News
Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger Stressed Pragmatism, But Politics Hound Her
On the night of her resounding win in last fall’s election for Virginia governor, Abigail Spanberger told her supporters that they had sent a message to the world. “Virginia,” she said in the opening lines of her victory speech, “chose pragmatism over partisanship.”
But even then it was clear that the first big issue of her term would be as partisan as it gets: a proposed amendment by her fellow Democrats to allow them to gerrymander the state’s 11 congressional districts.
The push to redraw the Virginia map was another salvo in a barrage of redistricting spurred by President Trump in a bid to keep Republicans in control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.
Virginians vote on Tuesday on whether to adopt the proposed map, and if the “Yes” vote wins, Democrats could end up with as many as 10 seats, up from the six they hold now. The redistricting battles of the last year would end up in something of a draw, with gains for Democrats in California and Virginia offsetting gains for Republicans in Texas, Missouri and North Carolina — unless Florida lawmakers decide in the coming weeks to draw a new, more Republican-friendly map.
Historically, redrawing of congressional maps has been done each decade after the U.S. census. But with Republicans holding such a slim majority in the House, Mr. Trump began by pressing Texas to redraw its maps, touching off the wave of gerrymandering
Virginia Democratic legislators rolled out their redistricting plan last October, setting in motion the state’s lengthy amendment process just as the campaign for governor was entering its final weeks. At the time, Ms. Spanberger expressed support for the plan, though she emphasized that its passage was up to the legislature and then to the voters.
But even if her formal role in the process was relatively minor — Ms. Spanberger signed the bill setting the date for the referendum — the politics of the effort has loomed over the first few months of her term. Her support for the amendment has drawn accusations of hypocrisy from the right and complaints from some on the left that she has not been outspoken enough in her advocacy.
“There’s always going to be somebody who wants me to do something differently,” the governor said in an interview on Saturday at a rally in support of the amendment outside a home in Northern Virginia. “I will always make someone unhappy, and I will always make someone happy.”
Ms. Spanberger, a former C.I.A. officer and three-term congresswoman, won a 15-point victory in 2025 after running on a campaign focused on pocketbook issues. Centrism has been her political brand since she was first elected to the House in 2018, flipping a district that had long leaned to the right.
Now Republicans campaigning against the amendment have made Ms. Spanberger a prime target, deriding her as “Governor Bait-and-Switch” and highlighting an interview in August 2025 in which she said she had “no plans to redistrict Virginia.”
“This was the perfect opportunity for her to show that she is the middle-of-the-road suburban mom that she portrayed herself as,” said Glen Sturtevant, a Republican state senator. He dismissed the notion that this was an effort that had been thrust upon her, pointing out that she had signed the bill setting the date for the referendum. “She is certainly an active participant in this whole process,” he said.
Republicans have eagerly highlighted recent polls suggesting that Ms. Spanberger’s honeymoon is over, though because governors in Virginia cannot serve two consecutive terms, public approval is less of a pressure point than it might be elsewhere. Some of her political adversaries have tied the drop in her ratings to her involvement in the campaign for the amendment.
But a number of factors are at play in those sagging poll numbers. Some on the right are irked by her support of standard Democratic priorities like gun control measures and limits to cooperation with federal immigration agents.
But some of the most vociferous criticism of her from Republicans, up to and including the president, has been for a host of proposed taxes and tax hikes in the legislature — on everything from dog grooming to dry cleaning — that she in fact had nothing do with. Most of those taxes, which were floated by various lawmakers, never even came up for a vote.
But Ms. Spanberger did not publicly hit back against these attacks until recent days, a delay that some Democrats say was costly.
“She let other people define her,” said Scott Surovell, the State Senate majority leader.
Mr. Surovell’s frustration echoed a growing discontent among Democrats about the governor’s recent moves. For all the Republican criticism of her, some operatives and lawmakers said, Ms. Spanberger has not been aggressive enough in pushing for Democratic priorities, redistricting among them.
This criticism broke out into the open in recent days, after the governor made scores of amendments to bills that had passed the General Assembly. Some lawmakers and Democratic allies accused her of unexpectedly diluting long-sought goals like expanded public sector unions and a legal retail marketplace for cannabis.
