Louisiana Republicans Complete Their Racist Redrawing of Voting Map

Louisiana Republicans passed a new congressional map Friday that eliminates the majority-Black district that was at the center of the Supreme Court ruling overturning the Voting Rights Act.

In a state where one in three residents are Black, the new map redraws the state’s 6th congressional district, which is currently represented by Black Democratic Representative Cleo Fields. Republicans are expected to gain an additional seat in the House, giving them control of five of Louisiana’s six congressional seats.

The state Senate passed the map on Friday afternoon with a vote of 28–10, sending the legislation to Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who is expected to sign it.

“We are being asked to take one of two minority opportunity districts in this state—where Black Louisianians are nearly one-third of the population—and to reduce that minority opportunity representation to a single seat out of six, from 33 percent of the population to 16 percent of the representation members,” Democratic state Representative Kyle Green Jr. warned during debate on the legislation Thursday. “That’s not a map. That’s a math problem with the moral answer, and the answer is no.”

Louisiana’s House primary election was originally scheduled for May 16, but Landry delayed the election in order to give Republicans time to draw a new map following the Supreme Court ruling. An estimated 40,000 people had already cast their votes before his announcement.

Three Washington state protesters have been found guilty of federal conspiracy charges for sitting in front of a bus taking people to an immigration detention center in Takoma.

Jac Archer, Justice Forral, and Bajun Mavalwalla II were three of a group of nine people who were arrested last June after responding to former City Council President Ben Stuckart’s request for protesters to block a bus from taking immigrants from one ICE detention center to another.

Six of the nine arrested accepted plea deals, while Archer, Forral, and Mavalwalla took their case to trial, where a jury found them guilty of “conspiracy to impede or injure officers.”

“This was the first conspiracy prosecution in Eastern Washington history under 18 U.S.C. Section 372—a Civil War-era law dusted off to punish members of the Spokane community who stood up for two young men who were unlawfully detained by ICE,” former acting U.S. Attorney Richard Barker told The Spokesman-Review in a statement. “I hope that moving forward DOJ will focus on the crimes that matter most to keep our families safe and to build trust with the communities that most need and deserve law enforcement protection.”

Washington state ACLU legal director La Rond Baker said the organization is “concerned about the chilling effect that the Department of Justice’s charging decisions will have on protest and free expression in this country.”

“The Administration has a demonstrable history of using the Department of Justice to silence and punish its critics. Using the power of government to deter criticism is undemocratic and counter to the values of our state and the country,” Baker said.

Spokane Mayor Lisa Brown claimed that the prosecution was politically motivated.

“Since the federal charges were filed, I have maintained this prosecution was politically motivated. It was meant to make an example out of people who disagreed with federal immigration policy. The right to peacefully protest and criticize the government is a cornerstone of our democracy,” she said in a statement. “We cannot allow these verdicts to silence us.”

Mavalwalla, a combat veteran, and Forral and Archer, both activists, now face a maximum sentence of six years in federal prison or up to $250,000 in fines. Their attorneys said they intend to appeal the decision.

Donald Trump’s repeated aggression toward Greenland could soon expand the European Union’s membership.

Denizens of Greenland’s closest neighbor, Iceland, are currently weighing the possibility of joining the continental alliance, The New York Times reported Friday.

“The Greenland crisis definitely hit a nerve,” Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir told the Times in February, in an interview at her office in the nation’s capital.

A national referendum will take place in Iceland by the end of the summer—August 29—as to whether to resume accession negotiations with the EU. Iceland originally applied to join the EU in 2009, but negotiations iced after 2013.

While admittance to the EU isn’t a given, the trade seems clear: Iceland is a wealthy nation with a large manufacturing sector and a lot to offer the bloc. In exchange, the country would receive military and economic stability, as well as peace of mind that it’s safe from U.S. incursion.

Reykjavik announced in a statement that a subsequent referendum will allow Icelandic voters to decide whether to join the EU, if accession negotiations go well.

