President Donald Trump on Thursday continued to personally attack Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt over a debacle regarding the upcoming annual governors’ weekend in Washington.

“We will soon have a Governor in Oklahoma who knows how to accurately write a Press Release to the Public, in this case, to state that I invited, not happily, almost all Democrat Governors to the Governor’s Dinner at the White House,” Trump wrote in a Thursday Truth Social post. “Stitt, a wiseguy, knew this, but tried to get some cheap publicity by stating otherwise.”

Trump’s latest criticism against the Republican comes after Stitt, who serves as chair of the National Governors Association, became embroiled in a back-and-forth over whether Democrats would be invited to the routinely bipartisan governors event. Stitt at one point announced that a bipartisan business meeting with the president would be removed from the NGA’s agenda for the weekend because the White House said Democrats would be excluded from the event.

After a conversation with Trump, Stitt informed governors on Wednesday that all governors would be invited to the meeting, attributing the dispute to a “misunderstanding in scheduling,” according to a letter viewed by Blue Light News.

But that wasn’t enough to salve the president’s displeasure: In a Wednesday afternoon social media post — after Democrats had begun receiving invitations to the meeting — Trump took to Truth Social to lament that “as usual with him, Stitt got it WRONG!”

All governors were welcome at the event, Trump wrote, except two Democrats: Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore — the latter of whom had already received a formal invitation to the meeting at the time of the post, according to a person familiar with the matter.

In the Thursday morning post, Trump took credit for Stitt’s victory in his last race for governor, writing that the Republican “was massively behind his Opponent in his previous Election for Governor” and “called me to ask for help.”

Trump added: “I Endorsed him (Barely!), and he won his Race,” but the president eagerly anticipated the arrival of the governor’s successor. Stitt is term-limited and cannot seek another term when his current one expires in 2027.

A spokesperson for Stitt’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and a spokesperson for the NGA declined to comment on the post.

Stitt’s position atop the NGA has put him at odds with the president on at least one other occasion, when the Oklahoma Republican broke with his party to criticize the administration’s cross-state National Guard deployments last year.

The dispute regarding the upcoming NGA weekend has reignited tensions within the association, with 18 Democratic governors vowing to boycott a bipartisan dinner over the White House’s handling of the invitations.

With regard to the event, Trump wrote Thursday: “I’ll see whoever shows up at the White House, the fewer the better!”

Virginia Democrats are moving forward with plans to gerrymander their way to four more congressional seats — but they need help from the state’s top court.

After a lower court blocked Democrats’ efforts to amend the state Constitution and redraw federal congressional lines ahead of this fall’s midterm elections, the Virginia Court of Appeals requested the Virginia Supreme Court weigh in.

That puts the fate of the map — and potentially congressional control after the 2026 midterms — in the hands of a group of justices that observers say can be hard to predict.

Political and legal experts in Virginia agree the state Supreme Court is not overtly ideological, with many describing it as “small-c conservative,” leaning heavily on tradition and precedent rather than handing down ideologically right-wing rulings. And many observers say the court is wary of wading too heavily into political fights. But this time, it’s unavoidable.

“It’s kind of a state Supreme Court tradition to stay away from political matters whenever they can. They like to leave the legislating to the legislature. So this is going to be a really interesting test of that tradition,” said Carolyn Fiddler of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, who attended William & Mary Law School in Virginia and worked in state politics.

Virginia is one of only two states where the legislature elects Supreme Court justices. Because the state has had divided control for much of the past quarter century, the balance of the court’s justices were appointed by bipartisan compromise. The court’s current seven members include one justice who was elected when Democrats had sole control of the General Assembly, three when Republicans controlled both chambers and three when control of the legislature was split.

“I voted for all these people – every one of them — and I don’t think any of them are overly political. And they shouldn’t be,” said Virginia House of Delegates Minority Leader Del. Terry Kilgore (R), who said he thinks the court will rule in his side’s favor. “They just should follow the law. If they do, we win.”

The question before the Virginia Supreme Court is not if, but when, new maps are allowed to go into effect — and whether they’ll be in place for this year’s midterms.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) signed legislation scheduling a statewide referendum for April 21 last week, asking voters to grant state lawmakers the power to redraw federal Congressional lines immediately. It came a day after Democratic state lawmakers unveiled proposed maps that aim to tilt the congressional map 10-1, potentially handing Democrats four more House seats and leaving just one Republican in the federal delegation.

But a wrench was thrown in their plans when a circuit court judge in conservative Tazewell County ruled late last month that Virginia Democrats did not follow proper procedure when initiating the constitutional amendment.

