan vote to convict a president in impeachment history.

Issa also accused Democrats of violating House norms throughout both proceedings.

A source close to Issa’s office told Fox News Digital that some Democrats have privately acknowledged information that emerged after the impeachments “reflects so poorly on the House” and represents “an example of what’s gone wrong in the Capitol and in Washington.”

The effort already has backing from powerful Republicans, including House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan.

“Democrats weaponized impeachment against President Trump with politically motivated charges,” Jordan told Fox News Digital. “We applaud Chairman Issa for leading the fight to expunge this sham from the record.”

More than 20 House Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors, including Claudia Tenney, Tim Burchett, Harriet Hageman and Ronny Jackson.

The push follows several failed Republican attempts to erase Trump’s impeachments from congressional records. Similar resolutions introduced in 2022 and 2023 never received hearings, markups or floor votes before dying at the end of the previous Congress.

Issa insists this latest effort is different.

“The previous resolutions were not written as strongly as this one and didn’t have what we have,” he said, referring to what he called newly uncovered evidence of misconduct tied to the impeachment inquiries.

Still, constitutional scholars remain divided over whether Congress can truly “erase” an impeachment. Supporters argue the Constitution gives the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” meaning lawmakers also control their own records and can vote to expunge prior actions.

Critics counter that Congress cannot undo the historical fact that the House impeached a president, even if lawmakers later condemn or annotate the process as flawed. In practice, many legal experts say the effort would be largely symbolic.

Issa, however, says symbolism matters.

“Our goal is to show that it’s false and it was maliciously false,” he said. “When you’ve been falsely accused, whether it’s days, weeks, months or years later, somebody should be just as interested in printing that retraction on the front page as they were in putting the original charge on the front page.”

Trump Admin Announces Plan To Revoke Passports Over Unpaid Child Support

4

The U.S. State Department has begun revoking the passports of thousands of Americans with large unpaid child support debts, according to federal officials.

The enforcement effort officially began Friday and will initially target parents who owe at least $100,000 in overdue child support. About 2,700 passport holders currently fall into that category, based on figures provided by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under federal law, Americans with more than $2,500 in unpaid, court-ordered child support can already be denied a passport or have an existing passport revoked. In a statement released Thursday, the State Department said it is expanding coordination with the Department of Health and Human Services to identify and enforce penalties against delinquent parents who exceed that threshold.

Officials said the crackdown is intended to pressure parents into complying with court-ordered child support obligations.

Once revoked, a passport can no longer be used for international travel, even if the debt is later paid, according to State Department guidance.

The department urged Americans with significant child support debt to contact the appropriate state child support enforcement agency and make payment arrangements before enforcement action is taken.

“Eligibility for a new passport will only be restored after child support debt is paid to the relevant state child support enforcement agency and the individual is no longer delinquent according to HHS records,” officials said.

Individuals affected by the policy must work directly with the state agency overseeing their child support case. After the debt is resolved, the Department of Health and Human Services must update its records before the State Department can issue a new passport. Officials said that process can take at least two to three weeks.

It remains unclear how many Americans could ultimately be affected by the expanded enforcement effort. Officials said that the Department of Health and Human Services is still gathering data from state agencies, but the number of passport holders owing more than $2,500 in child support debt could total many thousands more.

READ NEXT: Child Protection Controversy Rocks Key Pennsylvania Race

Report: Comey Skipping First Court Appearance In Trump Threat Case

Former FBI Director James Comey will no longer have to make an upcoming court appearance in North Carolina after a federal judge agreed to cancel the hearing tied to charges that he threatened President Donald Trump through a controversial social media post.

U.S. District Judge Louise Flanagan conditionally approved Comey’s request to waive the appearance after his attorneys argued he had already made an initial court appearance last week in Alexandria, Virginia.

Comey surrendered to authorities during that appearance, was formally read his rights, and did not enter a plea.

His legal team argued that federal criminal procedure rules provide “for an initial appearance in the singular,” making another hearing unnecessary. Prosecutors with the Department of Justice reportedly supported the request.

Judge Flanagan ruled that the North Carolina hearing would be canceled if Comey filed the required waiver by Friday. Otherwise, the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

The former FBI chief is facing two federal charges tied to a May 2025 Instagram post showing seashells arranged to read “86 47” — a message prosecutors say amounted to a threat against Trump’s life.

According to prosecutors, the phrase “86” is widely understood as slang for eliminating or getting rid of someone, while “47” refers to Trump, the 47th president.

