By JONATHAN MATTISE and DAVID A. LIEB

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — As a leader of the College Democrats at Vanderbilt University, Luci Wingo knew the odds of a Democrat winning one of Nashville’s three U.S. House seats weren’t great. Yet her hope grew as the party mounted an aggressive campaign for its candidate, Aftyn Behn, in a special election to replace a Republican who had resigned.

Related Articles

Hegseth put troops at risk by sharing sensitive plans on personal phone, Pentagon watchdog finds

US prioritizes visas for fans traveling for the World Cup, Olympics and other events

White House is expected to submit plans for new ballroom to planning commission this month

Black men who were fired from key transportation boards accuse Trump of a pattern of discrimination

Florida starts redistricting talks in a growing battle for House control in 2026 elections

In the end, high Democratic enthusiasm and millions of dollars in spending weren’t enough. Republican Matt Van Epps won Tuesday’s vote by 9 percentage points — a closer margin than the district’s last election, yet still a victory for the GOP that seemed all but certain based on how the district was drawn. Republicans had split the unified Democratic stronghold of Nashville into three GOP-leaning districts after the last census.

As states wage a mid-decade redistricting battle initiated by President Donald Trump, Tennessee’s special election illustrates the power of manipulative mapmaking and provides a window into what lies ahead in the states that are rushing to redraw their congressional maps for next year’s midterm elections.

Such gerrymandering can help parties in power maintain and even expand their majorities, but it’s also a source of frustration and anger for voters in the minority party who lose the chance to be represented by someone of their choice.

“It’s a hard battle to fight because it’s so intentional, it’s so in your face — and it’s hard to not just want to get frustrated and kind of give up,” said Wingo, a college sophomore who grew up in Nashville.

She said she’s become accustomed to what she called “purposeful pessimism.”

“We don’t try to get our hopes up too much, because we kind of know the outcomes,” she said, adding that Behn’s campaign nevertheless created a surge of enthusiasm among local Democrats.

For Republicans, the Nashville gerrymander worked

Nashville had been represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper for 20 years when the Republican-controlled state Legislature decided in 2022 to use the latest census data to carve up the city in a quest to flip his seat to Republicans.

Some parts of Nashville were placed in two sprawling rural districts to the east and west, both represented by Republicans. The portion retaining Cooper’s district number was redrawn to twist southward into another rural Republican-leaning area.

Cooper, a moderate-leaning lawmaker, decided not to seek reelection that year, and Republicans won all three seats by comfortable margins.

Republicans carried all three districts again last year. They won by 17 percentage points in Cooper’s former 5th District, by nearly 22 points in the westward 7th District — which includes downtown Nashville, well-known historically Black areas and major universities — and by 36 points in the eastward 6th District.

Republican candidate Matt Van Epps waves to supporters at a watch party after announcing victory in a special election for the U.S. seventh congressional district, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2025, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/John Amis)

Van Epps’ special election victory this week in the 7th Congressional District was close enough to encourage Democrats looking for momentum ahead of next year’s midterms. But it also showcased how the district remains reliably Republican thanks to the recent redrawing of its boundaries.

“In this case, gerrymandering worked,” said John McGlennon, a longtime professor of government at the College of William & Mary in Virginia. “But it may be at the price of seats in other places in Tennessee and around the country.”

Kevin Mittelmeier, who says he’s in the political middle, cast his ballot for Behn. He said voters’ voices won’t have much meaning as long as the districts remain the same.

“I can just see from the outside looking in, unbiased, it’s actually frustrating how it’s being controlled, and how it’s being dealt with, and how people of Nashville’s opinions really are taken away,” he said.

For some voters, the split-up districts remain confusing. Maggie Tekeli, who brought three young children to the polls planning to vote for Behn, only to learn her Nashville home wasn’t in the 7th District.

“It’s just discouraging from a democratic process standpoint,” she said.

Gerrymandering is spreading in the states

What Republican mapmakers did to Nashville, they now are looking to replicate in other states as Trump pushes for mid-decade redistricting, which he hopes will lead to his party maintaining its majority in the U.S. House next year.

In Texas, the first to answer Trump’s call, Republican lawmakers redrew congressional district boundaries in Dallas, Fort Worth and their suburbs to extend a Democratic seat into a Republican region far outside the metro area.

In Missouri, Republican officials approved a new U.S. House map that shaves off portions of a Democratic-held seat in Kansas City into two rural Republican-held districts and stretches the remainder of the seat eastward into another predominantly Republican area.

