NationalWatch

President Donald Trump declared Iran is “essentially really no longer a threat” after a 32-day U.S. military campaign, telling Americans in a primetime address Wednesday that the country has been “eviscerated” following weeks of strikes.

Even so, Trump said the United States is preparing additional attacks in the coming weeks even as diplomatic discussions continue.

“I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly. Very shortly, we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks,” Trump said. “We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.”

INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL

“We have all the cards. They have none,” Trump said. “American involvement in World War II lasted for three years, eight months and 25 days,” the president went on, noting that the Vietnam War lasted 19 years and Iraq War lasted eight.

“We are in this military operation … for 32 days,” he said. “And the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat.”

Trump pointed to U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, saying sites hit by B-2 bombers were “obliterated” and warning the United States would launch additional strikes if Tehran attempts to recover nuclear material.

“The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust,” Trump said. “If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard.”

The remarks come as key questions remain about the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, including roughly 900 pounds to 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, according to international watchdog estimates.

The conflict has driven volatility in global energy markets and rising fuel costs for Americans.

WHY TRUMP, IRAN SEEM LIGHT-YEARS APART ON ANY POSSIBLE DEAL TO END THE WAR

Addressing those concerns directly, Trump blamed recent increases in gasoline prices on Iranian attacks targeting commercial shipping and regional infrastructure.

“Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home,” Trump said. “The short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries.”

Trump also suggested Iran’s leadership structure has been fundamentally altered by the strikes, saying senior figures are dead and warning of additional attacks if Tehran does not reach an agreement with the United States.

“We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead,” Trump said. “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.”

He further claimed Iran’s air defenses had been eliminated. “They have no anti-aircraft equipment,” Trump said. “Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable.” 

The mission known as Operation Epic Fury began just more than one month ago, on Feb. 28. 

Since then, U.S. forces have struck more than 12,000 targets inside Iran and damaged or destroyed 155 naval ships, according to the Central Command. Thirteen U.S. service members have died in the operations, and 350 have been injured.  

“Twice this past month, I have traveled to Dover Air Force Base, and it’s been something I wanted to be with those heroes as they return to American soil. And I was with them and their families, their parents, their wives, their husbands. We salute them,” Trump said in reference to the deceased service members.  

“Now we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives. And every single one of the people, their loved one said, please, sir, please finish the job, every one of them, and we are going to finish the job and we’re going to finish it very fast. We’re getting very close.” 

Trump also called on U.S. allies to take a more active role in securing global energy routes, arguing that countries reliant on Middle Eastern oil should be responsible for protecting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping chokepoint.

“The countries of the world that do receive oil through the Hormuz Strait must take care of that passage. They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it,” Trump said. “We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.”

Trump suggested some nations had failed to support U.S. military efforts against Iran and urged them to step up, both militarily and economically.

“So to those countries that can’t get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves,” he said. “Go to the strait and just take it. Protect it. Use it for yourselves.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He added that global energy flows would stabilize once the conflict subsides, predicting the waterway would reopen and markets would recover.

“When this conflict is over, the strait will open up naturally,” Trump said. “It will resume the flowing and the gas prices will rapidly come back down.”

What would you say if one body of Congress didn’t take a formal roll call vote on a major piece of legislation – yet passed it at 2:19 on a Friday morning?

Would you try to outdo your colleagues across the Capitol Rotunda with some Congressional chicanery of your own? Perhaps by passing an equally important version of the same bill – while officially sidestepping a direct up/down vote on the measure – at 11:28 p.m. on that same Friday night.

That’s what happened late last week. The Senate scored approval from all 100 senators to pass a bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year – but did it on a voice vote at 2:19 a.m. Friday with only five senators in the chamber.

House Republicans scoffed at this. So they passed their own bill – to fund all of DHS – just before the witching hour Friday. But technically, the House didn’t even vote directly on the legislation itself. The House voted to approve a “rule” (which manages debate for bills). With adoption of that rule, the House “deemed” the underlying DHS funding measure as passed.

GOP LEADERS ENDORSE TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN-PROOF MOVE TO END DHS FUNDING LAPSE

But despite all of this, the House and Senate weren’t aligned. They hadn’t approved the same bill. And despite the parliamentary antics, House Republicans then implored the Senate to pass the measure it approved Friday night on Monday morning – without a roll call vote and with just two senators in the chamber.

If you followed all of that, that is exactly what’s unfolded on Capitol Hill the past few days as lawmakers struggled to end the six-week Department of Homeland Security shutdown.

It was clear early Thursday evening that there wasn’t a path in the Sente to approve a partisan GOP bill to fund DHS after a lengthy roll call vote which started in the afternoon.

But something was afoot.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MAKES MAJOR MOVE TO RELIEVE ‘UNFAIR BURDEN’ ON DHS WORKERS AS SHUTDOWN DRAGS ON

Congress was staring at a 15-day recess for Easter and Passover on Friday. Failure to address the crisis now meant that lawmakers would leave town until the middle of April – extending the shutdown until then as airport lines swelled.

So Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., got to work on something which could pass the Senate – and potentially pass the House – before everyone abandoned Washington for the break.

Thune suggested earlier in the week that the Senate usually has to get “to Thursday” before frozen positions may begin to thaw. He was right. There was a corridor for the Senate to approve a bipartisan bill to tackle most of the funding crisis at DHS. So Thune’s charge late Thursday night and into the wee hours of Friday morning was not necessarily to persuade bipartisan senators to support the bill he was putting on the floor. But instead, Thune’s goal was to coax skeptical senators not to object and blow the whole thing up.

There’s something called a “hotline” in the Senate. Any time the leadership wants to set up a series of votes, make particular amendments in order and perhaps allocate wedges of time to debate, it sends around a “hotline” to all 100 senators. If any senator objects, they let the leadership know. This streamlines the process ahead of time. It also ensures that senators aren’t blindsided by something called a “unanimous consent” request. Unanimous consent requests, or “UC’s,” happen all the time in the Senate.

One of the most powerful tools in the Senate is “unanimous consent.” If you obtain the “unanimous consent” of all 100 senators, you can make the sun rise in the west. But all it takes is one objection to block a UC – even if all other 99 senators agree.

The behind the scenes hotline takes care of this in advance. Any senator could object and block Thune’s proposal to fund most of DHS. But there shouldn’t be any problem if he cleared it with all 100 senators offstage in advance.

That’s why Thune went to the floor at 2:19 a.m. Friday. Not a single senator flagged his proposal. And so the South Dakota Republican went to the floor with a team of five senators – and passed the bill. Not by UC. But by something called a “voice vote. Those in favor shout yea. Those who oppose holler nay. The louder side wins. The Senate passed the bill. There was no roll call vote.

HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER

So, this wasn’t something snuck by in the dead of night on the sly. If any senator had a reservation, they could have flagged it. Or better yet, come down to the floor at 2:19 a.m. and contested it. In short, there were 100 senators, 100 chiefs of staff, 100 legislative directors and 100 counsels who should have known about Thune’s plan. That’s a universe of at least 400 people – if not more. So, this wasn’t an episode of someone pulling a fast one.

By morning, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he “opposed this bill.” Same with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

Well, that’s fine. But no one objected nor pushed back on the hotline. No one went down to the floor to demand a roll call vote – or even argued that the Senate couldn’t do anything because there wasn’t a quorum present to conduct business. So anything said by Republican senators upset about the bill were simply academic or rhetorical objections. If those senators truly opposed the bill, they missed their opportunity to do something about it.