The charging document alleges:

“On or about May 15, 2025, in the Eastern District of North Carolina, the defendant, JAMES BRIEN COMEY JR, did knowingly and willfully make a threat to take the life of, and to inflict bodily harm upon, the President of the United States, in that he publicly posted a photograph on the internet social media site Instagram which depicted seashells arranged in a pattern making out ‘86 47,’ which a reasonable recipient who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”

Comey has fiercely denied the accusations and claimed the prosecution is politically motivated.

When the image was first posted, Comey later said he believed the shells represented a “political message” and claimed he did not realize the numbers could be interpreted as encouraging violence. He eventually deleted the post.

The longtime Trump rival responded to the indictment in a video statement, insisting he has done nothing wrong.

“But nothing has changed with me. I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary, so let’s go,” Comey said.

“But it’s really important that all of us remember that this is not who we are as a country, this is not how the Department of Justice is supposed to be.”

The charges — threatening the president and transmitting a threat in interstate commerce — each carry a maximum possible prison sentence of five years. Prosecutors would need to prove Comey “knowingly and willfully” threatened to “take the life of” Trump.

The case marks yet another chapter in the bitter feud between Trump and the former FBI director, whom Trump fired in 2017 during the early stages of the Russia investigation led by former Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

It is also the second criminal case Comey has faced since Trump returned to the White House.

Comey was previously charged with false statements and obstruction tied to his 2020 congressional testimony about FBI leaks. That case was ultimately dismissed after a court found the prosecutor’s appointment unlawful, though the Trump administration has appealed the decision.

Senate Candidate Drops Out Of Race After Trump Offers Him Administration Role

1
President Donald Trump gestures to the crowd after delivering remarks at the House GOP Member Retreat, Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at the Donald J. Trump- John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The Republican primary race for Kentucky’s soon-to-be-open U.S. Senate seat took a dramatic turn when businessman Nate Morris announced he was dropping out just hours after Donald Trump publicly revealed he had asked him to step aside.

Trump’s Intervention Reshapes the Race

In a statement posted on Truth Social, Trump said he met with Morris the day before and encouraged him to withdraw from the race. He praised Morris as a capable businessman and political ally, suggesting that his future may lie in a role within a potential administration, possibly as an ambassador.

Morris’ campaign quickly confirmed the decision, signaling alignment with Trump’s request and framing it as a continuation of his support for the president’s broader political agenda.

Trump also moved swiftly to consolidate support behind another candidate, endorsing Republican Congressman Andy Barr.

A Competitive Primary Field

Before his withdrawal, Morris had been part of a three-way Republican contest that also includes Barr and former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron. The winner of the primary will compete for the seat being vacated by longtime Senator Mitch McConnell, who is retiring after decades in office.

Morris had previously aggressively criticized both Barr and Cameron, accusing them of being aligned with McConnell and suggesting they would continue establishment-style leadership rather than advance a populist agenda.

Despite those earlier attacks, Morris endorsed Barr following his exit, urging Kentucky voters to unify behind him.

Reactions From the Remaining Campaigns

Barr welcomed both Trump’s endorsement and Morris’ support, describing Morris as a strong candidate whose backing would help unify voters. His campaign emphasized alignment with Trump’s political movement and highlighted Barr’s record in Congress.

Cameron, on the other hand, remains in the race. His campaign indicated he would continue competing in the primary, positioning himself as an alternative choice for Republican voters. A spokesperson for his campaign also took a swipe at the developments, suggesting the outcome reflected internal party dynamics tied to McConnell’s influence.

Broader Implications

Morris’ exit underscores Trump’s influence in Republican primaries, particularly in shaping candidate fields and consolidating support. Endorsements from high-profile figures can quickly alter the trajectory of a race, especially in crowded primaries.

The Kentucky Senate race now appears to be narrowing into a more direct contest between Barr and Cameron, with Trump’s backing likely playing a significant role in how the race unfolds. At the same time, the episode highlights ongoing divisions within the Republican Party between different factions and leadership styles.

As the primary progresses, the focus will likely shift to how each remaining candidate distinguishes themselves on policy, electability, and alignment with party priorities in a state that remains solidly Republican.

This article originally appeared on American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

Report: Top Trump Official Is ‘On Thin Ice’

President Donald J. Trump visits the El Arepazo Doral restaurant, Monday, March 9, 2026, in Miami, Florida. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

President Donald Trump may be preparing for yet another high-profile shakeup inside his administration — and this time, the target could be Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary.

