Hegseth on the Hill; Supreme Court Deals a Blow to the Voting Rights Act

Summary

Here's the Scoop – Episode Summary

Episode: Hegseth on the Hill; Supreme Court Deals a Blow to the Voting Rights Act
Date: April 29, 2026
Host: Yasmin Vossoughian, NBC News

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, NBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian returns from assignment to break down two headline stories:

1. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Joint Chiefs Face Capitol Hill – Secretary Hegseth is grilled by Congress over the $1.5 trillion defense budget and the ongoing war with Iran, revealing deep partisan tensions and a demand for specifics on strategy and spending.
2. Supreme Court Ruling on Louisiana’s Congressional Map – The conservative majority issues a decision seen as further gutting Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, potentially paving the way for major changes to election maps ahead of the midterms.

Additionally, the show touches on headlines about James Comey’s indictment, the Federal Reserve, and Elon Musk’s courtroom appearance.

---

Part 1: Pentagon Grilled Over War Spending and Strategy

[00:18–11:18]

Context and Major Points

• Secretary Hegseth & General Kaine Face Congress: First appearance since the US launched its war with Iran. They defend a historic $1.5 trillion military budget amid ongoing conflict.
• $25 Billion War Tab: For the first time, Operation Epic Fury’s estimated cost ($25 billion, two months in) is disclosed, but no clarity is offered for future costs or duration.

Key Discussion Points

• Lack of Specifics on War Strategy & Spending

  • Lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, express frustration at the Pentagon’s vague answers about objectives in Iran, war progress, and future budget needs.
  • Ranking member Adam Smith presses for detailed numbers and strategy, reflecting long-standing Congressional tension with the Pentagon.

• Hegseth’s Combative Posture

  • Hegseth accuses questioning lawmakers of undermining the military, framing critiques as anti-troop sentiment—a move that earns mixed reactions, applauded by some Republicans, dismissed by skeptical Democrats.

• Personnel Turmoil in the Pentagon

  • Lawmakers raise concerns about recent high-profile firings, including the Navy Secretary, with little insight offered about leadership changes.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Budget Rationale:

  • Pete Hegseth:

    “Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure the department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability of our forces from the front lines to the factory floors. This is a historic budget.” (01:06)

• On War’s Cost & Duration:

  • Ryan Nobles:

    “The number he gave was 25 billion. He didn’t indicate that that would be kind of an ongoing cost going forward… They never really got a clear answer from either the Secretary or the Chairman.” (02:24)

• On Congressional Frustration:

  • Yasmin Vossoughian:

    “Ranking member Adam Smith at one point was like, listen, we’ve been asking for these numbers for a long time. Where are they, and why am I only getting them now?” (03:17)

• On War Objectives:

  • Pete Hegseth (in response to lack of progress):

    “Iran’s nuclear program is exactly what it was before this war started. They have not lost their capacity to inflict pain....” (03:39)

• On Criticism of Strategy:

  • Pete Hegseth (responding to Rep. Garamendi):

    “Shame on you, calling this a quagmire.... you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies. Shame on you for that statement.” (06:01)

• On Need for Specifics:

  • Ryan Nobles:

    “If they felt the need to ask it in a public setting like this, that means they’re also not getting those answers behind closed doors.” (05:27)

• On Political Calculus:

  • Ryan Nobles:

    “There is a gaggle of Republicans that aren’t gonna support a significant increase in Pentagon funding.... you need to win over some Democrats here.” (08:18)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [01:06] Hegseth on the "historic" budget
• [03:17] Adam Smith demands numbers
• [04:05] Nobles notes lack of substantive answers
• [06:01] Hegseth rebukes Garamendi's criticism
• [08:18] Rep. Don Bacon & Austin Scott on bipartisan skepticism
• [10:16] Discussion of Hegseth’s job security with President Trump

---

Part 2: Supreme Court Deals Major Blow to Voting Rights Act

[12:25–22:51]

Context and Major Points

• Court Strikes Down Louisiana’s Map: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rules against Louisiana’s map, sharply restricting the use of race in drawing congressional districts.
• Implications for Section 2: While not striking it down formally, the decision is seen as leaving Section 2 of the VRA “all but a dead letter.”