It was thought that the House might take up the bill – reluctantly – the next day to end most of the shutdown and pay TSA workers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled support. So did Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. Granted, liberal Democrats might oppose the bill because there weren’t changes at ICE. But the bill probably would have passed with some Republicans and lots of Democrats. In fact, there may have been more Democratic yeas than Republican yeas. That would have been toxic for House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., lost his gavel over moving a bipartisan bill to avoid a shutdown in the fall of 2023.

So by Friday afternoon, Johnson strenuously lodged his opposition to the Senate bill.

“Republicans are not going to be any part of any effort to reopen our borders or to stop immigration enforcement,” said Johnson, noting that the Senate plan left out funding for ICE and the Border Patrol. “This gambit that was done last night is a joke. I’m quite convinced that it can’t be that every Senate Republican read the language of this bill.”

In other words, were they not dialed in on the hotline?

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHAT TO EXPECT ON DHS FUNDING WHEN THE SENATE MEETS MONDAY

Yours truly questioned the Speaker, asking why he and Thune weren’t on the same page. Johnson accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. of being behind the bill. I pointed out that Thune “was the engineer behind this.”

“I wouldn’t call John Thune the engineer of this,” said Johnson.

“He didn’t have the accept it,” I countered.

“Let me answer the question, Chad,” sighed an exasperated Johnson.

So the House forged ahead and passed its own bill to fully fund DHS Friday night. Some House Republicans then expected the Senate to break custom and pass its bill – by unanimous consent – during a brief pro forma session Monday. In other words, House Republicans ripped the Senate for what it did early Friday morning. But those same House Republicans wanted senators to approve THEIR bill on Monday the same way they criticized the Senate for passing its bill on Friday.

Note that there was no hotline for the House bill at that point.

“We’d love to see them do that,” said Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., on Friday.

But Democrats dispatched a watchdog to guard the floor against any possible GOP chicanery as the Senate met for 31 seconds with meager attendance.

The Senate gaveled in. The Senate gaveled out. Nothing happened.

“I was there to object,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. “I was here just in case there were some shenanigans.”

Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., called it “insane” that Senate Republicans “didn’t even try” to pass the House bill. But the lone Senate Republican on duty said the presence of Coons doomed that to failure.

“We don’t have consent yet,” said Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., who presided over the session. “They declined. Obviously Sen. Coons was there to do that.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But by Wednesday, the bill which Johnson trashed Friday afternoon was on its way to passage. Despite a sea of opposition from conservative Republicans, the House would accept the Senate bill and end most of the DHS shutdown. The Earth shifted. President Trump was fine with this. Suddenly, Johnson and Thune were on the same page.

So the Republican House would eat what the Senate originally cooked up early Friday morning. And the House would likely approve it with lots of Republicans spread around the country. But like Senate Republicans early Friday morning, no one would likely return to block it.

And by now, this wasn’t something engineered in the dead of night that only 400 people knew about. The entire country was more than aware what happened.

A “Virginia father” charged with beating his infant daughter to death is a Guatemalan illegal immigrant who was let into the country under the Biden administration, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Local outlet WUSA9 reported Tuesday that 28-year-old “Virginia father” Misael Lopez Gomez was arrested Friday for allegedly killing his own daughter. According to the outlet, the three-month-old baby was found not breathing by Fairfax County Police. Officers administered CPR, but the infant was pronounced dead at a local hospital. The medical examiner determined the cause of death to be “blunt force trauma.”

Lopez Gomez is being charged with second-degree murder and felony child abuse causing serious injury, according to the Virginia Judiciary’s official website.

Though his immigration status is not listed on the judiciary website, DHS told Fox News that Lopez Gomez is a Guatemalan illegal alien who admitted in an interview to crossing the New Mexico border illegally in July 2023 during the Biden administration.

ILLEGAL ALIEN ALLEGED GROPING OF MINOR GIRLS AT HIGH SCHOOL BEING INVESTIGATED BY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

Fox News is told ICE has lodged a detainer – request to hold – on Lopez Gomez with Fairfax County law enforcement.

This is the latest in a string of crimes committed by illegal immigrants in Fairfax County, the most populous county in Virginia and a major suburb of Washington, D.C. Fairfax County is considered a deep-blue Democratic stronghold.

DHS has been pressuring new Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger to commit to having authorities honor ICE’s detainers against illegal immigrant criminals. 

JAYAPAL FLOATS REPARATIONS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IMPACTED BY TRUMP CRACKDOWN, DEMANDS PROSECUTIONS

Despite being widely perceived as moderate during the election last year, since taking office, Spanberger has been criticized for the progressive policies she has pursued, which include an executive order barring law enforcement from cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security announced ICE had also lodged a detainer for another Guatemalan illegal alien in Fairfax County named Anibal Armando Chavarria Muy. Chavarria Muy was arrested by local authorities for second-degree murder in a machete stabbing incident.

TRUMP ADMIN UNLAWFULLY TERMINATED LEGAL STATUS OF MIGRANTS WHO USED BIDEN-ERA APP, JUDGE RULES

Before that, ICE also lodged a detainer for 18-year-old Israel Flores Ortiz, who is accused of sexual assault of a dozen female students at a Fairfax County high school.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger’s office and Fairfax County officials for comment.

FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration will extend tax filing deadlines for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel as the ongoing shutdown intensifies financial pressure on thousands of federal workers.

The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service are set to announce a 30-day automatic tax filing extension for affected employees, shielding them from penalties and interest. The partial government shutdown has now entered its 46th day, intensifying pressure on federal workers.

HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER

Such broad tax relief is highly unusual and typically reserved for major disasters and other extraordinary circumstances, underscoring the severity of the current shutdown.

“The continued shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security has created unnecessary disruptions, placing an unfair burden on DHS personnel and their families,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

“We are committed to supporting our hard-working DHS officers and employees so they can stay focused on their mission and keep the American people safe without being penalized for missing a tax filing deadline,” he added.

AVERAGE TAX REFUND TOPS $3,700 MIDWAY THROUGH FILING SEASON, TREASURY SAYS

Under the measure, affected workers will now have until May 15, 2026, to file their taxes and pay what they owe without facing additional financial penalties. 

DHS personnel include Border Patrol agents, TSA officers, Secret Service agents and FEMA responders—frontline workers responsible for border security, aviation safety, disaster response and counterterrorism. 

Many have reported struggling to cover basic expenses such as rent, mortgages and childcare as missed paychecks pile up.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The decision comes as pressure mounts over the real-world consequences of the shutdown, with DHS employees caught between their national security responsibilities and growing financial strain. 

While the administration says the relief is intended to ease the burden, for many workers it remains only a temporary lifeline as the broader standoff continues.

FIRST ON FOX: Actor Robert De Niro was in the nation’s capital Wednesday sitting in the same crowded courtroom as President Donald Trump and some of his closest advisors during oral arguments by the Supreme Court about birthright citizenship. 

Fox News Digital caught up with De Niro as he was exiting the courthouse, but De Niro said he did not have any perspective on how the arguments went. 

“I’m waiting to get a, getting a – I’m not sure because I could hear, but not hear. It’s complicated. So, I can’t say,” De Niro responded when asked about the High Court’s oral arguments he had just witnessed. Meanwhile, De Niro described the Trump administration’s argument on the matter – which is that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens – as a way for Republicans to “get rid of people they don’t want.”

ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

“It’s that simple,” De Niro said.

The actor and activist, who was recently seen speaking at a “No Kings” protest in New York City over the weekend, has been criticized for his anti-Trump rhetoric. He has called the president “a piece of sh–t,” a “nasty little b–h,” a “petulant little punk,” has said he’d “like to punch him in the face,” and declared Trump an “enemy” of the United States.   

