The Texas state House passed a new set of GOP-friendly congressional lines on Wednesday, putting the party one step closer toward adopting a new map that sparked a redistricting arms race across the country.

The lower chamber approved the new maps on party lines, 88-52, in the first of two key votes. Republicans cleared the final passage of the map in the House with a 88-52 vote.

The bill’s passage marks a key victory for Republicans, who were called into a second special session by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) after efforts to pass their House map stalled during their first 30-day session when Democrats fled the state in protest. The state Senate will next need to pass the map before it heads to Abbott’s desk for his signature.

“PASSED THE HOUSE,” wrote the Texas House Republican Caucus on X. “The Big Beautiful Map will ADD 5 GOP districts to our congressional delegation – A HUGE WIN for the conservative movement in Texas!”

The Wednesday session, which began at 11 am E.T., became an hours-long standoff between Republicans, who fiercely defended their right to add more GOP-favored seats, and Democrats, who used the session to stall passage of the bill and protest how it would break up communities of color.

The session at times grew heated and even personal.

“Question, would you believe it would be a great process to include the public in a way that they could see what’s going on, or do we want to do the things in the cloak of darkness here?” asked state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins.

“Well, you’ve been gone on the cloak of darkness for 18 days,” retorted state Rep. Todd Hunter (R), who introduced the House GOP bill.

Democrats also sought to add several amendments to the bill, which would have eliminated the bill. Another amendment that recognized section 2 of the Voting Rights Act while a separate proposed that the House map could only be put into effective once Attorney General Pam Bondi released the Epstein files. All of those were rejected, however.

Republicans faced pressure from the White House earlier this year to do mid-decade redistricting as the party braces for a challenging political environment next year. The president’s party traditionally faces headwinds during midterm cycles. President Trump on Tuesday urged Texas Republicans to move swiftly and pass the new congressional lines.

Republicans currently hold 25 House seats in the Lone Star State, while Democrats hold 12, with one seat vacant after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. The new map would give the GOP the opportunity to increase their congressional delegation to 30. 

Redistricting, which was not initially included on Abbott’s call for a special session, was later added. Republicans sought to quickly pass a new map during their first special session, but Democrats fled the state to block the GOP from having a quorum — or the minimum number of lawmakers needed in order to do business. 

Texas Democrats rallied in California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, drawing national attention over the issue and drawing criticism from Republicans who argued Democrats were being hypocritical about gerrymandering given several of those states also have gerrymandered maps.

The redistricting battle prompted California to move forward with introducing their own set of gerrymandered congressional lines in an effort to neutralize expected gains out of Texas with their anticipated new map. A number of red and blue states could also see new House maps, including Florida, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri and New York.

Earlier this week, Democrats returned to Texas during the second special session, where the passage of a new House map was all but inevitable.

Democratic-aligned and civil rights groups are already getting ready to challenge Texas’s maps, while Republicans are seeking to stop California from passing a new House map through a ballot initiative in November.

Democratic-aligned and civil rights groups are already getting ready to challenge Texas’s maps. Texas Democratic Party Chair Kendall Scudder signaled that the state party was getting ready to fight the maps, too.

“This was a deliberate violation of the Voting Rights Act, aimed at diluting the voices of minority voters across the state,” Scudder said in a statement following passage of the bill. “This cracking of majority-minority districts is disgraceful, and it’s all to help Donald Trump avoid accountability for his actions. This fight is far from over. We, and the American people, will see this map in court.”

Meanwhile, Republicans are seeking to stop California from passing a new House map through a ballot initiative in November.

Updated at 7:57 p.m. EDT

Vice President JD Vance criticized California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Wednesday for trying to “mimic” President Trump’s style on social media.

In an interview on Fox News’s “The Ingraham Angle,” the vice president said Newsom’s revamped approach to online messaging misses the “fundamental genius” that has fueled Trump’s appeal.

“This idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump’s style — I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump’s political success,” Vance said, “which is that he’s authentic.”