Key Discussion Points

• Historic Weakening of Voting Rights Protections

  • Lawrence Hurley details how this ruling fits a decade-long trend by the Court to roll back key VRA provisions.
  • Previous rulings (2013, 2021) have narrowed preclearance and the ability to challenge discriminatory voting practices; this one further diminishes legal remedies for racial gerrymandering.

• Justification of Race-Neutral Maps

  • Justice Alito leaves technical room for “overt, intentional” racial discrimination claims but raises bar so high that most challenges will fail.

• Immediate Political Impact

  • Multiple Southern states now poised to redraw maps, potentially reducing minority-majority districts and shifting Congressional balance in favor of Republicans.
  • The ruling arrives late in the cycle, but moves are already underway in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Majority vs Dissent

  • Lawrence Hurley (on majority rationale):

    “So if it's intentional and there's obvious evidence of that, that might be something that civil rights plaintiffs could sue over. And that... probably doesn’t happen as much anymore. Right. Because it’s much more sophisticated, the act of drawing districts....” (15:47)

  • Justice Kagan (quoted by Yasmin):

    “Today’s ruling is part of a set. For over a decade, this Court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights act.” (18:21)

  • Lawrence Hurley (on VRA’s status):

    “The Voting Rights act as it stands today is very different and weakened compared to how it was before the 2013 ruling.” (19:47)

• On Political Dynamics of Redistricting:

  • Lawrence Hurley:

    “It’s part of this bigger war about partisan gerrymandering, which itself is something the Supreme Court allowed everyone to do.” (21:29)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [14:04] Hurley explains the significance of the decision
• [15:47] How race-based redistricting could still be justified
• [16:42] Dissent, Section 2’s future, Kagan’s stand
• [18:57] History of SCOTUS Voting Rights decisions (2013, 2021, 2023)
• [20:55] Effects on redistricting battles in 2026 and beyond

---

Headlines Roundup

[24:32–27:12]

• James Comey indicted ([24:32]) for Instagram post allegedly threatening President Trump.
• Federal Reserve: Jerome Powell’s last FOMC meeting; DOJ ends, but could reopen, probe.
• Elon Musk v. OpenAI trial ([26:47]): Musk is combative, filibusters on witness stand.
• Public Service: Gastroenterologists warn about tech use on the toilet, advocating a focus on fiber for better health ([27:12]).

---

Memorable Moments

• Hegseth’s fiery response to quagmire accusation (06:01):
  • “Shame on you for that statement.”
• Bipartisan frustration at Pentagon opacity – even Republicans pressing Hegseth for answers (08:18–09:12).
• Justice Kagan’s breaking with Court tradition – omitting “respectfully” in her dissent (16:42), signaling extraordinary concern.
• Yasmin’s personal touch – referencing her own spouse’s bathroom phone habit during a lighthearted health tip segment (27:12).

---

Conclusion

This episode captures high-stakes drama in Washington, highlighting a pivotal moment for both military oversight during wartime and the future of US voting rights. The tone is frank, urgent, and accessible, providing both expert analysis and clear, direct reporting for listeners navigating complex news cycles.

---

Key Segments by Timestamp:

• [01:06] Hegseth on budget
• [03:17] Congress seeks answers
• [06:01] Hegseth’s rebuke
• [08:18] Bipartisan budget skepticism
• [10:16] Hegseth’s job security
• [14:04] Supreme Court’s voting rights ruling explained
• [16:42] Kagan’s dissent and its importance
• [20:55] Implications for redistricting
• [26:47] Musk in court

---

This summary provides a comprehensive, engaging breakdown for listeners, focusing on the crux of the episode’s content and capturing the distinctive voices and urgency of the discussion.

Transcript

[Ryan Nobles]

There were times in the hearing where he accused some of the members of Congress who were asking very specific questions of not being on the side of the American military because they were simply asking questions about what the next stage of this conflict was going to be.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Hey, everybody, and welcome to here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Dasugin. I am back for my assignment in Lebanon and it is good to be home. All right. Today on the show, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Kaine faced a grilling by lawmakers for the first time since launching the war with Iran. Plus, the Supreme Court has struck down Louisiana's voting map, undermining the Voting Rights act yet again. What impact could this ruling have on nationwide redistricting battles just months ahead of the November midterms? Up first, though, to top, Pentagon officials were on Capitol Hill today defending their proposed one and a half trillion dollar military budget for the upcoming year. Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth defended the request.