Officials in North Carolina and Ohio also approved new U.S. House maps intended to boost Republican chances of winning additional seats.

Democrats countered with their own gerrymandering in California. Voters in November approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map that merges farming and ranching areas favoring Republicans with some of the state’s wealthiest and most liberal coastal communities.

Some residents in each of those states expressed concern about being adequately represented under the new districts. But that didn’t deter the politicians from drawing the maps because the stakes are so high. Democrats need a net gain of just three seats in next year’s midterms to win control of the U.S. House and break a Republican grip on power that has enabled Trump to advance his agenda.

Indianapolis could become another Nashville

The splintering of Nashville from one Democratic congressional district into three that favor Republicans is a mirror of what’s being debated by Republicans in Indiana, which could be the next state to act on partisan redistricting.

Republicans currently hold seven of the state’s nine U.S. House seats. But a proposal in the Republican-led state General Assembly would give the GOP a shot at winning all nine seats.

Under the plan, a congressional district for the state’s largest city, Indianapolis, would be split up and grafted onto four Republican-leaning districts. The district has been represented for the past 17 years by Democratic Rep. André Carson, the state’s lone Black member of Congress.

His district would be stretched southeast to the border with Kentucky and Ohio, combining residents of the state’s largest city with those in its least populated county. Another district would span westward to the Illinois border.

During a public hearing this week, Democratic state Rep. Robin Shackleford warned colleagues that the redrawn congressional districts would “be crippling” for her Indianapolis constituents.

“These maps crack apart historic Black neighborhoods, weakening our voting power and silencing the voices of the very people who are already fighting the hardest for economic stability, safer streets, better schools and access to affordable health care,” she said.

Yet the revised districts, if approved, appear likely to accomplish their purpose of boosting Republican representation in Congress.

Laura Merrifield Wilson, a political scientist at the University of Indianapolis, said she had no doubt that there will be enough Republicans in the newly drawn congressional districts to overwhelm the Democratic vote in future elections.

But she added: “When you’re connecting some of Indianapolis to some of those very rural areas, both groups are ultimately going to lose out.”

Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Missouri.

The world’s global party kicks off this Friday.

Well, maybe not kick. It’s kind of a sorting hat type of situation. Let me explain.

The 2026 FIFA World Cup is slated for 104 matches held in 16 stadiums across the U.S., Mexico and Canada from June 11 to July 19.

Nations will be sorted into groups of four during a ceremony in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 5. A slew of global celebrities and former players will participate in the sorting draw that sets the first-round groups and creates the path to the World Cup Final, which will be held at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.

Here’s how you can watch all the pomp and circumstance:

When and where is the 2026 World Cup draw?

The draw for the 2026 FIFA World Cup will take place this Friday beginning at noon ET from the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Along with dignitaries from the three host nations, including President Donald Trump, the event will include performances by Andrea Bocelli and Robbie Williams joined by Nicole Scherzinger, plus the Village People. The event will be co-hosted by Heidi Klum and Kevin Hart.

This will be the first time the World Cup includes 48 teams and is co-hosted by three nations. Only 42 of 48 teams have qualified so far, with the remaining set to be decided in playoffs held in the final week of March 2026.

Friday’s event will solely focus on which teams are in each group. There will be a separate event held Saturday, Dec. 6, which lays out the match schedule.

Related Articles

US prioritizes visas for fans traveling for the World Cup, Olympics and other events

FIFA considered Vegas for World Cup draw but logistical issues helped send it to Washington instead

NHL: Cretin-Derham Hall’s Ryan McDonaugh signs extension with Lightning

Ralph Lauren unveils Team USA’s Olympic uniforms

‘This group is ready’: Young, tested Gophers volleyball team set for NCAA run

How to watch the 2026 World Cup draw on TV

In the United States, FOX (English) and Telemundo (Spanish) are the official broadcasters of the tournament and will both have live television coverage of the draw.

The English-language broadcast will be helmed by Rob Stone and Jenny Taft, along with former U.S. men’s national team players Alexi Lalas and Stu Holden serving as analysts.

FOX will kick things off at 11:30 a.m. ET ahead of the scheduled two-hour draw. They will then provide extended analysis until 3 p.m. ET.

Telemundo will also begin its coverage with a 30-minute pre-draw show at 11:30 a.m. ET.

Can I stream the 2026 World Cup draw or watch it on my phone?

FOX and Telemundo will both stream the event on their streaming networks — FOX One and Peacock (Telemundo). Their individual websites and social media channels will have coverage as well.

