President Donald Trump is trying to clear the field of several Indiana Republican state senators who previously opposed a congressional redistricting map by endorsing their challengers in the upcoming May 5 primary election.

In December, 21 Republican state senators joined their Democrat colleagues to block a redrawn congressional map that would have strengthened the GOP’s control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

‘Anybody that votes against Redistricting, and the SUCCESS of the Republican Party in D.C., will be, I am sure, met with a MAGA Primary in the Spring.’

The new map, which would have created two more Republican-leaning congressional districts, failed in the state Senate in a 31-19 vote.

Trump issued a warning to Republican state senators ahead of the vote, cautioning those who planned to block the map.

“Anybody that votes against Redistricting, and the SUCCESS of the Republican Party in D.C., will be, I am sure, met with a MAGA Primary in the Spring,” Trump wrote, adding that he would “do everything within my power to make sure that they will not hurt the Republican Party, and our Country, again.”

Trump declared that “every one” of the Republicans in the state Senate who voted against redistricting “should be ‘primaried,’ and I will be there to help!”

Republicans who voted against redistricting who are seeking re-election in May:

James Buck (District 21)Spencer Deery (District 23)Dan Dernulc (District 1)Greg Goode (District 38)Travis Holdman (District 19)Rick Niemeyer (District 6)Linda Rogers (District 11)Greg Walker (District 41)

Republican state Senators Eric Bassler (District 39) and Kyle Walker (District 31) also voted against the redistricting map. However, neither is seeking re-election.

RELATED: Indiana Republicans vote with Democrats to block redistricting — despite Trump’s threat to unseat them

Kaiti Sullivan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Trump issued his first endorsements of Republican challengers in January, backing Paula Copenhaver against Deery and Brenda Wilson against Goode. He also endorsed Jeff Ellington to take over Bassler’s open seat.

Trump described Copenhaver, the Fountain County GOP Chair, as a “MAGA Warrior” and a “terrific Candidate.”

“Paula is running against an incompetent and ineffective RINO incumbent named Spencer Deery who, for whatever reason, betrayed his voters by voting against Redistricting in Indiana,” the president stated.

Trump called Vigo County Commissioner Wilson a “Proven America First Patriot” and “a Successful Family Farmer,” arguing that she would be “a strong and effective Voice for our amazing Farmers and Indiana Agriculture.” He criticized Goode as a “RINO” and nicknamed him “No Goode.”

The president declared that Ellington, an “American First Patriot,” would be “a fantastic replacement for RINO Eric Bassler.” He described Ellington as “a Successful Businessman, Retired Firefighter, Horse Farmer, Greene County GOP Chairman, and former State Representative, who has dedicated his life to serving his Community.”

Trump issued three additional endorsements in February, supporting Blake Fiechter against Holdman, Tracey Powell against Buck, and Michelle Davis against Walker.

Fiechter is “a very successful Real Estate Broker, Proud Husband, Loving Father to three girls, and a Highly Respected Councilman in the wonderful City of Bluffton,” Trump said.

The president described Powell as “a successful Businessman, Chiropractor, Farmer, and Highly Respected Tipton County Commissioner.”

Trump contended that Davis, a state representative, has a strong record that includes voting “WITH Republicans to pass Redistricting in the State House.”

RELATED: ‘Total RINO’: Trump vows to oust Indiana Republican leader over redistricting betrayal

Kaiti Sullivan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

On Apr. 7, Trump posted two additional endorsements in his effort to remove Indiana RINOs from their Senate seats. He announced his support for Dr. Brian Schmutzler against Rogers and Trevor De Vries against Dernulc.

“A Proven Leader, Brian serves his Community as a Highly Respected Anesthesiologist and Medical Director,” he wrote in a post on social media.

“A Successful Businessman, Trevor knows the America First Policies required to Grow our Economy, Create GREAT Jobs, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., and Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE,” Trump said in a separate post.

Gov. Mike Braun (R), who supported the redistricting effort, also endorsed seven Trump-backed candidates: Copenhaver, Davis, De Vries, Fiechter, Powell, Wilson, and Schmutzler.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Donald trump, Trump, Indiana, Jim buck, James buck, Spencer deery, Dan dernulc, Greg goode, Travis holdman, Rick niemeyer, Linda rogers, Greg walker, Paula copenhaver, Brenda wilson, Jeff ellington, Blake fiechter, Tracey powell, Michelle davis, Brian schmutzler, Trever de vries, Rinos, Rino, Redistricting, Primary election, Politics 

The shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on Saturday night has renewed the fervor of another debate raging in the nation’s capital.