[Pete Hegseth]

Every policy we pursue, every budgetary item we request serves to ensure the department remains laser focused on increasing lethality and survivability of our forces from the front lines to the factory floors. This is a historic budget.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Now this is coming just two months into the war with Iran, which the acting Pentagon comptroller says has already cost the US government $25 billion. And Hegseth sparred with lawmakers who criticized the lack of clear military objectives in the war. So will they give him the additional funds that he's asking for? For that, I want to bring in NBC News chief Capitol Hill correspondent Ryan Nobles. Hey, Ryan.

[Ryan Nobles]

Hi. Yes, thanks for having me.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

So let's talk about the price tag here. Secretary Hegseth and General Kaine along with these other top Defense Department officials, they faced a lot of questions today over this massive proposed military budget of one and a half trillion dollars. It was also, by the way, the first time that the Department of Defense has given any estimate of what is being spent on operation Epic Fury. $25 billion was the estimate, give or take. What did we learn about the details of that estimation?

[Ryan Nobles]

Almost nothing. It was a very open ended question, was one of the few questions that the comptroller took a very direct question about how much the war has cost up until this point. The number he gave was 25 billion. He didn't indicate that that would be kind of an ongoing cost going forward. In other words, the war is two months in. If it go months, does that mean 50 billion? If it goes eight months, does that mean 100 billion? And there haven't been a ton of specifics of just how much the Pentagon needs to prosecute this war and bring it to a conclusion. And I think that was a theme overall over the course of this hearing, was a lack of specifics about how long we could expect this war to go. It seemed as though the members of Congress tried to ask it in a lot of different ways. The finances part of it was one of those ways, but they never really got a clear answer from either the Secretary or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

The finances part of it was one of those ways. What is the ultimate objective here? Was one of those ways. Should we have even gotten into this thing? Was also one of those ways. And I thought it was interesting because ranking member Adam Smith at one point was like, listen, we've been asking for these numbers for a long time. Where are they, and why am I only getting them now? He also kind of had a little bit of a face off with Secretary Hegseth over the direction that the war

[Ryan Nobles]

is headed as we sit here today.

[Pete Hegseth]

Iran's nuclear program is exactly what it was before this war started. They have not lost their capacity to inflict pain. They still have a ballistic missile program. They're still able to blockade the Strait of Hormuz and have the ships that

[Ryan Nobles]

are capable of doing that.

[Pete Hegseth]

What is the plan to get that to change?

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Do you feel like we got an answer from Hegseth about what is the plan to get that? How did he handle that kind of grilling from Smith?

[Ryan Nobles]

Any direct question asked of headset today was generally answered with kind of obtuse platitudes that we're going to win this fight. We're not going to make the mistakes of prior administrations. We have the best war fighters in the world. These are all things that the Secretary says over and over again. But there was no kind of meat on the bones. There was no explanation of, well, we've crippled their Navy, their navy's completely gone. We've successfully implemented this blockade. They can't get things in and out of their ports. But then when asked, okay, but they've also shut down the Strait of Hormuz. How are you going to end that? There was never an explanation of how you're going to get to this next stage. And there were times in the hearing where he accused some of the members of Congress who were asking very specific questions of not being on the side of the American military because they were simply asking questions about what the next stage of this conflict was going to be. But I think this group in particular, the House Armed Services Committee, this is a group of men and women who understand how the military works, how the process works. They're not gonna be swayed by platitudes. They want details. They want specifics. And I think you saw even certain Republicans asking very direct and specific questions, looking for those answers, which tells you one thing. If they felt the need to ask it in a public setting like this, that means they're also not getting those answers behind closed doors.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

You mentioned Hegseth essentially kind of went after some of these members of Congress for questioning or for asking the hard questions about this ongoing war. There was also his interaction with Congressman John Garamendi from California after the congressman called Hegseth strategy, quote, unquote, incompetent, his strategy with the war with Iran. Here's what Hegset said in the answer he gave to another member of Congress's questions, because he wasn't given the time during Garamendi's time.

[Pete Hegseth]

Shame on you, calling this a quagmire. Two months in the effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies. Shame on you for that statement.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

What is the reaction to the posture in which Hegseth is taking, instead of actually directly answering some of these questions, instead criticizing folks for the way in which they are addressing the administration's posture on this war?