Can I listen to the 2026 World Cup draw on the radio?

For those unable to be in front of a TV, FOX will be simulcast on its SiriusXM channel 83. The satellite radio group will also have coverage pre- and post-draw on its soccer channel, SiriusXM FC (channel 157).

Wait, what about the Saturday event?

For the first time, the match venues will not be set during the World Cup draw.

FIFA will have a separate event, set for Saturday at noon ET, to reveal the full schedule, venues and kick-off times for the first-round matches.

This event will air on FIFA’s platforms, including its YouTube channel and website.

The match schedule will be announced by FIFA president Gianni Infantino, who will be joined by former players providing analysis

By DAVID KLEPPER, KONSTANTIN TOROPIN and BEN FINLEY

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth put U.S. troops at risk by sharing sensitive plans about an upcoming military strike in Yemen on his personal phone, according to a Pentagon inspector general’s report made public Thursday that criticized the use of unapproved messaging apps and devices across the Defense Department.

Related Articles

US prioritizes visas for fans traveling for the World Cup, Olympics and other events

White House is expected to submit plans for new ballroom to planning commission this month

Black men who were fired from key transportation boards accuse Trump of a pattern of discrimination

Florida starts redistricting talks in a growing battle for House control in 2026 elections

Kennedy’s vaccine advisory committee delays vote on hepatitis B shots for newborns

Hegseth had the authority to declassify the material he shared with others in a Signal chat, the watchdog found. But it said the release of sensitive details about the strike on Houthi militants violated internal Pentagon rules about handling sensitive information that could put service members or their missions in danger.

The report noted that the information that Hegseth sent — the quantity and strike times of manned U.S. aircraft over hostile territory about two hours to four hours before those strikes — “created a risk to operational security that could have resulted in failed U.S. mission objectives and potential harm to U.S. pilots.”

“If this information had fallen into the hands of U.S. adversaries, Houthi forces might have been able to counter U.S. forces or reposition personnel and assets to avoid planned U.S. strikes,” the report said.

Hegseth’s use of the app came to light when a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to a Signal text chain by then-national security adviser Mike Waltz. Hegseth also created another Signal chat with 13 people, including his wife and brother, where he shared similar details of the same strike.

The report’s nuanced findings — that Hegseth’s actions put troops at risk but that he had the right to declassify the material — are not likely to relieve the pressure on the former Fox News Channel host.

He also is facing scrutiny on Capitol Hill over a news report that a follow-up strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in the Caribbean Sea in September killed survivors after Hegseth had issued a verbal order to “kill everybody.” A Navy admiral who oversaw the operation disputed in a closed-door meeting with lawmakers Thursday that Hegseth gave such an order.

Hegseth wrote on social media about the inspector general’s report: “No classified information. Total exoneration. Case closed. Houthis bombed into submission.” It comes after Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson this summer called the investigation “a witch hunt and a total sham and being conducted in bad faith.”

Watchdog weighs in on Hegseth’s use of personal device

Hegseth’s Signal messages included particulars about the timing and location of the attack as well as the types of weapons and aircraft to be used. He later said the information he shared was “informal, unclassified.”

The report noted that while Hegseth had the power to declassify the material in his position as defense secretary, Pentagon policy prohibits the use of personal devices or nonapproved commercial apps such as Signal to transmit “nonpublic or classified” material.

Signal uses end-to-end encryption to secure direct messages and group chats. This safeguard has made Signal an increasingly popular option for many people, not just national security officials.

Signal is considered more secure than other messaging, but it is not foolproof. Those using the service — and their devices — are vulnerable to phishing or other digital attacks based on impersonation. As Hegseth’s use of Signal shows, there are no controls on who can be added to group chats or what kind of sensitive material can be sent.

Hegseth rebuffed interview from investigators

The defense secretary declined to be interviewed for the watchdog’s review. In a one-page statement to the inspector general, Hegseth said he had the authority to declassify the information he was sharing on Signal and that there “was nothing classified in this text.”

“There were no locations or targets identified,” he wrote. “There were no details that would endanger our troops or the mission.”

Hegseth said he was only sharing “an unclassified summary” of operations and that the full details of what was happening were shared separately on a secure network used by the military.

The information he shared on Signal was limited to the “overt actions” of U.S. forces, which he said “would be readily apparent to any observer in the area.”

The revelations are drawing close scrutiny. Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans said Hegseth’s posting of the information to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets potentially put those pilots’ lives at risk.