According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Trump recently blasted Makary behind closed doors for allegedly dragging his feet on approving flavored vape and nicotine products, an issue the president reportedly sees as politically important with younger MAGA voters.

Sources told the Journal that Makary is now on “thin ice” after Trump “upbraided” him during conversations last weekend.

The confrontation reportedly came after Trump fielded multiple calls from advisers who argued Makary was standing in the way of the president’s vaping agenda. During the 2024 campaign, Trump vowed to “save” vaping and positioned himself as an ally to vape users frustrated with federal restrictions.

“Advisers told the president that Makary has blocked Trump’s vaping agenda and described the commissioner as a problem for the administration,” reporters Liz Essley Whyte and Natalie Andrews wrote. “Makary earlier bucked White House preferences by refusing to OK menthol, mango and blueberry vape flavors from Los Angeles manufacturer Glas.”

The report added that Makary attempted to reassure Trump that he was reconsidering his hardline stance against flavored vape products, though it remains unclear whether the FDA chief ultimately changed course.

“Some of the people said Makary was weighing becoming more open to vape flavor approvals,” the report noted. “Makary earlier wanted to avoid approving fruit flavors or others potentially appealing to children because he was worried about the public health risks.”

Makary, a physician and former Johns Hopkins professor, was nominated by Trump to lead the FDA after the president’s 2024 election victory and was confirmed by the Senate in March 2025.

But if Trump decides to push Makary out, he would become the latest casualty in a growing string of administration shakeups that have rocked Washington in recent weeks.

Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was forced out after months of reported tensions inside the administration, while Attorney General Pam Bondi was recently fired amid frustration from Trump allies over legal and political disputes. Their departures fueled growing speculation that Trump is becoming increasingly impatient with officials he believes are out of step with his agenda.

The vaping battle has become particularly politically sensitive for Trump, who has tried to balance public health concerns with support from adult vape users and small-business owners in the industry.

The FDA banned flavored cartridge-based vape products in 2020 amid mounting concerns over youth vaping. Several Democrat-led states, including New York and California, later imposed their own sweeping restrictions on flavored tobacco and nicotine products.

Now, with pressure building inside the White House, Makary’s future may depend on whether he is willing to fall in line with Trump’s push to loosen those restrictions — or risk becoming the next administration official shown the door.

WHCA Dinner Shooting Prompts New Discussion Surrounding White House Ballroom

The attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner is rapidly reshaping the debate over President Donald Trump’s long-controversial plan to build a new White House ballroom — with even some Democrats signaling a shift in tone.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who had previously opposed aspects of the project, acknowledged Monday that lawmakers may now need to reconsider it — not as a political issue, but as a security necessity.

“Do we need a ballroom? Well, that we can discuss that,” Rosen said in an interview. “This isn’t about Donald Trump. It is really about safety. It’s really about safety.”

The $400 million, 90,000-square-foot ballroom proposal — which would replace the demolished East Wing — has drawn criticism for months over cost, transparency, and historical preservation concerns. But Saturday night’s attack, in which an armed suspect attempted to storm the event before being stopped, has injected new urgency into the conversation.

President Trump wasted little time connecting the incident to his long-standing push.

“I didn’t want to say this but this is why we have to have all of the attributes of what we’re planning at the White House,” Trump told reporters shortly after the shooting. “It’s actually a larger room, and it’s much more secure.”

Security concerns take center stage

Trump allies argue the incident underscores a glaring vulnerability: Washington lacks a truly secure venue capable of hosting large gatherings of top officials.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is now moving quickly to capitalize on that argument, pushing legislation that would fund the project and include additional security infrastructure beneath the ballroom, including a Secret Service annex.

“It’s very difficult to have a bunch of important people in the same place unless it’s really, really secure,” Graham said. “The times in which we live are unusual… I’ve never felt the sense of threat that exists today.”

The Justice Department echoed that urgency in a late-night court filing, arguing that the shooting should end legal delays blocking the project.

“This Court should never have enjoined this Project, but now, after the Saturday night attempted assassination… reasonable minds can no longer differ — The injunction must be dissolved,” the administration wrote.

The DOJ went even further, warning that halting the project “greatly endangers the lives of all Presidents, current and future.”

Democrats show signs of movement — with caveats

While many Democrats remain skeptical, Rosen’s comments suggest cracks in the previously unified opposition.

She emphasized that large events inherently carry risk and that stronger protections may be necessary.

“You can’t harden each and every [event],” she said, “but you want to try to be sure that they’re as safe as possible.”

Still, Rosen cautioned that the ballroom alone is not a silver bullet.