[Ryan Nobles]

So it depends on your perspective. I think if you are somebody that's a die hard supporter of Donald Trump, if you're a die hard supporter of this war, you tend to like the fight from Hegseth. You like the fact that he got back in the face of Democrats. You like that he used it as an opportunity to defend the folks that are on the front lines here. But I think for the Democrats that are skeptical about this strategy and they're skeptical about the path forward, it's generally an eye roll. I think that the Democrats, and I think you saw that in ranking member Smith's opening remarks, can separate the work of the men and women on the battlefield from the decisions that are being made by their leadership. And what happens with Hegseth, every single time that he or the administration is even sometimes gently pushed on some of the specifics as it relates to the war, he automatically retreats to this posture that that somehow means that you Hate the troops and that you want the troops to fail and that you want the American mission to fail. And what I think you saw, some of the Democrats, Garamendi included, Seth Moulton was another one who were like, no, we want them to succeed. That's why we're asking tough questions about how this process is working, because we want you to do the best you possibly can.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

It was interesting. Even Seth Moulton said, do you think we should have not asked these tough questions during the Iraq war under the Bush administration? Like putting that on the Secretary of Defense and talking about why they're asking the tough questions now? But it wasn't also just the Democrats that were going for hegseth. You also had Republican Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska who said that he had some concerns about recent high profile firings at the Pentagon, including the Navy Secretary. How much did they get into some of the personnel issues at the Department of Defense?

[Ryan Nobles]

So he didn't really provide any sort of specifics as to what the decision making process was there. I mean, for the most part it was, you know, this was a decision that was made by leadership that the President supported. As the secretary. I make these calls. I decided it was time for new leadership. I think that if you were to walk away from this hearing, the number one thing you'd walk away with is that there's just a lack of specifics. And Austin Scott from Georgia, right before you and I started talking, was kind of almost pleading with the secretary that you need to give us specifics because there is a gaggle of Republicans that aren't gonna support a significant increase in Pentagon funding. Right. You and I talk about this a lot. Yeah, that's right. The political sphere, it's a circle, not a straight line. And there are people on the far and the far left that don't want to give the Pentagon any more money. And so what Austin Scott was saying to the secretary is, you need to win over some Democrats here.

[Lawrence Hurley]

We're going to lose some Republican votes.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

I mean, we're going to have to have some Dem votes to do the things that we have to do to fund the Department of Defense. And I just, I would encourage everybody

[Ryan Nobles]

to keep that in mind because we're going to. So it was almost like, and he wasn't confrontational, but it was almost a pleading with the secretary to be a bit more diplomatic when he responded to these questions because they're inclined to help you, but they're not going to just help you without any sort of specifics. And, and, and the detail that they're looking for before they over they hand over the check.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

So. So the president is actually known to watch these hearings pretty closely. And former Secretary Noem testified on the Hill, and after a pretty fiery testimony, she was given her walking papers. What do we know about where Hegseth currently stands with the president and how likely it is that he's watching this fairly closely and kind of Hegseth's quote, unquote performance during this hearing?

[Ryan Nobles]

I'd also put Pam Bond in that category. Her career came to a pretty abrupt end after a pretty disastrous hearing. We know that there is a lot of concern and questions about Hegseth's leadership not only outside the Pentagon, but within the Pentagon and within the administration more broadly. But we also know that President Trump is quite fond of him. He loves the fact that he goes out there and defends the administration and defends the president every opportunity that he gets. I wouldn't say there's anything in this hearing that is nearly as disastrous as when Kristi Noem was pressed on where the funding came for that ad campaign and she implied that the president knew about it and had specifically signed off on it. There hasn't been anything like that in this hearing to indicate that. And so I don't foresee this hearing, at least the way it's going, being enough to end Hegseth's career. But I think that, you know, among the Cabinet secretaries, Hegseth is one who, you know, there's always a question about how long he's going to be able to hold onto the job.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

And by the way, Hegseth's going to be testifying in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee tomorrow. Ryan Nobles, thank you.

[Ryan Nobles]

Thanks, Yaz.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

We're going to take a very quick break. And when we are back, a Supreme Court decision on voting rights is set to reshape congressional maps what that could mean for the midterms. And by the way, while you're waiting, why not take a second to subscribe to our podcast wherever you are listening. And if you already subscribe, thank you. And do not forget to rate and review us. It really helps. We'll be right back.