When asked about claims he has “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” sometimes referred to by the acronym “TDS,” De Niro called it “nonsense.”

“People don’t like him for a reason,” De Niro shot back. “All the terrible things he’s done – if he did nice things, then he could have, he had the chance – he became president – to do nice things, not hateful, retribution, not – just, outright mean things. If he did nice things, people would love him. But he’s got a problem. He’s damaged.”

SCOTUS SLATED TO WEIGH FUTURE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS FOR MILLIONS — HERE’S WHAT AT STAKE

Asked about what specifically bothered him about Trump, De Niro said “everything.”

“Everything that we all know now,” De Niro added. 

Reporting from Wednesday indicated that the Supreme Court appeared ready to reject Trump’s argument on birthright citizenship. The arguments reportedly lasted over two hours, and, in addition to Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi was present, as was Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

De Niro reportedly sat in seats reserved for the justices’ guests, according to the Associated Press.  

“When the crowds are chanting ‘No Kings,’ what I’m really hearing – as we all know – is ‘No Trump.’ There have been other presidents who have tested the constitutional limits of their power, but none have been such an existential threat to our freedoms and security – none – except Trump,” De Niro told supporters at the No Kings rally he attended over the weekend. “He must be stopped and he must be stopped now,” De Niro added calling members of Trump’s cabinet “goons.”

As artificial intelligence continues to expand into homes and the workplace, voters are less concerned about it taking their jobs and more worried about its overall influence.

The latest Fox News Poll finds 66% of registered voters are concerned about artificial intelligence, up from 63% in December and 56% in 2023 (the first time the question was asked). 

The increase in concern is across the board, with the biggest jumps happening among women, voters without a college degree, Democrats and liberal voters.

FOX NEWS POLL: SOUR VOTERS SAY WASHINGTON IS OUT OF TOUCH

Yet when it comes to how AI will affect the workforce, voters aren’t concerned about their own jobs even though most think it will eliminate more positions (59%) than it will create (7%) over the next 5 years.

FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS OPPOSE ACTION IN IRAN BUT GIVE US MILITARY POSITIVE MARKS

Seven in 10 (69%) employed voters are unconcerned their job will be cut in the next five years, while three in 10 are worried (31%). This matches where sentiment was in November.

The lack of concern may reflect broader attitudes toward AI in the workplace: Seven in 10 say it is not important to their career that they learn how to use AI, including six in 10 employed voters. 

Another three in 10 say it is important, and that jumps to roughly  in 10 among workers, voters with graduate degrees, and those living in households with an annual income of $100,000 or higher. Those most likely to feel learning AI is a career priority are men under age 45 (48%). 

But if they must tech up, a majority of voters feel comfortable adopting and using new technology (60% comfortable vs. 40% not comfortable).

The highest numbers saying they’re comfortable are voters under age 45, particularly younger men (81%) and younger Republicans (82%).

Artificial intelligence and the military…

As the Iran conflict enters its fifth week, nearly two-thirds of voters are uncomfortable with the military using autonomous weapons systems (AWS). About four in 10 feel comfortable.

The partisan divide on this issue is wide: 52% of Republicans are comfortable with AWS vs. 27% of Democrats. Fifty-eight percent of MAGA Republicans are comfortable vs. 40% of non-MAGA Republicans.

There is also a prominent gender gap with men (43%) more comfortable than women (31%).

Still, nearly all voters say that when the military is considering a strike that could kill people, a human should be required to make the final decision: 93% feel that way vs. 7% saying AI systems alone should have the final say. 

This is a bipartisan belief, with at least nine in 10 Democrats, Republicans and independents agreeing a human needs to make the decision.

More than half of voters who have served in the military are uncomfortable with the use of AWS systems (54% not comfortable vs. 45% comfortable), and an overwhelming majority thinks a human should be making the choice between life and death (90%).

One more thing…

While concern about AI is up among voters, it’s far from the top worry with inflation (86% extremely/very concerned), healthcare (81%), gas prices (80%), political divisions (80%), unemployment (73%), attacks by Islamic (73%) and non-Islamic terrorists (70%), ability to pay bills (70%) and gun violence (69%) ranking higher.

Concern about Iran getting a nuclear bomb ties with concern over AI (66% extremely/very) while antisemitism (63%) and detentions by ICE (62%) rank lower.

CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE

Conducted March 20-23, 2026, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,001 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (104) and cellphones (641) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (256). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education and area variables to ensure the demographics are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.

Birth tourism in the U.S. remains notoriously difficult to measure, but Solicitor General John Sauer on Wednesday pointed the Supreme Court to what he called “striking” figures as the justices weighed President Donald Trump’s effort to curb birthright citizenship.

“Here’s a fact about it that I think is striking,” Sauer said. “Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 — 500 — birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.”

Sauer’s response came after Chief Justice John Roberts asked him about the prevalence of birth tourism, which is the practice of traveling to the United States for the purpose of giving birth, so the child can automatically receive U.S. citizenship. 

Sauer acknowledged that “no one knows for sure” about firm data in the industry before citing media figures estimating more than 1 million cases from China alone. 

NEARLY ALL REPUBLICAN AGS ADD FIREPOWER TO TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PUSH

Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause so that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship. 

The administration has argued the amendment’s birthright citizenship provision incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.

Conservatives have long raised concerns about birth tourism. Senate Republicans wrote in a 2022 report that it was a lucrative industry that “short circuits and demeans the U.S. naturalization process.” But the scale of birth tourism remains elusive, and proponents of birthright citizenship have downplayed it, contending it occurs infrequently.

The GOP senators noted in the report that they could not calculate birth tourism numbers because the U.S. government does not have a way to track them. Existing visa data cannot distinguish between birth tourism and other categories of traveling to the United States, such as medical travel, they said.

Sauer, however, rattled off a string of statistics in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the issue.

“There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to [the Department of Homeland Security] saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over a million, or 1.5 million, from the People’s Republic of China alone,” Sauer said. 

“The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hot spots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies.”

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE

Although the numbers remain unclear, prosecutors have secured convictions for birth tourism businesses. In 2024, Michael Liu and Phoebe Dong were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy and money laundering for running a birth tourism operation that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. Prosecutors said the couple coached clients to deceive immigration officials.

Sauer noted in his opening remarks to the Supreme Court that the United States’ nearly unconditional birthright citizenship policy has “spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism, as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is the language in the amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. Trump said the provision was a relic of the Civil War. 

“It had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said Tuesday as he announced he planned to attend the oral arguments, making him the first sitting president to do so. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Sauer argued that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors lacked the ability to establish a “domicile” in the United States, meaning they were subject to the jurisdiction of another country.

Roberts questioned the relevance of Sauer’s birth tourism claims, asking him to confirm that it had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.”

Modern-day implications of the amendment, including birth tourism, “could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers,” Sauer replied.

“We’re in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen,” Sauer added.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Roberts made his skepticism of Sauer’s argument apparent.

“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Roberts said.

President Donald Trump is expected to address the nation at 9 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday about U.S. operations in Iran after one month of combat. 

The message will be an “important update” about the war, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X. 

Trump told reporters Tuesday he expected the mission known as Operation Epic Fury to end in two to three weeks. He posted on Truth Social Wednesday that Iran had asked for a ceasefire, but the U.S. was not open to negotiation until the Strait of Hormuz is open for shipping. 

“We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!” Trump said. 