“One ballroom isn’t the answer to this,” she said.

She also criticized how the project has been handled, particularly the demolition of the East Wing — which housed the first lady’s office and other staff — without what she described as proper congressional process.

“What I object to is it didn’t go through any of those processes before the demolition,” Rosen said. “What was lost… that should have been preserved for history?”

Other Democrats, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), have gone further, openly urging their party to reconsider outright opposition to the project.

GOP divisions emerge over funding

Despite broad Republican support for the concept, divisions are emerging over how to pay for it.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a longtime Trump ally, pushed back against using taxpayer dollars, insisting the project should remain privately funded.

“We have $39 trillion of debt,” Scott said. “Maybe we ought to stop spending money.”

Trump has previously maintained that private donors would cover the ballroom’s cost, though critics have raised questions about transparency.

Legal battle intensifies

The project remains tied up in court after a federal judge ruled the administration lacked proper congressional approval, limiting construction to below-ground work while the case proceeds.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued last year after the East Wing was torn down, arguing the project violated preservation laws.

Now, in the wake of the shooting, the administration is urging the court to reverse course — or at least signal it would do so — calling the lawsuit “frivolous” and “dangerous.”

A turning point?

Saturday’s attack — the third assassination attempt against Trump since 2024, according to the administration — may prove to be a pivotal moment in the debate.

What was once dismissed by critics as an expensive and unnecessary expansion is now being reframed by supporters as a critical national security upgrade.

And with even some Democrats beginning to acknowledge the security argument, the political battle over the ballroom may be entering a new phase.

Whether that shift is enough to overcome legal hurdles and funding disputes remains to be seen — but after this weekend, the question is no longer just whether the White House needs a ballroom.

It’s whether Washington can afford not to have one.

Karoline Leavitt Prepares For Second Child As White House Weighs Temporary Shift

Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons


White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt is expected to welcome her second child this week, adding a personal milestone to a tenure already defined by firsts. At 28, she is the youngest press secretary in U.S. history and the first known to serve in the role while pregnant.

Her upcoming leave raises practical questions for the administration, including how long she plans to step away and how the White House will manage one of its most visible daily responsibilities in her absence.

Unclear timeline for leave

A White House official said it’s not yet clear how much time Leavitt will take off after the birth. Like other federal employees, she is generally entitled to up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave. Whether she uses the full period remains an open question.

That uncertainty leaves the briefing schedule in a flexible position, with no firm timeline for her return to the podium.

No interim press secretary planned

Instead of naming a temporary replacement, the White House plans to rely on a rotating group of officials to handle press briefings. That group could include President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance, an approach that would break from the more traditional model of a single, consistent spokesperson.

The decision signals a willingness to experiment, but it also introduces the possibility of mixed messaging. Different officials bring different styles, and consistency has long been a priority in managing daily communication with the press.

Family life in the public eye

Leavitt first announced her pregnancy in December, sharing that she and her husband, Nicholas Riccio, were expecting a daughter. Their first child, Niko, was born in July 2024 and has already appeared in the briefing room during special events.

In a social media post after Christmas, Leavitt said she was looking forward to becoming a “girl mom” and described the coming year as meaningful for her family. She also pointed to what she called a supportive, pro-family culture within the White House, crediting both President Trump and chief of staff Susie Wiles.

Staying active on the job

Leavitt continued her duties throughout the pregnancy, rarely stepping back from the demands of the role. That includes leading daily briefings and serving as a central voice for the administration during a busy stretch of domestic and international developments.

Her tenure has also brought changes to the structure of the briefing room. Most notably, she introduced a designated space for “new media,” giving podcasters, independent journalists, and digital creators a more visible presence.

She has often called on those voices early in briefings, a shift away from the traditional dominance of legacy outlets.

A test for a changing briefing room

Leavitt’s temporary absence could put that evolving setup to the test. With multiple officials rotating through the podium, the tone and priorities of briefings may shift from day to day.

That variability may not matter much during quieter periods. But in moments that require clear, unified messaging, it could become more noticeable.

Balancing public service and private life

For now, the focus remains on a personal milestone. Even in a role tied closely to national politics and constant scrutiny, family life continues alongside the job.

Leavitt’s situation underscores a familiar challenge in Washington: balancing the demands of public service with life outside the office. It’s not unique, but it’s rarely this visible.

Her return, whenever it comes, will likely bring the operation back to a more familiar rhythm. Until then, the White House is preparing to adjust on the fly.