Lawmakers also noted that if lower-ranking members of the military had acted similarly, they would have been fired or severely disciplined for failing to maintain operational security.

Improper use of personal devices called a department-wide issue

The inspector general’s office recommended better training on information security for Department of Defense employees. It also noted several earlier instances when personnel used personal devices or unapproved apps for government business, and said that was one reason its recommendations were not focused on Hegseth’s actions alone.

“We are not making any recommendations in this report related to the Secretary’s use of Signal to send sensitive nonpublic information because it represented only one instance of an identified, DoD-wide issue,” the investigators wrote.

In one example, investigators found that in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, some defense officials used personal phones or laptops or nonapproved video conferencing systems because the department did not have policies to support remote work.

The use of nonapproved devices and apps can also make it harder for officials to retain government records in compliance with the law, the report noted.

Congressional reaction breaks along party lines

The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who had requested the investigation earlier this year, offered notably diverging takeaways from the report.

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the chairman, said in a statement that it’s “clear from the reports that the Secretary acted within his authority to communicate the information in question to other cabinet level officials.”

But Wicker said senior leaders also need more tools to share classified information “in real time and a variety of environments.”

“I think we have some work to do in providing those tools to our national security leaders,” Wicker said.

Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the committee’s top Democrat, said Hegseth violated military regulations and showed “reckless disregard for the safety American servicemembers.”

“These were precise strike timings and locations that, had they fallen into enemy hands, could have enabled the Houthis to target American pilots,” Reed said in a statement, adding that anyone else would have faced “severe consequences, including potential prosecution.”

AP Congressional Correspondent Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

“Estos recortes se están sintiendo con fuerza en nuestra comunidad incluso antes de que les afecten”, dijo Carlyn Cowen, directora de políticas y asuntos públicos del Chinese-American Planning Council.

Un cartel que indica la opción de pago con EBT en una tienda de East Gun Hill Road, en el Bronx. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 2 de diciembre. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

La fiscal general de Nueva York, Letitia James, y los fiscales generales de otros 21 estados demandaron al Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos por una nueva norma que, según ellos, impediría a los refugiados y asilados participar en el Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP por sus siglas en inglés).   

La exclusión se deriva de la ley “One Big Beautiful Bill” aprobada este verano, que incluía modificaciones sustanciales en los programas de protección social del país.

Entre ellas se incluyen la ampliación de requisitos laborales para obtener beneficios de SNAP —que por ahora están en pausa a nivel local hasta el próximo año— y nuevos parámetros de elegibilidad que excluyen a víctimas de la trata y a varios grupos de inmigrantes que se encuentran legalmente en el país.

El Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA por sus siglas en inglés), la agencia federal encargada del programa SNAP, emitió un memorándum a finales de octubre indicando que ya no consideraría a los refugiados y asilados como elegibles para recibir la ayuda alimentaria.

Si bien los inmigrantes indocumentados nunca han sido elegibles para el SNAP, los grupos mencionados y las víctimas de la trata podían solicitar prestaciones de asistencia alimentaria tan pronto como obtenían ese estatus protegido, siempre y cuando cumplieran los demás requisitos del programa. Con la ley One Big Beautiful Bill se eliminó esa elegibilidad. 

La demanda de los fiscales generales afirma que el memorándum de USDA va más allá de lo establecido en la ley federal, alegando que cerraría todas las posibilidades para que estos grupos accedan a SNAP, incluso si se convierten en residentes permanentes legales, uno de los pocos grupos que siguen siendo elegibles (aunque después de un período de espera de cinco años).

“La vergonzosa campaña del gobierno federal para quitarles la comida a los niños y las familias continúa”, afirmó la fiscal general Letitia James en un comunicado la semana pasada, al anunciar la demanda. “USDA no tiene autoridad para excluir arbitrariamente a grupos enteros de personas del programa SNAP, y nadie debería pasar hambre por las circunstancias de su llegada a este país”.

Con la ley “One Big Beautiful Bill”, el gobierno recortará la financiación del programa SNAP —antes conocido como cupones de alimentos— en $187.000 millones de dólares hasta 2034, lo que supone un recorte del 20 por ciento, según la Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso.

Sin embargo, el momento no podría ser peor: los beneficiarios de SNAP ya vieron retrasados sus beneficios durante más de una semana en noviembre debido al cierre federal, mientras que muchos estados y localidades no están seguros de cómo aplicar las nuevas medidas de elegibilidad.

El gobierno federal afirma que los cambios aún no han entrado en vigor. 