US EYES SEIZING IRAN’S OIL LIFELINE — BUT IT MAY NOT CRIPPLE TEHRAN

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, said the claim that Iran had asked for a ceasefire was “false and baseless,” according to Iranian state TV. 

Trump has sent mixed signals in recent days, at times suggesting the conflict could end soon while also threatening intensified strikes if Iran does not meet U.S. demands.

The president told multiple news outlets Wednesday that he is strongly considering pulling the U.S. out of NATO over frustrations at what he sees as insufficient military support from allied countries in the Middle East. 

“I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump told The Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday.

European nations so far have resisted pressure to offer warships to reopen commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply typically passes. The average price of a gallon of gas surpassed $4 on Tuesday, a first since 2022. 

Several key European allies have moved to restrict U.S. military access as the Trump administration presses forward with operations against Iran, with Spain closing its airspace to U.S. aircraft tied to strikes and France imposing limits on certain overflights carrying military supplies.

PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS US COULD FINISH IRAN OPERATION WITHIN TWO TO THREE WEEKS

“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

Administration officials have suggested U.S. objectives in the conflict are nearing completion, raising the possibility that Trump could outline a path toward winding down operations.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

But at the same time, thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne division along with a task force of 2,500 Marines from the USS Tripoli have reached the Central Command theater in recent days, raising speculation of a potential ground invasion. Meanwhile the USS George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier with 6,000 sailors deployed Tuesday to join the USS Abraham Lincoln already in theater.

Operation Epic Fury began on Feb. 28. 

Since then, U.S. forces have struck more than 12,000 targets inside Iran and damaged or destroyed 155 naval ships, according the Central Command. Thirteen U.S. service members have died in the operations and 350 have been injured.  

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.

Justice Samuel Alito invoked an analogy from the late Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday as the Supreme Court weighed whether birthright citizenship extended to children of illegal immigrants.

Alito said that Scalia had illustrated how to apply textualism to modern circumstances, a point he raised during high-stakes oral arguments over President Donald Trump’s effort to limit birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which grants most people born in the United States automatic citizenship. Textualism is a legal view that courts should read the Constitution according to its text and original meaning. 

Alito suggested that illegal immigration, like modern technologies such as microwaves, was basically unknown when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Alito acknowledged historical exceptions to the amendment, including children born to foreign diplomats and certain Native Americans, and he questioned whether illegal immigrants’ children could be considered a comparable modern-day exception.

“Justice Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation,” Alito said. “He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven. And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, ‘Well, I can’t be convicted under this because the microwave oven didn’t exist at that time.’ And he dismissed that. There’s a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications.”

HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT

Alito said that illegal immigration “was basically unknown at the time when the 14th amendment was adopted.”

“So how did we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?” Alito asked, questioning if the rule was intended to “apply to later applications that might come up.”

SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO REVIEW TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Solicitor General John Sauer argued to the Supreme Court in support of Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, which would end automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants or legal temporary visitors.

“I strongly agree with the way that you framed it, that there is a general principle,” Sauer told Alito of the microwave analogy.

While Sauer appeared in sync with Alito, most of the justices voiced strong skepticism of Trump’s arguments. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas appeared to be the most likely to back Trump’s position.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Justice Elena Kagan said Sauer could not argue in the way Alito suggested because the bulk of Sauer’s arguments had centered on people temporarily visiting the country, not illegal immigrants.

“Your whole theory of the case is built on that group … so you can’t really be going with Justice Alito’s theory,” Kagan said. “You must be saying that there is a principle that was there at the time of the 14th Amendment.”

President Donald Trump goes before the nation in prime time on Wednesday evening to deliver what the White House says is “an important update” on the war with Iran.

The president’s address comes amid the month-long attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, which polls indicate are unpopular with many Americans, and a surge in gas prices as a direct result of the fighting have triggered a further slide in Trump’s standing in public opinion surveys.

The political implications are clear: The strikes on Iran and the erosion of the president’s approval ratings are warning signs for the GOP as Republicans ramp up to defend their slim House and Senate majorities in this autumn’s midterm elections.

Trump stood at 41% approval and 59% disapproval in the latest Fox News national poll, which was conducted March 20–23. The president’s negative 18-point margin was up from 14 points in the previous Fox News poll, which was conducted Feb. 28–March 2, as the strikes against Iran began.

FOX NEWS LIVE UPDATES ON THE U.S. WAR WITH IRAN

The president’s approval ratings stood in the upper 30s, with his disapproval in the upper 50s to low 60s, in the most recent national surveys from Reuters/Ipsos, AP/NORC, and Quinnipiac University. A CNN poll conducted March 26–30 and released Wednesday indicated Trump had a 35%-64% approval/disapproval rating.

An average of the most recent national surveys gauging the president’s standing puts Trump just above 40%, with his disapproval in the upper 50s.

WHAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS ON THE WAR WITH IRAN

While Trump’s base remains extremely supportive of the president and the war, much of the slippage is coming from within the GOP, specifically those who are considered non-MAGA Republicans.

“I do see in the last couple of surveys an edging down…close to a double-digit movement,” veteran Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson, said, pointing to declining support for Trump among non-MAGA Republicans.

Fueling Trump’s decline appears to be the surge in gas prices.

The average price of gasoline in the U.S. topped $4 per gallon on Tuesday, according to national averages from AAA and GasBuddy, for the first time in four years.

FOX BUSINESS: GAS PRICES TOP $4 PER GALLON

The military attacks by the U.S. and Israel have resulted in the deaths of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, and the decimation of the country’s military.

In response, Iran has targeted energy facilities with missile and drone attacks in a number of Persian Gulf nations. It has also made the Strait of Hormuz nearly impassable to commercial shipping, bringing roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply to a halt and sending global fuel prices sharply higher.

That has only exacerbated Trump’s polling woes when it comes to his performance on the economy, amid public dissatisfaction with high prices and the cost of living.

A spotlight on inflation helped fuel sweeping victories by Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and Senate and successfully defended their slim House majority.

DEMOCRATS TARGET TRUMP, GOP, OVER SURING GAS PRICES 

But a laser focus on affordability by Democrats, amid persistent inflation, has fueled a slew of victories and overperformances in 2025’s off-year elections and in special elections in the more than 14 months since Trump returned to the White House.

According to the Fox News poll, 80% of respondents said they were concerned about gas prices, and 86% concerned about inflation and high prices. And the CNN survey spotlighted that the president’s approval rating for handling the economy sank to 31%, Trump’s lowest level ever in their polling.

The White House says the surge in prices is temporary.

“When Operation Epic Fury is complete, gas prices will plummet back to the multiyear lows American drivers enjoyed before these short-term disruptions,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday.

Leavitt emphasized that “President Trump remains committed to fully unleashing American energy dominance, lowering costs, and putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking American families.”

OIL HAS SURGED SINCE THE IRAN CONFLICT BEGAN, BUT GAS PRICES MAY NOT BE DONE RISING

The gas price surge is giving Democrats more political ammunition to target the GOP.

“BREAKING: National Gas Prices Skyrocket to $4 Per Gallon,” read the headline from an email Tuesday morning from the Democratic National Committee.

The House Democrats’ campaign committee last week launched digital ads showing prices at the pump rising and an image saying “D.C. Republicans Did That!” Sources say to expect another round of ads on gas prices in the coming weeks.

But Democrats have their own polling problems, as the party’s brand image has cratered to historic lows in a slew of polls over the past year.

Shaw, pointing to the so-called double-haters, voters who disapprove of both Trump and the Democrats, said that group hasn’t “really swung dramatically to the Democrats” as the midterms approach.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas emphasized in a recent Fox News Digital interview that, in his opinion, Trump’s “decision to launch this military action is the most consequential decision” of his presidency.