READ NEXT: Major City Removes Leader Following Appalling Lawsuit

Trump Cites Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting To Push White House Ballroom: ‘Cannot Be Built Fast Enough’

Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump said Saturday night’s shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner highlights the urgent need for a new White House ballroom, declaring the project “cannot be built fast enough” as he renewed his push for the controversial proposal.

The remarks came after a gunman, later identified as Cole Thomas Allen, 31, of Torrance, California, attempted to breach the event at the Washington Hilton, where Trump and senior officials were present. The suspect was apprehended, and a federal officer was injured but survived, officials said.

Trump Links Incident to Security Concerns

Following the incident, Trump criticized the Hilton as insufficiently secure and argued that hosting such events off White House grounds creates vulnerabilities.

In a post and subsequent comments, Trump said the attack would not have happened if the event had been held in a secure facility at the White House.

“This event would never have happened… It cannot be built fast enough,” Trump said, referring to the proposed ballroom.

He emphasized that the planned venue would include enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and protections against drones, all within the perimeter of the White House complex.

The Ballroom Project

Trump has been pushing for the construction of a large, high-security ballroom on White House grounds — a project estimated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars and, according to him, funded by private donors and major corporations.

The proposed facility would be designed to host large-scale events currently held offsite, including the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, and would be significantly larger than existing event spaces on the grounds.

Plans call for a 90,000-square-foot structure replacing the temporary tents often used on the South Lawn. The design includes a 22,000-square-foot banquet hall capable of seating up to 1,000 guests, along with enhanced security features such as bulletproof glass and a glass-enclosed bridge connecting it to the main residence.

Reported donors include major technology companies such as Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Google, as well as individuals like Jeff Yass.

Trump has also said the ballroom would sit above a larger underground complex being constructed by the military. That portion, expected to include medical and security facilities, would be funded through federal appropriations.

Legal and Political Hurdles

The project has faced legal challenges and scrutiny over whether proper approvals were obtained.

  • A federal judge previously halted parts of construction pending congressional authorization
  • Preservation groups have raised concerns about the impact on the White House complex
  • An appeals court has allowed some work to continue while the case proceeds

Despite those hurdles, Trump and his allies have framed the ballroom as a necessary modernization tied to national security.

Broader Reaction

The shooting has intensified debate around the project.

Some lawmakers — including critics of Trump — have acknowledged security concerns highlighted by the incident. Others argue the ballroom is unnecessary or improperly authorized, questioning both its scale and cost.

What Comes Next

The investigation into the shooting remains ongoing.

At the same time, the legal battle over the ballroom is expected to continue, with a key court hearing anticipated in the coming months.

Trump, however, appears unlikely to back down — positioning the project not just as a legacy item, but as a direct response to a preventable security failure.

READ NEXT: Acting AG Reveals Who Suspect Was Targeting At WH Dinner

Report: Youngkin’s Trump White House Hopes Dim After Virginia Setback

1
President Donald Trump signs Executive Orders, Thursday, April 17, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

The political fallout from Virginia’s redistricting referendum is reaching beyond the state, cutting into Glenn Youngkin’s standing at a moment that matters for his future.

In recent weeks, the former governor had been floated as a possible pick for a Trump administration role, with secretary of labor among the positions mentioned. He was seen as a Republican who could point to a win in a blue-leaning state and bring a different profile into a national cabinet.

That window now looks narrower.

Timing Undercuts Momentum

The criticism from inside GOP circles is landing at a particularly inconvenient time for Youngkin.

According to Politico’s Dasha Burns, administration officials are blaming him for not doing enough to stop the redistricting measure, which passed by a slim margin and could shift up to four House seats toward Democrats. It’s the kind of loss that gets noticed in Washington, especially when control of the House is on the line.

And it’s not just about the outcome. It’s about perception.

A senior official, speaking anonymously, put it bluntly: “He doesn’t have enough friends here.” That comment points to a problem that goes beyond one referendum. It suggests Youngkin lacks the internal support that often decides who gets a seat at the table.

Burns continues:

Becca Glover, executive director of Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC, defended the former governor’s efforts, noting he raised and contributed nearly $500,000 to Virginians for Fair Maps and supported the Congressional Leadership Fund and Fair Maps’ fundraising efforts.

“The governor hit the campaign trail making many stops across the Commonwealth from Wise to Virginia Beach to Leesburg to motivate the grassroots to vote no,” Glover said. “He was proud to be part of a team including Speaker [Mike] Johnson and other former governors to get out the vote.”

Glover also pointed to the dozens of interviews Youngkin did and his efforts at retail campaigning.