On Sunday morning, President Trump made a post on Truth Social renewing his call to complete the White House ballroom, a project that has been halted due to an ongoing lawsuit.

‘The White House ballroom is essential for the safety and security of the president, his family, his Cabinet, and his staff.’

Trump argued that the shooting over the weekend demonstrates why the president needs a secure venue to host large events.

“What happened last night is exactly the reason that our great Military, Secret Service, Law Enforcement and, for different reasons, every President for the last 150 years, have been DEMANDING that a large, safe, and secure Ballroom be built ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WHITE HOUSE,” Trump wrote. “This event would never have happened with the Militarily Top Secret Ballroom currently under construction at the White House. It cannot be built fast enough!”

RELATED: WHCD attendees caught snatching wine bottles off tables amid chaos in aftermath of shooting

Pete Marovich/Washington Post/Getty Images

He added that the ballroom is both beautiful and far more secure than the Hilton hotel in Washington.

Trump then pivoted to attack the ongoing lawsuit that has obstructed the construction of the ballroom despite his wishes.

“The ridiculous Ballroom lawsuit, brought by a woman walking her dog, who has absolutely No Standing to bring such a suit, must be dropped, immediately. Nothing should be allowed to interfere with with [sic] its construction, which is on budget and substantially ahead of schedule!!!” Trump concluded.

Trump echoed this message in a White House press briefing in the aftermath of the shooting, adding that modern times place higher demands on security than those of the past: “We need levels of security that probably nobody has ever seen before.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signaled his agreement with Trump’s calls to continue the project, posting a copy of a letter regarding the lawsuit along with the caption, “It’s time to build the ballroom.”

The letter, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, begins by stating that the shooting Saturday was not the first attempt on a president’s life at the Washington Hilton hotel, referring to an attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life by John Hinckley Jr., at the beginning of his presidency.

Shumate continues: “Yesterday’s assassination attempt on President Trump proves, yet again, that the White House ballroom is essential for the safety and security of the president, his family, his Cabinet, and his staff. When the White House ballroom is complete, President Trump and his successors will no longer need to venture beyond the safety of the White House perimeter to attend large gatherings at the Washington Hilton ballroom.”

He says that the lawsuit therefore puts the president and those close to him at “grave risk,” adding that he hopes “yesterday’s narrow miss will help you finally realize the folly of a lawsuit that literally serves no purpose except to stop President Trump no matter the cost.”

Blanche added in a reply to the post that the lawsuit is “on behalf of a single person who walks in the vicinity of the White House once a month and expects to dislike the East Wing’s new design.”

However, the reality is a bit more complicated than the “passing aesthetic gripe of a single person,” as Blanche described.

The lawsuit was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, a nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. The organization represents thousands of members across the country, according to the complaint.

Blanche appears to be describing one member of the organization who is explicitly mentioned in the lawsuit, though she is not the only member whose interests are represented.

That said, she is described as a “professor emerita at a university where she taught history and historic preservation” who “frequently visits the White House neighborhood in order to enjoy the historic buildings and the beauty of the city’s design, in which the White House prominently features.”

Many right-leaning X accounts posted messages following the shooting urging the completion of the White House ballroom.

“THIS IS WHY WE NEED TRUMP’S BALLROOM,” Libs of TikTok wrote.

“Now you know why the left is suing to block Trump’s privately-funded WH ballroom,” End Wokeness said.

“I don’t want to hear one more f**king criticism of Trump’s new ballroom at the White House,” Meghan McCain added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Acting attorney general, Assassination attempt, Assistant attorney general, Hilton hotel, Politics, President ronald reagan, President trump, Todd blanche, Truth social, Washington, Washington hilton, Whcd attendees, White house ballroom, White house correspondents dinner 

Virginia voted last week in favor of a referendum to adopt a gerrymandered congressional map that would all but guarantee that 10 out of the state’s 11 congressional seats go to Democrats in the upcoming midterm election.

There remains a good chance, however, that the new map may not ultimately be adopted.

