Eight years ago, Eric Holder, the attorney general in the Obama administration, embarked on a quest with a single, daunting goal: to eliminate politics from the process of drawing legislative districts.

Through the organization he leads, the National Democratic Redistricting Commission, which has ties to Democrats, Mr. Holder has largely focused on fighting maps drawn by Republican legislatures, bringing legal challenges and political pressure in an effort to break Republican gerrymanders.

And while he has not always been as critical of Democrats, Mr. Holder has chastised some Democratic-led states and their legislatures for drawing egregious gerrymanders as well, arguing that “fairness for us is a weapon.”

But this week, something changed. Amid a contentious, Republican-led redistricting effort in Texas, Mr. Holder reversed course, arguing that Democrats should respond in kind, with their own aggressive gerrymander as a temporary salve in an increasingly fraught battle.

Democratic governors in several states, including California and New York, are considering rewriting laws or amending their states’ constitutions in order to redraw their maps.

In an interview on Friday, Mr. Holder explained the reasons behind his sudden shift and argued that Democrats needed to assert their power more aggressively.

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You’ve long held out that gerrymandering in all forms was wrong, even criticizing Democrats last cycle. What changed?

Well, our commitment to fairness and to justice in the process remains. But you have to be cognizant of the situation in which you find yourself and the tactics that they are employing. This midcycle redistricting ploy in Texas, and potentially in other states, is something that has to be met in the moment.

Our commitment to fairness didn’t blind us to this new reality, and I think that we’ve got to take these extraordinary steps, with the hope that we can then save democracy and ultimately heal it.

If you give Donald Trump unchecked power for two years beyond 2026, given what they’ve done in six months, I just wonder what kind of shape will the nation be in come Jan. 20, 2029.

Did you have to go for a long walk after deciding to change course?

No. It took some time. A lot of conversation, a lot of contemplation. And at the end of the day, I guess in my own mind, I kept myself consistent. I said I’m not abandoning our fight for fairness.

I think the threat — and I think you have to call it for what it is — this authoritarian move by Trump, the White House and dictated to his loyal, compliant followers in the states, is something that has to be met, and has to be met now. There’s just too much at stake in this moment.

My hope would be you have these temporary measures. You get the reform measures that ban this kind of process, and to the extent that there still remain things to be done, you again use what I think successfully we have used, which is fairness as a weapon.

Do you think you took too long to call for a shift in tactics?

I’m not sure about that. I think, in some ways, Democrats have gotten a bit of a bad rap. It seems like it’s six years, but it really is only six months. It’s kind of a shock and awe anti-democracy effort that Republicans have mounted, and, yeah, Democrats were a little slow to understand the nature of the beast.

I expected this kind of stuff, but I thought it would be over a greater period of time.

The last time there was a voting rights battle in Texas, Democrats walked out to prevent a quorum. Should they be doing that now?

Everything should be on the table. We’ve got to put pressure on Republicans and make sure they understand that there’s a price that they might have to pay in 2026.

Whatever it is that might forestall this truly anti-democracy, authoritarian move that they’re trying to pull in Texas has to be brought. I’m focusing on Texas now, but if they do it in other places, every option that we have has to be used.

Many people are concerned that what could turn into a redistricting arms race will damage democracy in the U.S. How do you square those small-d concerns with a Democratic gerrymander response?

That’s the thing that I really wrestled with, because I’m proud of the work that we’ve done to elevate our small-d democratic principles. And I’m concerned that our response to what Republicans are doing, though legitimate, though needed, could exacerbate a race to the bottom. That’s why I try to be careful to say, responsive, responsible, temporary. And to try to figure out: How do we get through this moment without sacrificing the overall struggle?

Progressives and Democrats are uncomfortable with the acquisition and the use of power in ways that Republicans are not. And that time has got to be over. We need to be unabashed in our desire to acquire power, and then to use power. That doesn’t mean we’re going to do it for special interests, billionaires or things that are anti-democracy, anti-science, like the Republicans do.

Franklin Roosevelt understood the use of power. Lyndon Johnson understood the use of power. And Democrats have got to get back to that.

On the topic of using power, how is a Democratic gerrymander in California or Illinois any different from what Texas is doing now?

What we’re doing is responsive to what they have been doing. One of the proposals being considered by California is for a measure that would last only for three cycles, with the thought that the independent commission would then come back into place.

There’s no time limit to what Texas is trying to do.

What’s driving Democrats is, I think, a legitimate response. I mean, it’s like the Germans have invaded France. Are you going to just say, “Well, we’re against war and we’re for the resolution of disputes in a peaceful way”? Sometimes you have to take up arms. And when confronted with this authoritarian, anti-democracy effort, we have to take up arms.

You’ve talked a lot about this being a temporary response. What gives you hope that this trench warfare isn’t a new political norm?

One of the strengths that we have identified is that the people don’t like this notion where politicians are picking their voters.

We polled on a lot of words, and “fairness” is the one that moves people the most. If people have the sense that the Republicans are trying to make this system, perhaps permanently, unfair, that leads me to believe that we can get past this crisis, get back to our fairness fight and be successful in it.

We can do well fighting for fairness, but there is an interim period here where we have to be more than tough than they are. We have to do all that we can to use the power that we have to save this democracy.

That’s what I meant in my original statement: We must preserve our democracy now in order to ultimately heal it.

So, where do the voters fall in all of this? Will their voices actually matter when all of this is done?

I think California is going to have to go to the voters to try to suspend that which the independent commission has done there. And so the voters will have the opportunity to weigh in. And I think Democrats should understand that is not a fait accompli.

It is not totally clear to me that California voters will be in favor of somehow disempowering the commission, even for a short period. So, again, based on our experience in red states, blue states, all parts of this country, folks like the notion of thinking that they are the ones in control. And that’s kind of the way our founding documents said the system is supposed to work.