Such perceptions only increase what’s at stake when Trump addresses the nation in prime time.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The American people want to hear what the off-ramp for the war is and when it will end,” Dan Eberhart, an oil drilling chief executive officer and prominent Republican donor told Fox News Digital.

Eberhart, who is supportive of the president, said: “Trump’s base is with him, but many ordinary Americans feel the war is unnecessary. Tonight is Trump’s opportunity to explain why this war matters to everyday Americans.”

A top Republican predecessor of Gov. Abigail Spanberger challenged her to publicly debate the merits of the redistricting referendum she and Virginia Democrats so fervently support, as an anti-gerrymandering group he works with also fired off a letter to her in his stead.

Spanberger, along with Senate and House leadership in Richmond, is squarely in the “Vote YES” camp when it comes to the April 21 public referendum to redraw the Old Dominion’s congressional districts in a way that would likely remove all but one GOP congressman from office.

Gov. George Allen, a Republican who served as governor from 1994 to 1998 between tenures in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, said in a statement that if the incumbent’s ideas are right, she should publicly defend them.

“Virginia voters expect a robust and transparent discussion of the issues. So, I am inviting Governor Spanberger to join me in a series of public debates to look Virginians in the eye and explain each side of this referendum vote,” Allen said.

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

“I am prepared to discuss why I oppose gerrymandering in Virginia and anywhere else in our nation.”

Allen, whose father was one of the then-Washington Redskins’ most successful coaches, said that people in Virginia are being “barraged” by political ads and that $28 million has been spent on commercials that “are at best misleading and designed to confused voters.”

“Let’s give Virginians the honest and transparent discussion of gerrymandering that they deserve,” he said.

In that regard, the group No Gerrymandering Virginia, which is being spearheaded by a bipartisan group of former Virginia lawmakers and officials including Allen, sent a letter requesting such to Spanberger’s office at the Capitol.

“If you’re confident that your ideas and your candidates are so great, then you ought not fear the people,” Allen told Richmond’s NBC affiliate.

He added that gerrymandering is a personal subject, as part of his impetus to run for governor came when Albemarle County — where he owned a “log house on a gravel road” — was split into several pieces during one such redrawing.

No Gerrymandering Virginia’s letter called the April 21 vote a “consequential moment for Virginia.”

GOP-LED COUNTIES PUSH BACK AGAINST DEMOCRAT’S REDISTRICTING CHARGE, TESTING VIRGINIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

“At its core, the referendum asks whether the commonwealth will maintain its commitment to fair representation or move toward a mid-decade gerrymandering approach that has already taken hold in other states,” the letter said.

“Virginians deserve the opportunity to hear a clear and direct debate on this question before they vote.”

“To that end, I would like to invite you to participate in a televised, live-streamed debate on the referendum. Former Governor George Allen has agreed to participate and would present the case against adopting the proposed maps. As you know, Governor Allen has long opposed gerrymandering, shaped in part by his experience being drawn out of his congressional district in the early 1990s, and he supported the 2020 constitutional amendment establishing Virginia’s current fair redistricting process.”

In a prior statement in February, Allen said mid-decade “gerrymandering” is wrong, no matter who does it.

“Texas was wrong. California was wrong. North Carolina was wrong. Virginians should stand up for principle like those in Indiana and South Carolina who said ‘No’ to this egregious gerrymandering their states,” he said, adding that the 2020 referendum that took power away from the assembly shows Virginia has “much better standards of fairness than this.”

Allen is joined on No Gerrymandering Virginia’s advisory council by former Virginia House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, former State Sen. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax, and ex-Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke.

Other recent Virginia officials have also lambasted the redistricting push, including ex-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and ex-Attorney General Jason Miyares.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger for comment.

In recent public statements defending the referendum, she said it is “temporary” and suggested she still supports the 2020 amendment otherwise.

President Donald Trump, frustrated by the Senate stalemate on the SAVE America Act, has moved via executive order to create a nationwide list of verified eligible voters and to restrict mail-in voting, a move that swiftly drew legal threats from Democrats.

“I don’t see how they can challenge it,” Trump said at Wednesday night’s Oval Office signing, admitting, “maybe it’ll be tested.”

“I believe it’s foolproof.”

Arizona, California and Oregon, states that widely offer mail-in voting, immediately pledged to sue the Trump administration, but Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, Washington state, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin could follow suit.

REPUBLICAN SENATORS BLAST DEMOCRATS FOR ‘FEAR-MONGERING’ OVER ELECTION SECURITY SAVE ACT

“The President wants to limit which Americans can participate in our democracy,” California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X.

“We’re challenging it,” he added. “See you in court.”

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said the state’s vote-by-mail system is now used by 80% of voters, adding Arizona does not need the federal government to tell it who can vote, and arguing federal data is not always reliable.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

“It is just wrongheaded for a president of the United States to pretend like he can pick his own voters,” Fontes, a Democrat, told The Associated Press. “That’s just not how America works.”

It is yet another battleground for Trump versus blue on the U.S. map ahead of the 2026 midterms. Republicans will fight to maintain razor-thin majorities in the House (217-214 currently, with one GOP-caucusing independent) and Senate (53-45, with two independents caucusing with Democrats).

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said after signing the order in the Oval Office on Wednesday night. “It’s horrible what’s going on.

GOP GOVERNORS, AGS BACK TRUMP SAVE ACT PUSH, WARN SYSTEM GIVES ‘UNDUE INFLUENCE’ TO STATES WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS

“I think this will help a lot with elections.”

Trump won 30 states outright in 2024, compared to former Vice President Kamala Harris‘ 18 (19, when including Washington, D.C.). Maine and Nevada split their Electoral College votes.

Trump won Nevada and Utah, two universal mail-in voting states. Nevada is a battleground state, while Utah is generally reliably red.

TRUMP VOTER ID PUSH FACES SENATE TEST AS GOP REBELS THREATEN TO SINK BILL

Among the states won by Harris, New Hampshire is the only one that generally requires a specific reason (such as illness or absence) to vote by mail.

“This is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail,” Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias, who was an election integrity attack dog for both former President Joe Biden and Harris, wrote immediately on X.

“We know where this will go — the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement.

DOJ SUES 5 MORE STATES, DEMANDING ACCESS TO VOTER ROLLS: ‘WE WILL NOT BE DETERRED’

“We will sue and we will win.”

New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Minnesota have “Permanent Absentee” lists where, once you sign up, you are automatically mailed a ballot for every future election. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Mexico and Delaware have standard no-excuse needed mail-in voting.

Any of those states also stand to object, but Trump said he is prepared for the legal wrangling.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERHAULING MAIL-IN VOTING IN MAJOR ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

“They’ll probably challenge it,” he said. “You find a rogue judge — a lot of rogue judges. Very bad, bad people. Very bad judges. And hopefully we’ll win on appeal if it is.”

Trump’s order directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of eligible voters in each state and seeks to block the U.S. Postal Service from delivering absentee ballots to voters not on state-approved rolls. It also calls for ballot envelopes with unique tracking barcodes and threatens to withhold federal funding from states and localities that do not comply.

“Not only is his order unconstitutional, it’s unserious,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson told Reuters in a statement. “This order will not stand.”

TRUMP WARNS HE WON’T ENDORSE LAWMAKERS WHO OPPOSE SAVE AMERICA ACT

Legal experts said the order is likely to face immediate constitutional challenges because election administration is largely left to the states, not the president.

