A senior House Democrat with close ties to top leader Hakeem Jeffries endorsed carving up majority-minority districts to ensure Democratic redistricting gains ahead of the 2028 elections.

“I’m supportive of winning and being in the majority,” Rep. Greg Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in a Thursday interview. “I think we can do that. I’m supportive of preserving our Democrats in the South, which is important, and I think that we can win and do what we need to do in other districts.”

“Trump changed the rules,” he continued. “I don’t like those rules, but we’re going to do what we have to do to win.”

Asked specifically if he would be supportive of unseating Republicans by redrawing deep-blue New York City districts held by minority lawmakers, like his own, to extend instead into less diverse suburban areas, he said, “I’m going to win, but we’ve got to get more Democrats, also.”

“We’re going to have a level playing field,” added Meeks, the longtime leader of the Queens Democratic Party.

In response to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that allows GOP-controlled state governments to undo lines drawn to protect minority voting interests, Jeffries said this week he considers New York a prime target to counter those Republican gains in 2028. The top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), met with Gov. Kathy Hochul last week to talk about mid-decade redistricting but said in an interview Thursday they did not discuss the specifics of a new map.

As a senior Jeffries ally and a key member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Meeks will have considerable influence over New York redrawing its map.

“Nobody wants us to sit back and do nothing and just let them stamp all over us,” Meeks said.

His perspective aligns with many Democratic voters. New Blue Light News polling revealed Thursday that many Democrats want party leaders to fight back on Republican gerrymandering, including by breaking up majority-minority districts.

Meeks said redrawing district lines would not undermine his party’s commitment to diversity.

“We’re going to preserve those responsibilities that we have,” he added. “And we’re going to create more seats for Democrats to win.”

The House Ethics Committee officially announced it is investigating allegations of sexual misconduct against Rep. Chuck Edwards.

The leaders of the bipartisan panel said Thursday they were probing whether the North Carolina Republican “created or fostered a hostile work environment and engaged in sexual harassment in violation of the Code of Official Conduct or any other applicable standard of conduct.”

Edwards, in a statement Thursday, said he “welcome[d] any investigation and plan[ned] to comply fully with the Committee.”

He added, “I am confident the investigation will expose the facts, not politically motivated fiction.”

POLITICO previously reportedthat Edwards was under investigation for allegations of having an improper relationship with staff and engaging in sexual harassment.

Speaker Mike Johnson this week said the allegations against Edwards are serious but that Edwards is also denying the accusations. The lawmaker has been seen on Capitol Hill this week attending floor votes and a candle light vigil in recognition of National Police Week.

In its current stage, the Edwards probe is less formal than an inquiry by an investigative subcommittee, which can only be convened by an Ethics Committee vote. Under committee rules, the panel must announce the formation of an investigative subcommittee, but investigations conducted at the discretion of leadership can operate in secret. That means leaders had no obligation to disclose their inquiry into Edwards at this time.

But the Ethics Committee is under new pressure to appear more responsive to allegations of misconduct among members, spurring an uptick in public statements and status reports about the panel’s typically secretive activities.

The renewed attention on sexual misconduct in the House specifically also compelled Republican and Democratic leadership to direct their party’s respective Women’s Caucuses to team up for a working group to develop changes to existing policies around sexual misconduct in the congressional workplace.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

The House narrowly rejected a fresh effort to restrict President Donald Trump’s war powers on Thursday, despite increased defections from Republicans as the Iran war drags on.

The 212-212 tie vote saw three Republicans side with Democrats to support war powers legislation, another sign of unrest in the GOP as the unpopular war stretches on and skyrocketing gas prices weigh on Trump’s party less than six months out from the midterm elections.

The vote was the latest test of loyalty to Trump, which saw the vast majority of Republicans stick with the command-in-chief. It was also the first time the House has weighed in on Iran since the conflict exceeded a 60-day legal deadline to wind down military operations.

Republicans Tom Barrett of Michigan, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky supported the measure. Massie has supported previous efforts to rein in Trump on Iran, while Barrett and Fitzpatrick changed their votes this time to oppose the war. Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) was the lone Democrat to oppose the measure.

The increased defections illustrate deeply toxic politics of the war in key districts that will determine control of the House in November. But it also shows that Trump maintains a firm grip on the party as he seeks to resolve a standoff over the Strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint for oil and other commercial shipping.

Barrett, an Army veteran, is in an incredibly competitive race in his Lansing-area seat against retired Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam. The Democratic challenger has been hammering Barrett for weeks over his support for the war. Owing to that political jam, Barrett last week introduced legislation to authorize continued military operations with a July 30 deadline.

Fitzpatrick’s Pennsylvania district is another battleground that Democrats have long sought to reclaim, and he is likely to face a competitive reelection bid in the swing state.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires military operations that haven’t been authorized by Congress to conclude after 60 days, the Trump administration contends that a ceasefire with Iran negates the deadline. Trump on Monday described the ceasefire as on “life support” as peace talks founder.

Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of U.S. Central Command, testified Thursday that while the U.S. has “significantly degraded” Iran’s military capabilities, it continues to pose a threat in the Strait of Hormuz. Cooper told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Iran’s warnings continue to scare off commercial ships from the strait, which gives it leverage in peace talks with the U.S.

On top of the economic fallout that has soured Trump and Republicans’ political standing, Pentagon officials revealed to lawmakers this week that the war has cost the military $29 billion so far — up from last month, when officials gave Congress a $25 billion price tag.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected similar legislation for a seventh time since the war began, despite increased GOP support there for ending it.

Meredith Lee Hill and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.