Meanwhile, the U.S. president’s relentless quest to annex Greenland—a Denmark-controlled territory—has simultaneously put the United States at odds with some of its strongest allies, and in cahoots with Moscow.

Earlier this year, Trump’s fixation transformed into a new trade initiative in which he swore to enact sweeping retaliatory tariffs against any country that opposed his attempts to seize Greenland, as well as any nation that continued to trade with the island.

That sparked a celebration in Moscow, which has worked for decades to dismantle NATO, a European-friendly intergovernmental military alliance.

Trump has claimed that the U.S. “needs” Greenland “for defense.” But what exactly the White House stands to gain from controlling Greenland isn’t clear, especially in light of the fact that myriad existing treaties already give the U.S. unfettered access to Greenland as a military base.

Greenlanders have not taken kindly to Trump and his associates’ sudden interest in acquiring their land. After months of heavy pressure from the Trump family—including an embarrassing stunt in which Donald Trump Jr. reportedly convinced homeless residents to wear MAGA merchandise in exchange for food, and an effort in the U.S. Congress to rename the territory to “Red, White, and Blueland”—Greenland’s various political parties set aside their differences in March to unite under a singular goal: opposing U.S. aggression.

President Donald Trump bought stock in the UFC’s parent company ahead of the planned fight on the White House lawn next month.

The president bought between $15,000 and $50,000 of stock in TKO Group Holdings, HuffPost reports, citing Trump’s May 12 financial disclosures. With the planned “Freedom 250” fight on June 14 (Flag Day and Trump’s birthday), the company will get a ton of publicity and media attention, allowing the president to profit as TKO stock goes up.

Since announcing the fight last summer, Trump has gone out of the way to promote the fight. UFC fighters visited the Oval Office on May 6, and construction of the UFC octagon on the White House lawn this week has already dwarfed the building. An estimated 4,500 fans will be watching the fight on the White House grounds, with another 75,000 to 100,000 people being able to watch the fight on “massive screens” set up at the nearby Ellipse park.

The event is a cash grab even without Trump’s stock buy, as sponsorship packages for the planned bouts are selling for as much as $1.5 million, and neither the White House nor the UFC has said where the money is going. The president and TKO are choosing who gets in, and the process is anything but transparent.

Trump has been accused of manipulating markets on everything from the Iran war to his tariffs. It’s no surprise that he’d try to find another way to make money off of this UFC fight, even though it’s supposed to be part of the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations. Ethical considerations in this administration are of little concern, especially when there is money to be made.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly had a disastrous meeting with the House Oversight Committee on Friday regarding her bungling of the Epstein files release.

MS NOW’s Kyle Griffin reported that Bondi “lost her temper a bit at some points and grew frustrated when asked about [Donald] Trump,” something Bondi did frequently during public hearings as attorney general. Democratic committee members also expressed frustration after the meeting.

Ranking member Robert Garcia told reporters immediately after the meeting that Bondi had counsel—someone who currently worked for the Department of Justice—present with her, telling her not to answer certain questions.

“[They] stepped in and told the former attorney general that she was not gonna answer those questions, especially when we asked questions of what the president directed her to do,” Garcia said. “So the DOJ is in there right now, stomping questions about President Trump, and about what happened in the release of these files—and why so many survivors were doxxed.”

Representative James Walkinshaw also stated that Bondi avoided direct questions about whether Trump knew about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes before they were public.

“She had the opportunity to say, ‘Donald Trump certainly wasn’t aware of those crimes.’ She had the opportunity to say, ‘I know Donald Trump, and if he was aware of those crimes he would have done something,’” Walkinshaw said. “Instead, she said, ‘I don’t know.’ She also said, this is a direct quote: ‘I’m not certain of the extent of his knowledge.’ I think that’s a perfect example as to why we need Pam Bondi under oath in a real deposition, for the cameras, so the American people can see and hear her answers to our questions.”

Bondi reportedly left the meeting in haste, avoiding cameras and reporters.