INDIANAPOLIS — Former Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has voiced strong opposition to President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to influence redistricting in the state. During an exclusive interview with POLITICO, Daniels criticized the administration’s attempt to reshape electoral boundaries, calling it a partisan maneuver that undermines the principles of fair representation. “It would just be wrong,” Daniels told the news outlet. “People there have a right to pick the person they want.” His remarks came as Vice President JD Vance traveled to Indiana to press Republican legislators for support on redistricting, seeking to secure an additional 10 seats for the GOP in the 2026 midterm elections. This development marks the latest in a series of efforts by the White House to shape congressional maps in key states, with similar campaigns underway in Texas, where the presidential administration is urging Republicans to redraw district lines in a way that could potentially create up to five new Republican seats. The pressure on Texas Republicans has intensified following the recent exodus of Democratic lawmakers to avoid a legislative quorum, which has stalled the state legislature’s business and created a temporary vacuum in majority control.
Daniels, a respected figure in Indiana’s political landscape, took particular aim at Trump’s public statements on redistricting, accusing him of exacerbating the partisan divide. “By spouting off in that way, he turns it into this partisan wrangle that we now see,” Daniels said. He argued that such rhetoric has transformed a potential policy debate into an emotionally charged political showdown, where the focus is less on the merits of redistricting and more on ideological confrontation. Despite his criticism of Trump, Daniels also pointed out the broader context of gerrymandering as a bipartisan issue, suggesting that Democrats have a long history of using electoral maps to consolidate power. “It’s high season for hypocrisy,” he said, “noting that Democrats have also gerrymandered.”
The current situation in Indiana is particularly intriguing in light of Governor Mike Braun’s stance. Unlike some of his fellow Republicans, Braun has not yet committed to convening a special session to address redistricting, leaving the matter in the hands of the state legislature. Daniels noted that Indiana’s existing congressional districts already heavily favor Republicans, with the state holding seven of its nine seats. “My sense is you’d have to torture the lines to eke out another one somehow,” Daniels remarked. “It would be so overtly partisan that I would hope that they would abstain from it.” This sentiment reflects broader concerns among Indiana Republicans about the consequences of extreme partisan redistricting. Daniels added that any potential redistricting effort should prioritize geographic coherence and minimize jurisdictional fragmentation, rather than serving as a political weapon.
Daniels’ remarks come at a time of growing scrutiny over the role of gerrymandering in American politics. In an influential op-ed published last year in the Washington Post, he lamented the rise of “one-party rule,” arguing that gerrymandering has lost its traditional impact as social clustering and other non-geographic factors increasingly shape electoral outcomes. “The gerrymandering that once exaggerated a dominant party’s political margin is no longer much of a factor,” he wrote. “In many jurisdictions today, one would have to reverse gerrymander, mixing geographies and crossing all kinds of legal boundary lines, to produce a truly competitive electorate.” His views reflect a cautious and reflective approach to redistricting, emphasizing the need for balance and fairness in the political process.
This debate over redistricting is not only a local political issue in Indiana but also a reflection of a larger national conversation about the role of electoral maps in shaping political power. As the 2026 midterms approach, the pressure on key states to redraw their congressional districts has intensified, with both parties seeking to optimize their electoral strategy. However, Daniels’ critique of Trump’s redistricting push and his call for more balanced districts highlights a fundamental tension in modern politics: the struggle between partisan advantage and the principles of fair representation. His comments remind us that the debate over redistricting is not just about winning elections, but also about the integrity of the democratic process itself.
}