To change the Virginia Constitution is a multi-step process, requiring approval by two separate sessions of the General Assembly with a statewide general election for the House of Delegates taking place in between those sessions.

Judge Jack Hurley ruled that because early voting was already underway when the General Assembly first passed the amendment last October, it should not count as the first step. If the Virginia Supreme Court agrees, the earliest the state could enact new maps is after the next legislative election in 2027 — a blow to Democrats’ hopes of winning back the House this fall.

It’s a question both sides hope the top court weighs in on – and quickly.

“If they answer the question that there was not an intervening election, which, that’s the big one … then the redistricting is dead,” said former Del. Tim Anderson (R), and who is a practicing attorney. “If they say that there was an intervening election, then the redistricting amendment will go forward.”

The next opening on the court’s docket for a new case is March 2, a tight timeline since that’s the same week early voting is scheduled to begin.

Jay O’Keeffe is a left-leaning appellate attorney based in Roanoke who has argued before the top court. He said it is not uncommon for the justices’ opinions to reference Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” the 18th century treatise often cited by those who interpret the law through an originalist, conservative-leaning reading of the law.

“The justices I’ve dealt with don’t seem to see themselves as political actors,”O’Keeffe said. “But you could imagine a more progressive court … approaching the whole job of judging in a different way.”

The question both Democrats and Republicans hope the Virginia Supreme Court will answer is whether the April referendum vote can proceed.

“In matters like this, the Supreme Court is going to try to call it right down the middle, and not on a political basis,” said Steve Emmert, a retired appellate lawyer. “What the parties need now is certainty, and they need it soon.”

Voters are already asking artificial intelligence chatbots about candidates, but campaigns don’t yet know what those large language models might say about them or how to shape those answers — one of many AI-fueled campaign challenges a new Democratic-aligned tech group is hoping to solve.

Tech for Campaigns, a political nonprofit focused on helping Democrats adopt better data and digital marketing techniques, is launching a new initiative called The Lab, aiming to conduct experiments on how Democrats can use AI to win. The group says it is prepared to spend millions partnering with Democratic outside groups in key states and battleground races, with the hopes of helping the party make progress in an area they say it has so far neglected.

“Democrats have shown … they’re not willing to try new things. They wait too long and often are at a disadvantage,” said Jessica Alter, board chair at Tech for Campaigns. “With how fast AI is moving, that disadvantage will compound and be very dangerous.”

Campaigns across the political spectrum are grappling with how to take advantage of the rapidly evolving technology. Major Republican groups have embraced AI-generated content for ads more than their Democratic counterparts in the past year, although some Democratic campaigns have used AI imagery. AI-generated ads tend to be less expensive for campaigns, but strategists are still figuring out how voters feel about them — Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Senate campaign came under fire this week amid online accusations that her latest ad featured an AI-generated crowd image, although her campaign said it “was created through hundreds of hours of real craft and collaboration between creatives and union labor” without commenting on whether AI was also used.

And ads are just one piece of the AI campaign blitz. Groups have rolled out AI initiatives on everything from writing fundraising emails to searching for opposition research.

Tech for Campaigns wants to go beyond those uses. Its plan is to partner with outside groups in key races to fund experiments on different uses of AI. Modeled after a Silicon Valley-style startup accelerator, the group plans to pair campaign groups with tech executives and commercial experts from companies including Netflix and Y Combinator..

Each experiment is expected to take between two weeks and two months and cost between $50,000 and $150,000. Tech for Campaigns is inviting organizations to apply, and is hoping to conduct around 20 experiments this year. The results will be shared among Democrats widely, with the goal of more campaigns replicating tactics that work and avoiding those that don’t.

Among the challenges the group hopes to tackle: Shaping how candidates show up in output from large language models such as ChatGPT, a practice known as answer engine optimization. Outside researchers have found that AI chatbots can be effective at political persuasion, with voters shifting their opinions on candidates or issues after a short conversation.

Alter said campaigns need to ensure they are well-represented in chatbot results about them, lest the chatbot basing their response more on an opponent’s research and messaging. While major companies are prioritizing shaping chatbots’ response, she said, campaigns so far have been more hesitant to work on it.

The group also hopes to study whether AI tools can help with personalized communication and how Democrats can make better use of platforms, such as Reddit, where the party has generally had less of a presence.

Alter said Republicans have shown an advantage in recent years when it comes to adopting new technologies, from year-round digital advertising to podcasts. The new initiative aims to make sure that GOP advantage does not extend to AI too.

“It’s the most powerful technological advancement of our time,” Alter said. “So I don’t think they’re gonna eschew it.”

A version of this article first appeared in Blue Light News Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to Blue Light News Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.