[Commercial Announcer]

Mother's Day has a way of sneaking up on you, but when it does, 1-800-FLowers makes it easy to send mom something beautiful, thoughtful, and worthy of everything she does. Right now with double blooms from 1-800-Flowers, order one dozen roses and get another dozen for free. It's a bigger gesture with fresh, beautiful flowers arranged to make Mother's Day feel as special as she is make Mother's Day feel bigger with double blooms at 1-800-Flowers. That's 1-800-Flowers.com sxm.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

There's nothing like your first Mac. Here's what people online are sharing. Rhain says. Everything is just so smooth and fast. I still can't get over it. Syncing stuff between my phone and this is just chef's kiss. Rincredible488 says Apple Silicon basically cures low battery trauma. That's how they felt with their first Mac. How will you introducing the all new MacBook Neo, an amazing Mac at a surprising price. Find out more on apple.comMac. And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. The Supreme Court has dealt a very significant blow to the Voting Rights act. In a 6, 3 decision, the court's conservative majority ruled that a congressional map in Louisiana was unconstitutional because it was racially gerrymandered. The majority did not officially strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights act, which was created in 1965 to protect minority voters from discrimination in elections. But the new ruling places strict limits on how states can take race into account when drawing congressional maps. In appointed dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion quote, renders section two all but a dead letter. So what does this all mean for the future of voting rights? And could we now see even more states redraw their maps ahead of the midterms? Lawrence Hurley is a senior Supreme Court reporter for NBC News, and he's joining me now. Hi, Lawrence.

[Lawrence Hurley]

Hi there.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Okay. This is a big decision that came out today. Walk us through it. And what was at stake?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Yeah, I mean, this Supreme Court, we have a conservative majority court that in several cases now has taken aim at the Voting Rights Act. And this is just latest in the line of those cases. And it's a pretty big decision, right? This is saying that when a state, especially in the South, Republican led state, draws districts, they have a freer reign to do that without facing the possibility of getting sued by civil rights groups for trying to dilute the minority votes, which of course has historically happened a lot in the South. And so under this ruling, it's going to be much harder for those plaintiffs to bring those types of cases because the court's saying, well, the stuff we said before and the stuff that's kind of underlying the Voting Rights act doesn't really apply anymore because in the south, things have changed. Also in part because of a Supreme Court ruling, it's now easier for states to do partisan gerrymandering where they Just try to empower their own majority and increase the number of seats, as we've seen happening recently. And the court's saying if people want to do that, doesn't mean it's race based. Right. Just because most black voters in the south generally vote Democratic doesn't mean that's a racial gerrymander if you try to put them into Republican districts.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

So I thought it was interesting because Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion and in it he said there are instances essentially where race based redistricting is in fact justified, but in this case, in the Louisiana case, it is not justified. So what instances was Justice Alito referring to? What situations could he then argue were in fact justified?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Well, I think what he's doing there is kind of leaving the door slightly ajar for the kind of overt race discrimination that obviously you had in the south in the Jim Crow era before the civil rights movement, which is why the Voting Rights act was passed. So if it's intentional and there's obvious evidence of that, that might be something that civil rights plaintiffs could sue over. And that doesn't. Probably doesn't happen as much anymore. Right. Because it's much more sophisticated, the act of drawing districts and there is this correlation between race and who people vote for. So I think the civil rights plaintiffs who we've talked to this morning, they think this basically all but closes the door to any type of claim like this because it's extremely hard to ever bring that kind of evidence that it was intentional race discrimination.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

And then you had Justice Elena Kagan's dissent where two things stood out. First, she didn't write that. She, quote, unquote, respectfully dissents, which is usually the norm in these dissenting opinions. Secondly, she says this systemically dilutes minority citizens voting powers. And then, as I noted earlier, she called Section two all but dead. What does this mean for the Future of Section 2 when it comes to voting rights?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Well, one key thing it does both in the short term, potentially, but definitely in the long term, is it gives a freer rein to states to draw districts based on entrenching their own partisan majorities without having to give consideration to racial minorities. It's a bit early to be saying how exactly that's going to play out, even potentially this year for the midterms, because we're a little late in the election cycle already. But some states, including Louisiana, are probably going to try to draw new districts right now. And in the long term, the effect that would have is to reduce the number of majority Districts, not just in Congress, but also in states elections and also in local elections, like in cities and counties. And that in turn could lead to a reduction in representation for minority people in elected offices across the country. So, you know, it does have that potential to have pretty broad ramifications.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