“This executive order is plainly unauthorized and unlawful,” Brennan Center for Justice Vice President at New York University Wendy Weiser told The Washington Post.

AP reported that Oregon, Arizona, Maine and Nevada were among the Democrat-led states where top officials either threatened lawsuits or said they would not comply:

TRUMP EXPLAINS VOTING BY MAIL: ‘I’M PRESIDENT’ WITH ‘A LOT’ GOING ON

Oregon: “We don’t need decrees from Washington, D.C.,” Secretary of State Tobias Read, a Democrat, said. “My message to the President: We’ll see you in court.” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, also a Democrat, added that the state would “use every legal tool available to us to fight this and protect Oregonians’ right to vote.”

Arizona: Fontes, in addition to his comments above, added, “We will not let this stand.”

Maine: Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, called the order “laughably unconstitutional” and said Maine would not comply. More than a quarter of Maine voters cast mail-in ballots in the 2024 election.

TRUMP CALLS MAIL IN VOTING CORRUPT AS SENATE BEGINS DEBATE ON SAVE ACT REQUIRING VOTER ID

Nevada: Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, the lone Democrat in a state won by Trump in 2024, said the order would burden local election officials and “doesn’t benefit anybody in this country except himself.”

The latest order follows Trump’s broader push to reshape election rules from Washington. A March 2025 executive order that sought major changes to voter registration and mailed-ballot rules was largely blocked in court after lawsuits from voting-rights groups and Democrat state attorneys general.

“The president has no authority to regulate elections,” Weiser told the Post. “He tried to do something like this a year ago.

TWO DOZEN HOUSE REPUBLICANS GO TO WAR WITH SENATE GOP OVER SAVE AMERICA ACT

“We and others actually sued. We won. We expect the same result this time.”

Election-law specialists say Tuesday’s order is vulnerable for many of the same reasons.

David Becker, a former Justice Department lawyer who now leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the Constitution is clear that the president does not control state-run elections.

PENCE URGES SENATE TO ‘RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE’ WITH NATIONWIDE VOTER ID LAW

The order was “clearly unconstitutional” and would be blocked immediately, Becker wrote on social media, adding Trump “might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

Becker also noted the Postal Service is governed by a board of governors, limiting the president’s authority to dictate what mail it can carry.

“There’s no authority for any of this,” UCLA Safeguarding Democracy Project Director Richard Hasen told the Post, adding the order would be unenforceable in time for the midterm elections.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT

It is “just a fantasy,” Hasen concluded. “That’s why I think this isn’t serious.”

The order also revives concerns about the federal SAVE system, which voting-rights advocates have criticized as unreliable and prone to errors that could affect eligible voters.

At least one Republican elections official on Tuesday defended the SAVE system while downplaying the potential of widespread voter fraud.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP PUSHES ELECTION SECURITY BILL DESPITE SLIM ODDS, AS TRUMP PRESSURE LOOMS

Robert Sinners, a spokesperson for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — who stood firmly against Trump’s 2020 presidential election integrity investigation — said their recommendations to the Trump administration have strengthened voter verification and stressed that “the small number flagged as potential non-citizens cannot vote by mail or in person until they provide proof of citizenship.”

“The executive order will be decided in court, but in Georgia, we already verify citizenship and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome,” Sinners added.

The Brennan Center and other groups have warned that using federal databases to police state voter rolls can create mistakes, privacy concerns and barriers for lawful voters.

SLOTKIN PRESSES DHS PICK ON ICE AT POLLS, SAYS SHE CAN’T TRUST TRUMP TO ALLOW ‘FREE AND FAIR’ ELECTION

“The Constitution doesn’t allow the executive to take over elections administration; that’s a job for the state legislatures or Congress, and so I don’t think this is going to pass any sort of judicial muster,” Fontes told The New York Times.

“So this is a big, giant waste of time, and it’s an attention grab from the Trump administration.”

Trump vehemently disagrees, despite using mail-in voting himself last month.

SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS

“Yeah, I did,” Trump shot back at a reporter Thursday. “You know what? Because I’m president of the United States.”

“And because of the fact that I’m president of the United States, I did a mail-in ballot for elections that took place in Florida because I felt I should be here instead of being in the beautiful sunshine.”

“You know, we have exceptions for mail-in ballots,” Trump said. “You do know that, right? So if you’re away, you have an exception. If you’re in the military, we have an exception. If you’re on a business trip, we have an exception. If you’re disabled, we have an exception. And if you’re ill, if you’re not feeling good.

“So I was away mostly in Washington, D.C., so I used a mail-in ballot.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Trump frequently invokes the critical 2005 findings of the Carter-Baker Commission, which warned about the election integrity vulnerabilities of mail-in voting.

Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed the lawyer for the Trump administration on so-called “birthright citizenship” protections in the U.S., part of a landmark court challenge that could upend more than a century of legal precedent and executive branch policy. 

The questions come as justices weighed the legality of the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. 

As oral arguments kicked off, justices appeared somewhat skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, including its view of the 14th Amendment, and pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on the administration’s reading of the citizenship clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that he viewed one of the key arguments made by the Trump administration in its case as “quirky.”

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

“You obviously put a lot of weight on [the] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ issue,” Roberts told Sauer. He noted the administration cited “children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism during early questions, and pressed Sauer on key issues of precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause itself.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, noting that “some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

“It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response.

Trump’s executive order was immediately met with a flurry of federal lawsuits last year, and to date, no U.S. court has sided with the administration on the issue.

Trump himself attended Supreme Court oral arguments, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. Other administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, were also in the audience. 

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

 SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided.

It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A decision from the high court is expected by late June. 

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Julia Letlow, R-La., a Trump-endorsed Senate candidate in Louisiana, is saying that she will ensure diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies will be rooted out of schools in her state if she wins. 

However, Letlow’s past remarks and actions as a university faculty member, such as promises to open a DEI office if hired as a university president, and her past praise for DEI nationwide, have thrown these promises into question.

In a 2020 video from Letlow’s hiring process, when interviewing to be the president of the University of Louisiana Monroe, Letlow called the school’s record on faculty gender diversity “shameful,” praised DEI efforts around the country, said she wanted to open the school’s first DEI division and suggested that, if hired, she would want “a person around the table that is cognizant and fighting for diversity, equity and inclusion before any decision is made for the university.” 

In January, The Daily Caller first reported that, prior to serving Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District, Letlow was in a communications position at UL Monroe, where she helped push DEI initiatives aimed at “diversifying marketing and comms teams” and “establish[ing] diverse content.” She also signed a statement embracing diversity as one of UL Monroe’s “core values” shortly after the death of George Floyd. 

GOP BILLIONAIRE TRYING TO WOO TRUMP’S SUPPORT IN KEY GEORGIA RACE BANKROLLED HIS 2024 PRESIDENTIAL RIVALS

“I was able to go to eight different universities and see some amazing work that other universities have already started – and you don’t even have to keep it to Louisiana, you can go nationwide to see the amazing effort people have been doing for years to address these issues,” Letlow told a panel interviewing her for the UL—Monroe presidency in 2020, in response to a question concerning the percentage of tenured female faculty. “So, one of the first things I would do – I believe we need a division on this campus, a division of diversity, equity and inclusion, with leadership that goes all the way to the top with a full staff because our issues are so great.”

During Letlow’s hiring process to potentially be the next president of UL—Monroe, she also spoke in a video meant to introduce herself to students, during which Letlow called herself a “strong and progressive leader” as the result of many years in higher ed.