Background

There are numerous legal battles across Virginia over whether the gerrymandering referendum that passed Tuesday is lawful. One of those battles — Scott v. McDougle — is now before the Virginia Supreme Court.

In October 2025, Republican state lawmakers and members of the Virginia Redistricting Commission filed a lawsuit, claiming that the special session reconvened late last year to consider a constitutional amendment on redistricting was invalid as it was called not by the governor, who holds the exclusive right to do so, but by the speaker of the state House.

The complaint noted further that while the Virginia House of Delegates “has no constitutional authority to propose a plan to redraw or reapportion districts” for the U.S. Congress, as this falls under the purview of the Virginia Redistricting Commission, the state House nevertheless usurped the authority.

To bypass the commission, lawmakers proposed a constitutional amendment to redraw the congressional map. Getting this amendment on the April 21 ballot required the approval of a corresponding resolution in two separate legislative sessions on either side of a state election. Challengers contend that this process was bungled and legally flawed.

RELATED: GOP bill would squeeze Democratic hives out of Virginia — and back into DC

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D), a supporter of the gerrymandering scheme. Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Tazewell County Circuit Judge Jack Hurley Jr. ruled on Jan. 27 that the proposed constitutional amendment was unlawful, but the Virginia Supreme Court subsequently ruled that Virginians could still vote for it in the statewide April 21 referendum while the case proceeds.

The day after the referendum passed, Hurley blocked the state from certifying the results of the vote, ruling that the legislature’s constitutional amendment and the special election on it were invalid.

Skeptical of Democratic plot

On Monday, the Virginia Supreme Court heard arguments in Scott v. McDougle.

One Virginia justice extracted concessions from the defense at the outset that the “yes” vote in the referendum “doesn’t tell us anything” about the merits of the challengers’ claims, and that the Virginia General Assembly didn’t follow its own procedural rules with regard to the special session during which the new congressional map was passed.

Multiple justices expressed skepticism about the validity of that special session.

One justice said that contrary to the previous expectation in Virginia that the legislature wouldn’t sit year-round, the Democratic “interpretation of the special session would allow them to sit in continuous session for the better part of two years.”

The same justice appeared receptive to the argument by Thomas McCarthy, attorney arguing for the plaintiffs, that “it’s sort of a nonsensical position to say that the special session exists through a regular session” — referencing the overlap of the 2024 special session and the 2025 general session.

The justices also did not appear entirely convinced by Democrats’ argument that enough time had passed between when the amendment was first passed and the 2025 state election. The legislature voted on the amendment in October, weeks after early voting for the 2025 election had already begun.

“What is your position — your client’s position — regarding a constitutional amendment that is adopted at 6 p.m. on Election Day with an hour left at the polls?” asked one justice. “Is that still the next general election?”

Virginia Solicitor General Tillman Breckenridge responded that the amendment must only be passed before Election Day, rather than on it.

McCarthy argued to the contrary, claiming that for the amendment to have been valid, it should have been passed before the entire voting period, not just before Election Day 2025. A Virginia Supreme Court justice subsequently noted that the amendment process responsible for the passage of the gerrymandering legislation was unprecedented.

Of note, the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond ruled on Sunday in a separate but related case that the Virginia General Assembly did not exceed its authority when passing the amendment on redistricting.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Abigail spanberger, Constitutional amendment, Democrats, General assembly, Lawsuit, Midterm election, Old dominion, Redistricting, Redistricting battle, Referendum, Republican voters, Resolution, Special session, Us congress, Virginia, Virginia house of delegates, Virginia redistricting commission, Virginia supreme court, Politics 

First lady Melania Trump came out swinging against late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel after the latest assassination attempt against her husband.

Kimmel was heavily criticized online after making a joke on Thursday that implied that President Donald Trump might die soon and leave the first lady a widow.

‘Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand.’

On Monday, the first lady fired back.

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy — his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America,” she wrote in a statement on social media.

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she added.

“Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand,” she concluded. “How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

Kimmel made the joke during a mock White House Correspondents’ Dinner sketch where he addressed the first lady.

“Our first lady, Melania, is here. Look at her, so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow!” Kimmel said.

Kimmel was previously suspended from his own show after he implied that the suspect who allegedly shot and killed Charlie Kirk was a Trump supporter. He was reinstated after only a few days.