“He continues to ask that the Supreme Court of Virginia to strike down this unconstitutional power grab,” Glover said.

A source briefed on White House discussions pushed back, saying Youngkin’s actions helped set the stage for the current difficulties facing him and his party in Virginia.

“Look, there’s plenty of blame to go around. But if Youngkin hadn’t left the special session open, Louise Lucas would never have had the chance to ram through those maps,” the person said, referring to the Democratic state senator who played a key role in advancing the redistricting effort. “So he has some responsibility for losing these seats.”

From Rising Star to Question Mark

Youngkin’s appeal to national Republicans has always been tied to his 2021 victory and his ability to win in a competitive state without fully leaning into Trump-style politics.

But that brand cuts both ways.

Inside a Trump-aligned orbit, relationships and loyalty still carry more weight than résumé lines. Another loss in Virginia, even one tied to a ballot measure, gives skeptics more reason to question how much influence Youngkin really has, both at home and in the broader party.

That matters when administration roles are being discussed behind closed doors.

Fewer Openings, More Competition

Even under the best conditions, cabinet-level positions are limited and highly competitive. Candidates need more than a strong narrative. They need advocates inside the administration willing to push their case.

Right now, the signals suggest Youngkin doesn’t have that backing.

The criticism tied to the referendum may not be decisive on its own. But combined with lingering doubts about his connections in Washington, it adds friction at the worst possible time.

READ NEXT: Indicted Democrat Who Resigned From Congress Plans Reelection Bid

Legal Battle Erupts After Judge Halts Virginia Redistricting Certification

3

Virginia’s attorney general is appealing a court order that halted a newly approved redistricting plan, setting off another legal clash with potential ripple effects far beyond the state.

Attorney General Jay Jones said he will challenge a circuit court judge’s decision to block the measure, even after voters narrowly approved it in a statewide referendum.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Jones said. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Court steps in after close vote

The dispute centers on a temporary constitutional amendment that would allow Democrats to redraw Virginia’s congressional districts before the next census.

The measure passed with 51% support, compared with 48% opposed. Still, Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley Jr. moved to block it, raising concerns about how the question was presented to voters and when the vote was held.

Hurley had already tried to stop the referendum months earlier. In February, he issued an order preventing the April vote from going forward.

Twice, the Virginia Supreme Court allowed the process to continue anyway. The justices declined to weigh in fully, saying only that the process, not the outcome, could ultimately come under review.

“Issuing an injunction to keep Virginians from the polls is not the proper way to make this decision,” the court said at the time.

What the new map could do

If it stands, the plan could dramatically reshape Virginia’s congressional delegation.

Democrats currently hold a 6-5 edge. Under the proposed map, that margin could widen to as much as 10-1. The arrangement would remain in place until after the 2030 census, when an independent commission would again take over the process.

That potential shift is drawing attention from both parties nationwide.

National fallout and political warnings

Republicans say the move could trigger similar efforts in GOP-led states.

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested South Carolina should consider a response.

“After the Virginia Democrats’ efforts to redistrict in order to increase Democrat seats in the House of Representatives, South Carolina should consider fighting fire with fire,” he said, urging state leaders to weigh their options.

Democrats, meanwhile, argue the plan is a reaction to earlier redistricting pushes in Republican-controlled states.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger said Virginia voters understood the stakes.

“When we found the results out, I was really excited but not surprised,” she said. “Because it’s been clear for a number of months that Virginians were really motivated to take this temporary responsive stance.”

She pushed back on criticism that the process lets politicians choose their voters, pointing to public access to the maps and contrasting Virginia with states where legislatures acted without voter input.

A broader fight over redistricting

The debate is part of a larger, escalating battle over congressional maps.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries cast the Virginia vote as a direct response to pressure from President Donald Trump, pointing to his push for mid-decade redistricting in Texas as the starting point.

“It was important for Democrats to push back aggressively,” Jeffries said, adding that the party would continue to respond in kind.

But not all Democrats are comfortable with that approach.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) warned that tit-for-tat redistricting could damage the political system.

“The wrong thing doesn’t make it the right thing,” he said. “If we continue to just attack the other side … our democracy is degraded.”

What comes next

For now, the legal fight returns to the courts, where the future of the voter-approved plan remains uncertain.

At stake is more than Virginia’s map. The outcome could shape how far states are willing to go in redrawing districts mid-decade and how aggressively parties respond to each other in the process

READ NEXT: Republican Colleagues Seek Answers After Congressman Goes Missing