“He just is who he is,” Vance added.

The comments came after Fox News host Laura Ingraham noted Democrats “are still doing their 2024 autopsy” and seem to have concluded that they need to be tougher and “be more like Trump in tone” to win future elections.

Vance said that lesson is misguided.

“Look, the autopsy for the Democrats — some free political advice from the president of the United States — is stop sounding like crazy people,” Vance said. “That really is all it is.”

“You’ve got to be yourself,” Vance added after criticizing Newsom’s approach. “You’ve actually got to talk to people honestly about the issues. I don’t think it’s that complicated: Don’t be a crazy person. Be authentic.”

Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, in recent days has rolled out a revamped messaging strategy that mirrors Trump’s signature social media style. The California governor has posted rants in all-caps letters, he’s assigned nicknames to his political opponents, and he’s referred to his legislative proposals and political rallies as “beautiful.”

While Newsom’s approach has been embraced by many Democrats, who have struggled to find their footing since losing the 2024 election, the governor has faced criticism from some Republicans and Fox News hosts.

“FOX HATES THAT I AM AMERICA’S MOST FAVORITE GOVERNOR (“RATINGS KING”) SAVING AMERICA,” Newsom’s office posted earlier this week, responding to that criticism.

The Trump administration on Wednesday faced its third rejection of requests to unseal grand jury material in the cases involving the late sex offender and financier Jeffrey Epstein.

In response to growing pressure from President Trump’s base to increase transparency, the Justice Department petitioned to unseal secret grand jury material from three distinct cases involving Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, across Florida and New York.

But every request was denied, as federal judges cited the lack of sufficient justification, potential risk to victims’ privacy and the lack of new information that would justify further disclosure.

Here’s a rundown of the cases and the rulings from federal judges:

Epstein’s 2019 federal case in New York

U.S. District Judge Richard Berman on Wednesday rejected the DOJ’s bid to unseal the material in the 2019 federal case against Epstein.

He said there is “clear precedent and sound purpose” for keeping grand jury records under seal and said the government failed to show the Epstein papers demonstrate any “special circumstance” justifying their release.

The judge also criticized the government’s request as a “diversion,” noting the 70-something pages of grand jury material do not compare to the more than 100,000 pages in the government’s possession from its own investigation.  

“The information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts pales in comparison to the Epstein investigation information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice,” the judge wrote in a 14-page ruling.

“The Government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein Files,” the judge wrote. “By comparison, the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession.”

Maxwell’s federal case in New York

U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer, earlier this month, refused the Justice Department’s request to unseal grand jury materials used to charge Maxwell.

Engelmayer wrote in a ruling that the Maxwell grand jury testimony is “far from” a matter of significant historical or public interest, saying, “There is no ‘there’ there.”

“It consists of garden-variety summary testimony by two law enforcement agents,” Engelmayer wrote. “And the information it contains is already almost entirely a matter of longstanding public record.” 

Maxwell opposed unsealing, while representatives for Epstein’s estate took no position. Several of their victims also submitted letters to the court that generally supported unsealing but raised concerns about the government’s motivations.

The judge said Monday he reviewed those letters, but they were based on the administration’s mistaken premise that the documents would reveal new information. Engelmayer said that was “demonstrably false.” 

“The one colorable argument under that doctrine for unsealing in this case, in fact, is that doing so would expose as disingenuous the Government’s public explanations for moving to unseal,” Engelmayer wrote. 

Epstein’s 2005 and 2007 investigations in Florida

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg, last month, denied the Justice Department’s request to release the documents stemming from federal investigations into Epstein in Florida in 2005 and 2007.

“The Court’s hands are tied — a point that the government concedes,” Rosenberg wrote in a ruling in July.

Rosenberg said the government’s request to unseal the documents did not amount to any exceptions to the rules that require grand jury material to stay secret. She noted that appellate court precedent bars her from ordering the release of records in instances not covered by the exceptions.

“The Court cannot grant a request for disclosure unless one of the five exceptions… applies,” she wrote.