RELATED: WHCD attendees caught snatching wine bottles off tables amid chaos in aftermath of shooting

The first lady was at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner when shots rang out and attendees were evacuated from the building. The comments against Kimmel were her first about the shooting.

President Donald Trump told reporters it was a “rather traumatic experience” for the first lady.

“I don’t want to say, and people don’t like having it said that they were scared, but certainly, I mean, who wouldn’t be when you have a situation like that?” he said to CBS News.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Jimmy kimmel widow joke, Melania vs kimmel, Trump assassination attempt, White house correspondents, Politics 

Last week, the Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted by a federal grand jury on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering for allegedly using over $3 million in donor funds to secretly pay informants inside extremist groups like the KKK.

On this episode of “Rufo and Lomez,” Christopher Rufo and Jonathan Keeperman, both of whom have been targets of the SPLC, trade stories and discuss the significance of these indictments.

The SPLC, says Rufo, “is this amazing story of the organized left creating this phantasm of the radical right and then fighting that phantasm that they themselves have created.”

The powerful role the SPLC has inhabited on the left, says Keeperman, hinges on telling liberals “who the bad guys are” and thus who they are “allowed to hate.”

But it goes further than just slapping damning labels on conservative individuals and organizations.

If the SPLC targets you, it proceeds to attempt to “ruin your reputation, ruin your ability to earn a living, and then send out [its] goons by proxy and by arms’ distance to physically hurt you if you show up anywhere in public,” alleges Rufo, citing the SPLC’s targeting of American political scientist and scholar Charles Murray, who suffered both professionally and personally after the advocacy group labeled him an extremist.

Rufo keenly recalls the first time the SPLC targeted him.

In the early 2020s when he was on his anti-critical race theory campaign, he found himself in the organization’s crosshairs, and it genuinely frightened him.

“I felt the fear,” he admits.

“You have this sense like, OK, I better fight hard because these people are trying to knock me off the board altogether — ruin my reputation, ruin my ability to support my family.”

Rufo’s fight proved successful. “I was able to kind of rebuff those initial challenges and actually kind of boomerang them and turn them into a badge of honor, a fundraising appeal to my supporters. … I was able to get them to retract certain claims that they were making against me to show in essence that I was able to make them back down,” he recounts.

That was just the first attack though.

Over the last few years, there have been over “a dozen” attacks on Rufo, but they no longer elicit the same fear as the first time.

“You actually develop a kind of immunity through exposure,” he says, calling the recent charges against the SPLC “both shocking and not shocking.”

“It’s both a blow to their effectiveness, but it’s also just really another nail in the coffin.”

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Charles murray, Chris rufo, Critical race theory, Extremist groups, Jonathan keeperman, Kkk informants, Lomez, Radical right, Rufo & lomez, Southern poverty law, Southern poverty law center, Splc, Organized left, Splc indictment, Blazetv, Blaze media 

An elected state representative in North Carolina is no longer a registered Democrat after she crossed the aisle to vote with Republicans on immigration.

Last week, news broke that state Rep. Carla Cunningham was no longer registered as a Democrat. She had represented the Democratic Party in office since she was first elected to the 106th Congressional District seat in 2012. Cunningham then confirmed in a statement that she “came to realize” that she wants “to serve the people, not a party.”

‘All cultures are not equal.’

“Being an independent thinker does not align with party politics, and I will never compromise the needs of my constituents to satisfy a political agenda,” her statement continued, according to the Charlotte Observer.

Cunningham’s voter registration now says she is “UNA,” or unaffiliated.

In the last year, Cunningham has faced considerable criticism after making a speech on the floor of the North Carolina House in favor of American citizens over illegal aliens and other immigrants.

“If you ask me to line up behind another group of people to raise awareness about their plight, I unapologetically say no,” she said back in July.

“It’s time to wake up. We must establish new rules to address a distinct type of migration that we are facing in our country, state, and cities. It’s time to turn the conveyor belt off,” she continued.

During the fiery speech, Cunningham noted that some immigrants come from cultures that are incompatible with the American way of life. “All cultures are not equal,” she said, adding that she would still “welcome” those immigrants who “want to adapt to [our] country, not isolate yourself, and come here legally.”