“Debido a la complejidad de la política sobre los no ciudadanos, USDA está elaborando nuevas directrices basadas en las preguntas de las agencias estatales y los socios del SNAP”, afirmó un portavoz del USDA en un comunicado. 

La Oficina de Asistencia Temporal y por Discapacidad (OTDA por sus siglas en inglés), que administra el programa a nivel estatal, afirmó que aún no ha publicado directrices de aplicación para los distritos locales tras el memorándum de USDA de octubre.

En la ciudad de Nueva York, las autoridades aseguraron que las personas no deberían perder sus prestaciones todavía. “Siempre trabajamos para proteger a todos los neoyorquinos vulnerables, y nadie se ha visto afectado todavía por ningún cambio”, afirmó en un comunicado a City Limits un portavoz del Departamento de Servicios Sociales de la ciudad de Nueva York (DSS por sus siglas en inglés), que gestiona SNAP en la ciudad.

Pero si los nuevos requisitos se implementan, sólo en la ciudad de Nueva York podrían verse afectadas unas 15.000 personas, según las estimaciones internas del DSS. Las autoridades afirman que cualquier nueva directriz para la aplicación del sistema dependerá de lo que estipule el estado. Incluso si se aplican estos cambios, los beneficiarios del SNAP afectados no verán ningún cambio hasta que se les vuelva a certificar, afirmó el portavoz.

Según la Oficina Presupuestaria del Congreso, 90.000 personas de la categoría de no ciudadanos podrían perder sus prestaciones en todo el país. Según la Oficina de la Fiscal General, hasta 35.000 neoyorquinos en todo el estado podrían perder sus prestaciones.

El Chinese-American Planning Council, que presta servicios a los neoyorquinos asiático-americanos de bajos ingresos e inmigrantes, estima que el 20 por ciento —es decir, 2.000— de los aproximadamente 10.000 beneficiarios de SNAP con los que trabaja la organización podrían verse afectados, según Carlyn Cowen, directora de políticas y asuntos públicos.

“Para que se hagan una idea del nivel de temor y la magnitud del impacto que estos recortes están teniendo en las semanas previas a que nos enteráramos de ellos… hemos recibido múltiples llamadas de miembros de la comunidad preguntando qué pasaría con sus prestaciones del SNAP”, dijo Cowen. “Un miembro de la comunidad sufrió una crisis de salud mental porque estaba preocupado. Le preocupaba no poder alimentar a su familia”. 

“Estos recortes se están sintiendo con fuerza en nuestra comunidad incluso antes de que les afecten”, añadió Cowen.

Tina Lopez, directora ejecutiva del International Rescue Committee en Nueva York, dijo que el acceso a SNAP “era una parte integral de los programas humanitarios y de refugiados de los Estados Unidos en virtud de la legislación federal”.

“[El SNAP] realmente se vuelve de vital importancia, especialmente para los sobrevivientes de la trata de personas, que necesitan estos servicios alimentarios esenciales cuando atraviesan una situación tan inestable”, dijo Lopez. “Estos servicios alimentarios esenciales crean la estabilidad que necesitan para recuperar los recursos de salud mental que les permiten sobrevivir y prosperar”.

Chia Chia Wang, directora en Nueva York de Church World Service, una organización que trabaja con poblaciones vulnerables a nivel internacional, subrayó que los miembros de la comunidad se sienten inseguros sobre su futuro.

“Su capacidad para acceder a las prestaciones a las que tienen derecho puede verse mermada por numerosas medidas que les dificultan la vida”, afirmó Wang. 

Además de los cambios en los requisitos para acceder al SNAP, la administración Trump anunció el mes pasado nuevas normas en torno a la política de “carga pública“, una forma de que los funcionarios de inmigración comprueben si los inmigrantes utilizan prestaciones públicas. 

El aumento del escrutinio no se detuvo ahí: el 24 de noviembre, el Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración de los Estados Unidos (USCIS por sus siglas en inglés) emitió un memorándum en el que se pedía una “revisión y nueva entrevista” a todos los refugiados admitidos en el país durante la administración Biden: unas 233.000 personas.

Según el memorándum, publicado por primera vez por Reuters, USCIS seguiría revisando a los refugiados admitidos en otros periodos.

“Las normas federales de elegibilidad y otros cambios en las políticas han creado una situación caótica tanto para los inmigrantes y los refugiados como para sus defensores”, afirmó Wang.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Nueva York demanda a administración Trump por cambios que excluyen a miles de inmigrantes legales del programa SNAP appeared first on City Limits.