You know, you alluded to this, but Justice Kagan also, in her dissenting opinion, she essentially said, and I'm paraphrasing here, I'm going to read the direct quote in a moment that the Court has been kind of gunning for voting rights for. For quite some time. She said today's ruling is part of a set. For over a decade, this Court has had its sights set on the Voting Rights act. She's talking about two rulings here, 2013 and 2021 as well, which actually struck down pieces of the Voting Rights Act. Which parts of the law did those rulings actually address, and how are we seeing the impacts of those rulings bearing out today?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Yeah, I mean, the Court has definitely, overall, in these succession of cases, kind of considerably weakened the Voting Rights act. So that 2013 ruling involved this provision that said that certain states had to run by any changes to their election rules by the federal government or in. In the courts before they could actually implement them. And then the later ruling was about certain voting practices that the Court made it harder for civil rights plaintiffs to challenge. Right, but that wasn't in the redistricting context. And then this one is about redistricting. So you've got redistricting, voting practices, and what was called the preclearance provision are all kind of gone now or severely weakened. So if you take all of those together, the Voting Rights act as it stands today is very different and weakened compared to how it was before the 2013 ruling.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

But then there was this 2023 ruling in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, they actually sided with the liberal justices in the Court and ruled that a map in Alabama did violate the Voting Rights Act. Why do they support that ruling or that case and not support today?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Yeah, I mean, it's almost like a bit of a head fake. Right? Because in that case, you know, we were all putting out headlines saying, oh, the Court actually stopped short of gutting the Voting Rights act in a sort of unexpected way. But even in that ruling, the Chief justice made it clear that it was just mainly because he didn't really like the legal arguments that were being made in that case. And in the new ruling, Justice Alito, who dissented in that case, tries to distinguish it from that case by saying, well, this case is totally different. It's consistent even with that case, which I think a lot of people would disagree with. But it's basically we know from those other cases and this case that the conservative majority has issues with the Voting Rights Act. And it just seems like that 2023 case was an outlier that didn't really tell us much about where they were headed.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

So, you know, as predicted, now that this ruling has come down, you're going to have states running, right trying to redraw their maps, requesting to redraw their maps. Louisiana is expected to redraw its congressional map. Mississippi's governor has scheduled a special legislative session on redistricting for three weeks from now. Florida voting today on shifting its map to potentially add four GOP majority districts. What states, what other states, I should say are expected to contest their maps for being racially gerrymandered following this decision?

[Lawrence Hurley]

Well, I think there's this decision, but then there's also, of course, this whole other fight over redistricting that President Trump kind of started by encouraging Texas to do this unusual mid decade redistricting. So it's all kind of part of this bigger war about partisan gerrymandering, which itself is something the Supreme Court allowed everyone to do. Right. There was an effort to kind of rein in partisan gerrymandering that districts would have, you know, be more equal or not quite as one sided. And that that failed in a 2019 ruling. So it's all kind of bundled up in that. But then in terms of the redistricting that might be done specifically on this ruling, which is would be Republican states trying to eliminate minority majority districts that tend to be Democrats. That is what we were looking at in terms of this ruling. And there's probably a few states, including Louisiana, maybe Tennessee could do this too. But I think, you know, it's still unclear exactly which states might try to do it, but there's a handful that could this year. Some states are already, you know, moving into their elections. So it's too late. So it is a limited kind of number of states that could do it this year, but of course they can do it now going forward in future elections.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Lawrence Hurley, I know you're feeling under the weather today, so thank you for taking the time.

[Lawrence Hurley]

No worries. Thanks a lot.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Coming up, Elon takes a stand for a second day in a California courtroom. And the case for keeping your toilet time tech free. Yeah, we're talking about toilets. Stay with us for the headlines.