“Our party base is looking for us to stand up and fight and advocate and deliver,” said Mr. Surovell, who represents a solidly Democratic district in Northern Virginia. “It’s hard to deliver when you’re standing in the middle of the road.”
In the interview, Ms. Spanberger insisted that she supported the purpose of many of the bills but had to make amendments to ensure that her administration could implement them.
And she said she had been explicit in her support of the redistricting effort, appearing in statewide TV ads encouraging people to vote “Yes” even as an anti-amendment campaign has sent out mailers suggesting that the governor opposes the effort.
But she said she had never been in a position to barnstorm the state as Gov. Gavin Newsom did in the months leading up to the redistricting referendum that passed in California. Mr. Newsom is a second-term governor in a much bluer state, she said, while she only recently took office and has been “in the crush of their legislative session,” with hundreds of bills to read and examine in a short period.
“Those who may not be focused on the governing and only on the politics, they’re going to want me to do politics 100 percent of the time,” she said. “And for people who care about the governing and not the politics, they’re going to want me to do governing 100 percent of the time.”
Her preference, as she has often made apparent, is for the governing over the politicking. But she acknowledged that it is all part of the job.
Asked if she lamented that the highest-profile issue of her term so far was such a polarizing matter, rather than the cost-of-living policies she emphasized on the campaign trail, she said: “Any person in elected office wants to talk about the thing they want to talk about all the time, and that’s it. So I won’t say ‘No’ to that question.”
new video loaded: Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
transcript
transcript
Mamdani Allies Sweep New York Primaries
Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s progressive coalition had a big night on Tuesday. Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez won their Democratic House primaries.
-
“I see a New York that we can all afford. I see a New York that truly invests in its babies, not bombs.” Reporter: “What’s the first thing you’re looking forward to doing in Congress?” “Well, tomorrow — thank you — I mean, tomorrow morning, you know, I’m going to be back at 26 Federal Plaza doing court watching, and we want to carry that into Congress as well.”
By Julie Yoon
June 24, 2026
A massive 826,780-square-foot warehouse sits illuminated Feb. 12, 2026, in the El Paso suburb of Socorro, Texas, that was recently purchased by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for $122.8 million.
Morgan Lee/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Morgan Lee/AP
A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.
A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out a lower court decision that temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling was a big victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion of so-called expedited removal as a key tool for carrying out its mass deportation policy.
Expedited removal — quick deportation without a chance to appear before a judge — has previously been applied to migrants arriving by sea or caught at or near the border shortly after crossing.
In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants all over the United States. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days.
“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.
Balakrishnan represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel and said its ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”
DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, one of the judges on the panel, said the plaintiffs had not shown the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. Immigrants received notice of removal proceedings and were given a chance to respond, he wrote in his opinion.
Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
Walker said there was no requirement that the administration inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years.
“The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” he wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ “contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”
Walker and Rao vacated an order by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb that put the expanded use of expedited removal on hold. Cobb, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, ruled in August that the administration had not developed procedures to ensure migrants were not wrongly deported under the expedited process.
The plaintiffs had put forward “substantial evidence” that the expedited removal process, on the contrary, carried a high risk of error when applied more broadly, Cobb said. The ruling cited examples of people who had lived in the U.S. for far longer than two years but were still ordered to be removed in expedited proceedings.
In his opinion, Walker acknowledged evidence of such errors, but said they resulted from “individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review or the procedures they incorporate.”
The Trump administration has argued that its expansion of expedited removal includes protections to prevent arbitrary removal. In a court filing in October, Justice Department attorneys said Cobb’s ruling was an “egregious error” that was depriving the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and efficiently deport potentially millions of people.
Just over 50 career and political intelligence staff at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence have been removed from their roles since Bill Pulte became the agency’s acting director, Friday.
Six career and political intelligence staff were terminated and 45 were sent back to their home agencies, according to three sources familiar with the personnel moves.
Pulte has been asking deputies and other directors for suggestions about cuts. Some of the ODNI deputies pushed for more cuts, but Pulte said that the 51 was enough for now, one of the sources said.
One source characterized the cuts as thoughtful and methodical. No staffers have been removed from the counterterrorism group.
No further firings are planned for now, two of the sources said.
The cuts follow hundreds of staff reductions last year by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who stepped down last week. Last year’s planned downsizing sought to bring the office’s headcount from 2,000 to around 1,300.