RELATED: Loud-mouthed former Democrat mayor tries to resurrect political career in a new state — and a new party

Nevertheless, Cunningham voted with Republicans that month to override a veto from Democrat Gov. Josh Stein on the Criminal Illegal Alien Enforcement Act. Her vote appears to be based on principle, as it was not needed for the veto override to pass the House, which passed the override overwhelmingly, 72-48. The state Senate likewise passed the override by a sizeable margin, 30-19.

Cunningham, who is black, claimed that she was accused of racism on account of that vote. “Yes, I was degraded for my vote. Yes, I was called racist for my vote. And yes, I was said I was trash,” she stated during her floor speech.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden (D) even allegedly threatened Cunningham over that vote. In January, Cunningham joined others in filing a petition to recall McFadden, claiming that McFadden warned her not to vote to override the veto — or else.

McFadden called Cunningham and claimed that people would “come after” her if she voted to override it, Cunningham claimed in a sworn affidavit. “I don’t want to see you get hurt; you live in my county,” he added, according to Cunningham, who took those alleged statements as a threat masked as concern.

McFadden did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

Despite the allegations against him, McFadden effectively won re-election in March after he sailed through the Democrat primary and now faces no opposition in the general election in November.

Cunningham, however, did not fare well in the March primary. After seven terms in office, she lost her Democrat primary race to Rev. Rodney Sadler, who carried the day with nearly 70% of the vote. With no Republican or independent candidates in the race, Sadler will win the seat in November.

Blaze News was curious whether Cunningham has given any thought to running for political office again, perhaps as an independent or even a Republican. However, her office did not respond to a request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Carla cunningham, North carolina, Democratic party, Immigration, Illegal aliens, Josh stein, Politics 

An enraged crowd of family members exploded with profanities and racial slurs at an arrested male accused of fatally shooting a 15-year-old boy at a New York City playground earlier this month.

Police had to restrain relatives of victim Jaden Pierre while 18-year-old Zahir Davis was being walked out of the 113th Precinct on Saturday, WCBS-TV reported.

‘Look at my face! I hope they f**k you up every f**kin’ day!’

Davis was then taken to his arraignment in Queens criminal court where he was charged with second-degree murder, gang assault, and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon, the station said.

Davis’ private attorney entered a not guilty plea, WCBS reported.

During his perp walk out of the precinct, the crowd didn’t hold back their anger at Davis:

“You’re a f**kin’ piece of s**t!””You’re a f**kin’ bitch!””You’re a dead man!””How dare you do that to my nephew!””Look at my face! I hope they f**k you up every f**kin’ day!”

Content warning: Profanity and racial slurs:

NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch on Saturday morning announced Davis’ arrest — noting that Davis fled to Jamaica following the deadly April 16 shooting.

“NYPD detectives assigned to the U.S. Marshals Regional Fugitive Task Force have arrested Zahir Davis for the senseless murder of 15-year-old Jaden Pierre in a park in Queens last week,” Tisch wrote on X. “Davis fled to Jamaica following the shooting and was arrested immediately when he landed back in NYC last night.”

Officials told WCBS that while Pierre was being beaten, Davis allegedly pulled a handgun from his bag and shot Pierre in the chest.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office added to the station that Davis flew to Jamaica the next day “to evade responsibility,” and police urged Davis’ family to have him fly back home.

Davis is due back in court Wednesday, WCBS reported, adding that he faces 25 years to life in prison if convicted.

Davis is a reputed gang member, WABC-TV reported, adding that detectives believe the shooting stemmed from previous fights between him and Pierre.

WABC also noted that detectives who reviewed cellphone video believe Davis may have been attempting to pistol-whip Pierre, but the gun went off.

The victim’s older sister, 17-year-old Nellie Pierre, had harsh words for those recording video of the attack on her brother, telling the New York Daily News that “everyone there recording did nothing. They treated it all as entertainment. He was already beat up. He was helpless, and they shot him.”

WABC also reported that Davis was separately charged with aggravated harassment and harassment for allegedly threatening to shoot his ex-girlfriend, the mother of his child, on April 12. That was just four days before the fatal shooting of Pierre.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Arrest, Zahir davis, New york city, Queens, Nypd, Police, Murder charge, Jaden pierre, Fatal shooting, Beatdown, Perp walk, Crime