[Commercial Announcer]

Looking for the best place to shop this Mother's Day. Go with the brand. That makes it easy to send something thoughtful to everyone on your list, 1-800-flowers.com right now at 1-800-flowers. Order one dozen roses and get another dozen free. More flowers mean more smiles. All backed by the quality, attention to detail and trusted delivery experience that make 1-800-flowers my top choice to send something beautiful mom will love. Make mom's day at 1-800-flowers.com sxm that's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

[Pete Hegseth]

Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit down podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with red hot stand up comedian Nikki Glaser to talk about the long career grind that has brought her to this starring moment. Hosting the Golden Globes, killing at the Tom Brady Roast. And now with another hit special on Hulu. You can get our conversation now for free wherever you download your podcasts.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Hey everyone. I'm Dylan Dreyer, co host of the third hour of Today and mom to three wild Boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, the Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw

[Lawrence Hurley]

my own kids up. I'm not giving you advice on how

[Pete Hegseth]

not to screw yours up.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

Search the parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. And we are back with here's the scoop from NBC News. Let's get to some headlines. Former FBI Director James Comey has turned himself in after he was indicted on federal charges that he, quote, unquote, knowingly and willfully threaten President Trump when he posted a photo of seashells to his instagram back in 2025. The two count indictment alleges that a reasonable person would interpret the image of seashells arranged to spell out 8647 as a serious expression of intent to do harm to the president. By the way, 86 is a term commonly used in restaurants when an item is sold out, and it's also informally used to mean cancel or get rid of. Comey's attorney said in a statement that he vigorously denies the charges and that he looked forward to, quote, vindicating Mr. Comey and the First Amendment. The federal Reserve is holding interest rates steady amid economic uncertainty stemming from the US And Israel's war with Iran and Volatility in the labor market. This was Chair Jerome Powell's final policy meeting as head of the central bank. Earlier in the day, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance President Trump's pick to replace Powell, Kevin Warsh, to the full chamber for a final confirmation hearing. But Powell said today that he would stay on as a governor after his term ends on May 15. He said he was concerned about the Department of Justice's recent string of legal attacks on the Fed. The DOJ dropped its criminal probe of Powell last week, but said it could reopen the investigation if warranted. In the battle of the tech titans, Elon Musk took the stand for the second day in a California courtroom, testifying in a civil case against OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Musk takes issue with Altman's decision to convert OpenAI into a for profit enterprise after the two co founded it as a nonprofit research center a decade ago. Altman and OpenAI say his suit is baseless and is actually about derailing a competitor to Musk's own AI company, xai. NBC News tech reporter David Ingram was in the courtroom.

[Lawrence Hurley]

Elon Musk was combative during the second

[Ryan Nobles]

day of testimony at the OpenAI trial. Musk repeatedly filibustered during cross examination by OpenAI attorney Bill Savitt, saying that he needed more context or documents before he answered even basic questions about the founding of OpenAI in 2015. Musk's memory sometimes failed him, and the judge repeatedly intervened to move the questioning along.

[Yasmin Dasugin]

And finally, this last one is for anyone who has a bad habit of taking their phone with them when they go to the bathroom. And by the way, according to a recent study, that is most of us, including my husband, who does it every single time we are on our way to school drop off. Okay, so if you're in there and you're scrolling for more than five minutes at a time, sitting with your butt unsupported, you might be giving yourself hemorrhoids. And that is why the American Gastroenterological association now recommends that you go with no distractions. Also, in these new guidelines, they say that while a bunch of us are prioritizing protein, you should really be focusing on fiber like leafy greens, whole grains and beans. Most Americans are only getting a tiny fraction of the recommended daily value of fiber, leading to very literal pains in the butt. It's important to be regular folks. So more beans, less greens. That is going to do it for us. And here's the scoop from NBC News. I'm Yasmin Desugin. We'll be back tomorrow with whatever the day may bring. And if you like what you heard, subscribe wherever you get your podcast. And you can also subscribe to our daily newsletter, the Inside Scoop. It is a deeper dive on the main stories of the day that comes out every weeknight straight to your inbox. You can sign up for the Inside Scoop as part of our paid subscription@NBC news.com we'll see you tomorrow. Who doesn't love a good poop? Just kidding. This week on Meet the Press, the war with Iran heads into its third month as gas prices spike. Is there any end in sight? Plus, we'll dig into the former FBI, FBI director's second indictment and the fallout over another assassination attempt this week on Meet the Press. Listen to the full episode now. Wherever you get your podcasts.