President Trump has pushed for further cuts, directing Pulte to “execute the immediate and needed downsizing of the office” in a Truth Social post earlier this month.
The office is charged with overseeing the country’s intelligence agencies and helping them coordinate with each other. It was created in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which investigators widely believe was preceded by a failure of intelligence agencies to share information.
Since then, Gabbard and some lawmakers have argued the ODNI has become bloated and has added more bureaucracy to the intelligence community — worsening a problem it was created in part to resolve.
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said earlier this month the office has “grown far beyond its original mandate.” Many of the office’s staff hail from other intelligence agencies but have been detailed to ODNI, and Cotton argued large numbers of them should be returned to their “home agencies.”
Sen. Mark Warner and Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrats on the Senate and House intelligence panels, warned Pulte against making large-scale staff cuts, calling it an inappropriate course of action for an acting official without national security experience.
“While there is room to consider responsible reductions to ODNI’s workforce, any large cuts would follow on a substantial downsizing that has already occurred in 2025 and risk jeopardizing the mission of an organization explicitly created after 9/11 to prevent any future such terrorist attack,” the two Democrats wrote in a joint statement.
After Gabbard announced in May that she would resign from the post, Mr. Trump said he would install Pulte, a housing finance official, as acting director of national intelligence. He later nominated Jay Clayton, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, to serve as Senate-confirmed director.
Mr. Trump’s pick for acting director of national intelligence, who assumed the role on Friday, has sparked intense pushback in Congress. Democrats, and some Republicans, questioned the selection due to his lack of national security experience.
Democratic Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado said Sunday he’s worried that “Americans are at risk” with Pulte serving as DNI “because we have someone who’s incompetent at the head of this agency,” in an interview on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
In addition to Pulte’s lack of national security experience, Democrats have railed against the pick for his role in investigations into Mr. Trump’s political foes. Crow, who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, said he’s “obviously concerned that this is somebody who’s a political attack dog, and his single biggest qualification is that he’s loyal to Donald Trump and is willing to go after Donald Trump’s enemies.” But he said more immediately, he’s concerned about Americans’ safety.
“This is a really important position. This sits atop our intelligence agencies, and by law, Congress mandated that this person have significant intelligence experience because they have to make sure that we’re keeping Americans safe, which is not what Bill Pulte is capable of doing,” Crow said.
Since Pulte’s selection, Democrats have declined to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which grants intelligence agencies broad authority to spy on overseas targets, causing the legal provision to expire earlier this month.
And as Senate GOP leaders tried to bring an end to the impasse by moving to quickly confirm Clayton as permanent director of national intelligence, the president abruptly called for Clayton’s confirmation hearing to be canceled last week.
Talks on extending FISA Section 702 were already strained, with some members of both parties pushing for stricter guardrails and arguing the program can scoop up Americans’ communications without a warrant. Intelligence officials say the program is essential to national security.
Asked whether Democrats have miscalculated, Crow said “not at all.”
“I know how important it is, but I’m unwilling to trade Americans’ constitutional rights, privacy and essential civil liberties for temporary extension to this program,” Crow said.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on “Face the Nation” that “any Democrat that shuts down FISA at a time of great peril for the United States is making a huge mistake.”
“We’re playing with fire here, no matter what side does it,” Graham said. “America needs FISA up and running.”
-
Detroit, MI17 minutes agoIlitch Companies creates gaming platform, expands beyond Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA29 minutes agoFirst of its kind queer museum in San Francisco Chinatown amplifies Chinese LGBTQ artists
-
Dallas, TX31 minutes agoThese children were sold for sex. Then the system failed them again
-
Miami, FL37 minutes agoHard Rock Cafe lets Downtown Miami lease lapse after 30-plus years
-
Boston, MA39 minutes agoFederal judge in Boston bars Trump from implementing proof of citizenship requirement to vote – The Boston Globe
-
Denver, CO44 minutes agoDenver Broncos Foundation launches extension of ‘ALL IN. ALL COVERED.’ emphasizing youth football participation
-
Seattle, WA47 minutes ago
Iran and Egypt to play in Seattle ‘Pride Match’ despite earlier complaints | The Jerusalem Post
-
San Diego, CA52 minutes agoCon Rangers San Diego Comic-Con 2026 Exclusives