The GOP primary race in Louisiana for the state’s open U.S. Senate seat, between Letlow and incumbent Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., has become a battle over who is more pro-Trump – and DEI has been a major proving point.

“While Liberal Letlow was pushing DEI policies at ULM, calling herself a ‘strong and progressive leader,’ Senator Cassidy was working with President Trump and others to secure billions of dollars for the state and bring conservative policies to Louisiana,” said a spokesperson for Cassidy’s campaign. “From no boys in girls sports, to co-sponsoring the Save America Act, the HALT Fentanyl Act, and the Working Families Tax Cuts.” 

Cassidy himself has been accused of being anti-Trump, and when reached for comment on the matter, Letlow’s team argued that “any honest account of DEI in this race has to include Cassidy’s record vs Julia’s record.” 

MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE SAYS TRUMP, GOP ‘GOVERNED AMERICA LAST,’ PREDICTS MIDTERM LOSSES

Letlow holds both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree from UL Monroe. According to her LinkedIn profile, she also held multiple positions at the university, first from 2007 to 2011 and then again from 2014 to 2021. These positions include the director of marketing and communications from 2015 to 2018, executive director of external affairs and strategic communications from 2018 to 2019, and executive assistant to the president for external affairs and community outreach from 2019 to 2021 for the university.

In 2020, Letlow wanted to become UL Monroe’s president, during which she was subject to numerous interviews. One included questioning from a panel of UL Monroe officials, which was posted publicly on YouTube. 

“Study after study has shown that the more diverse an organization is in its leadership, the more successful it is, and in businesses that converts to actual financial success,” one questioner from the panel began when probing Letlow. “In academia, you know, it’s in the way — all the ways, the metrics that it’s supposed to succeed in a community, and yet we see a lot of slowness in change … so my question is, how would you go about supporting diversity and equity in the faculty ranks?” 

In response to the question, which focused specifically on the percentage of tenured female faculty at a university with a majority female student body, Letlow lamented that “we have an issue on this campus,” and promised to create a new DEI division to assist. 

“There would need to be a strategic plan put in place on how to address those concerns that you just raised, and those metrics and those numbers, because they are shameful, truly, and I believe that having that strong [DEI] division, having that leadership, if you have a person around the table that is cognizant and fighting for diversity, equity and inclusion before any decision is made for the university, then that’s how you change. That’s how you recruit more faculty,” Letlow responded. 

“There are a lot of people on this campus who have never heard of unconscious bias. They don’t know that it exists,” she continued. 

BIG BUSINESS PULLS BACK FROM LGBTQ CORPORATE RANKINGS IN DRAMATIC ONE-YEAR SLIDE

“I was looking at the numbers – we have 8% African-American faculty women on this campus. That’s not enough,” Letlow added later. “That does not reflect our student population, and so that would be number one for me. I’m glad you asked that question.”

Letlow’s remarks, which have been publicly available on Youtube but have only 218 views as of Tuesday, add fodder for critics like Cassidy who say she is not sufficiently an opponent of DEI. However, Letlow recently told local media that Cassidy’s claims that she is “woke” are “absolutely false” and that she has spent the past five years in Congress fighting against DEI. 

“I saw [DEI] firsthand when I worked at the university,” Letlow told Louisiana First News this month. “DEI was presented to us as something that would help students achieve the American dream and when I quickly witnessed that it was hijacked by the radical left and turned into indoctrination and actually holding people down, I spent the last five years of Congress fighting against it.” 

Meanwhile, in comments to Fox News Digital, Letlow’s campaign representatives said that “President Trump endorsed [Letlow] because he knows exactly where she stands.”

“While Letlow was fighting DEI in Congress, Bill Cassidy was working with Joe Biden to pass major federal legislation that funded DEI programs, imposed equity mandates, and embedded gender-identity language into federal policy,” the spokesperson continued, referring to the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act passed in 2021. “Cassidy authored and voted for a $1.2 trillion spending bill loaded with DEI provisions, voted for the CHIPS Act’s DEI research requirements, and negotiated a gun bill whose grant programs the Trump administration later canceled for being DEI vehicles.”

Letlow’s husband was originally elected to represent Louisiana’s 5th Congressional District but died before he could enter office. Letlow was then chosen via a special election. In 2023, she sponsored the Parental Bill of Rights Act, requiring stricter transparency in school curriculums and allowing parents to challenge classroom materials. She also voted in favor of the End Woke Higher Education Act, which bars university accrediting organizations from requiring schools to adopt DEI policies as a condition. 

Letlow’s team argued to Fox News Digital that she “has a clear record opposing DEI,” citing things like the congresswoman’s introduction of a federal Parental Bill of Rights, Letlow’s efforts to “strip DEI from the U.S. military,” and the congresswoman’s vote to reverse a Biden-era revision to Title IX regulations. Letlow’s campaign also said the congresswoman has “stood with President Trump” as he works to dismantle DEI across the federal government.

DEMS WHO RAN ON AFFORDABILITY NOW FACE BACKLASH AS COSTS CLIMB IN NY, VIRGINIA

“There is no place for woke ideology in schools,” Letlow posted on social media in 2024. “We will keep up the good fight, our children’s futures depend on it.”

But, in January, The Daily Caller also reported on records it obtained showing Letlow’s time as a university employee at UL—Monroe included promoting DEI initiatives. 

In a January 2020 email to staff from schools in the University of Louisiana system, Letlow reportedly asked officials to attend a “follow-up meeting” to an “Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Workshop” held the prior semester because they had been “charged with discussing a plan to move these initiatives forward.” These included recommendations of “diversifying marketing and comms teams” and “establish[ing] diverse content” in university publications that “lack representation of the students it serves.” 

The Letlow campaign told Fox News Digital that the email Letlow sent was standard operating procedure, and she was just doing her job as an executive assistant to the president for external affairs and community outreach by sending the follow-up email to coordinate attendance for the workshop from the prior semester.

In their report, The Daily Caller also highlighted a statement put out by UL Monroe shortly after the death of George Floyd, titled “ULM condemns racism, embraces diversity,” which was signed by Letlow and 11 other university leaders, including the interim president. The letter stated that “integrity must include condemning racism and racially motivated violence.”

Letlow’s previous membership with the National Communication Association (NCA) came under scrutiny from The Daily Caller as well. The Daily Caller reported the NCA issued a letter in 2020 which slammed statements condemning racism as “White self-reflexivity” and argued that such remarks must be paired with “strategic action” to combat things like “police brutality, Black death,” and “White normativity.” The letter went on to call the Trump administration’s use of the term “Chinese virus” to refer to COVID-19 “racist and xenophobic” and referred to White people as “privileged by Whiteness.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The Letlow campaign contested she had anything to do with the letter, which came from the NCA’s Diversity Council, not from the NCA as an organization. A copy of the letter reviewed by Fox News Digital confirmed that Letlow was not a signatory. 

“Julia is not responsible for statements issued by a professional association because she was a member of it. She has not been a member in five years, and past membership did not mean endorsement of every position that group took,” her campaign said in a statement to Fox News Digital. 

When reached for comment about her remarks and the criticism that has resulted about Letlow’s past actions relating to DEI, the White House referred Fox News Digital to the Republican National Committee (RNC), which declined to comment on the matter.

President Donald Trump said he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of NATO over the alliance’s refusal to join his administration’s efforts in the Iran conflict, according to a report.

“I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump told The Daily Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday.

The president, long a critic of the military alliance, which has been pivotal in maintaining global order since World War II, said reconsidering the matter was “beyond consideration.”

“I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British outlet.

MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP

The comments come after European nations reportedly rejected Trump’s request that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply travels. Iran has threatened or moved to restrict access to the strait in reaction to the U.S. offensive against Iranian targets, raising concerns about global energy markets and economic stability.

“Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey,’ you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic,” Trump said.

“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

TRUMP WARNS NATO OF ‘VERY BAD’ FUTURE IF ALLIES DON’T HELP SECURE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

The president also criticized the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer for not participating in the conflict.

“You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work,” Trump said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Responding to the president’s comments, Starmer said Britain is “fully committed to NATO,” calling it “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.”

Starmer told reporters that “whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I am going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions I make.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., said an alleged Iranian state actor recently targeted him with a phishing scheme disguised as a television interview request, in what he described as an apparent effort to access his personal email account.

“A skilled impersonator created something appearing just like Newsmax to attempt to do an interview with me,” Fine told Fox News Digital in an interview, explaining that his staffer began interacting with the message in email, as the office normally does, before realizing “the links didn’t work.” 

The phishing scheme was allegedly designed to gain access to his personal Google account, Fine explained. 

TRUMP SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT OUR EYES ON’ IRANIAN SLEEPER CELLS IN US

The incident comes after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran in February, sparking an ongoing battle that the president has said will end in a matter of weeks as tensions continue flaring. The Trump administration argued Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities posed an urgent threat ahead of the U.S. and Israel launching joint strikes. 

Fine said he did not “think the timing was coincidental” and that the alleged cyberattack occurred “literally the day after combat operations began.” The episode underscores heightened concern among U.S. intelligence officials about potential cyber and physical threats tied to the U.S.-Iran conflict, particularly against high-profile political figures.

The FBI confirmed earlier in March that an Iran-linked hacker group known as the “Handala Hack Team” breached Director Kash Patel’s personal email account. A bureau spokesperson said in a statement at the time that while the compromised information was “historical in nature” and contained no government data, the FBI had taken all “necessary steps to mitigate potential risks.”

According to Fine, he learned about the alleged cyberattack aimed at him when U.S. Capitol Police contacted him and said the outreach likely originated from an Iranian state actor.

Fox News Digital reviewed a copy of the correspondence, showing its email was spelled “news-max.org.” 

Correspondence to Fine, also reviewed by Fox News Digital, confirmed that USCP said they had information that the outreach to Fine’s office could have originated from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and that the police wanted to set up a call with the FBI Cyber Task Force to further examine the matter.

DHS REMAINS UNFUNDED AS IRAN SLEEPER CELL FEARS SPIKE NATIONWIDE AMID SECURITY WARNINGS

“They proactively reached out to us,” Fine said, adding that he then reported the incident to the FBI and was told by the bureau that agents were “familiar with these actors in Iran.”

The FBI declined to comment. A source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that when the incident happened, the FBI was able to connect with Fine and opened an investigation into the matter. The status of the probe is publicly unknown.

Fine emphasized that he felt targeted by Iran and noted a broader surge in threats against him, including verbal threats and what he said was a recent separate incident of an impersonator approaching his home.

“I was clearly targeted. It wasn’t random,” Fine said, asserting that he was “the most visible Jewish Republican politician in America.”

MYSTERY DRONES FLY NEAR DC-AREA MILITARY BASE AS IRAN TENSIONS ESCALATE

Fine said that while he does not believe the alleged attackers could have gathered much information from his Google account based on his limited use of it, “the worst-case scenario is … they might be able to track my actual location,” which he said made him fear for his life.

Fine described the incident as “very stressful.”

Fine, a self-described “Hebrew Hammer” known for his staunchly pro-Israel positions, has advocated aggressive military action in Gaza and praised Trump’s joint offensives with Israel in Iran.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fine, in a statement shortly after the U.S. launched strikes on Iran, characterized the mission as one rooted in saving western civilization.

“We are with you, Mr. President. We will cut off the head of the snake of Muslim terror, Bring lasting peace to the Middle East, And save the Iranian People. Bombs away,” Fine said. “The Muslim terrorists that run Iran have just indiscriminately fired rockets not just at the Jews of Israel, but 700,000 Americans who live there, 180,000 Christians who live there, at the ‘Dome of the Rock,’  the third holiest site in Islam, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus’s crucification. We are fighting back against this evil.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Newsmax, Google and USCP on Tuesday for any additional comment.

FIRST ON FOX: The White House is marking Holy Week with days of prayer and worship, including President Donald Trump participating in a number of events to honor Easter and celebrate the “right to religious liberty.” 

“President Trump will never waver in safeguarding the right to religious liberty, upholding the dignity of life, and protecting faith in our public square,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital of the White House’s Holy Week events. 

“Millions of Christians across the country will celebrate Jesus Christ conquering death, freeing us from sin, and unlocking the gates of Heaven for all of humanity, and the President is proud to join Americans during this blessed holiday.”

A White House official told Fox News Digital that the president on Wednesday will attend the White House Easter Lunch in the East Room.

TRUMP GATHERS CEOS FOR UNPRECEDENTED FAITH, ECONOMY MEETING TO RENEW US ‘SPIRITUALLY AND FINANCIALLY’

The event will feature worship and prayer, and choral performances from the Free Chapel Choir, led by Pastor Jentezen Franklin on the saxophone.

The event will also include prayers from Reverend Franklin Graham, Bishop Robert Barron, Pastor Paula White and others.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Secretary of War Pete Hegseth; Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin; Attorney General Pam Bondi; Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins; Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner; Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler; Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought; and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt will attend the White House Easter lunch.

Erika Kirk is also expected to attend the White House Easter lunch, a White House official told Fox News Digital. 

Next, on Wednesday evening, at 5:00 p.m., White House staff are invited to attend a Catholic Mass in the Indian Treaty Room. The mass will be celebrated by Father Frank Mann.

FLASHBACK: WHITE HOUSE PLANS ‘EXTRAORDINARY’ HOLY WEEK AS TRUMP HONORS EASTER WITH ‘THE OBSERVANCE IT DESERVES’

On Thursday, Holy Thursday, a White House official told Fox News Digital that all White House staff are invited to attend a worship service in the same room. That service will feature Rev. Franklin Graham; Pastor Jentzen Franklin; Pastor Paula White; and White House Faith Office Director Jenny Korn.

A White House official also told Fox News Digital that President Trump is expected to issue a presidential proclamation honoring Holy Week.

“President Trump wishes Christians across America and around the world a very happy Easter. He is risen, indeed!” Rogers added in comment to Fox News Digital. 

The president is also expected to post video messages on his Truth Social account to celebrate Easter and Passover.

A White House official told Fox News Digital that Passover events will take place next week. Passover begins at sundown on Wednesday, April 1 and ends at sundown on Thursday, April 9.

The White House Passover event will take place April 6 in the Indian Treaty Room. Edan Alexander, who was held hostage by Hamas in Gaza for more than 500 days following the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, and his family will be in attendance. Alexander was the last living American hostage released last year.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Faith has been a focal point of Trump’s second term, including signing an executive order in February 2025 establishing a White House Faith Office.

The office empowers faith-based entities, community organizations and houses of worship “to better serve families and communities,” according to the White House. The office is housed under the Domestic Policy Council and consults with experts in the faith community on policy changes to “better align with American values.” 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a landmark court fight that could profoundly impact the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents.

At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.

The stakes in the case are high, putting on a collision course more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. 

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

Trump administration officials view the order, and the high court’s consideration of the case, as a key component of his hard-line immigration agenda — an issue that has become a defining feature of his second White House term. 

Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and unprecedented, and could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to non-citizens. 

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided. It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. 

Here’s what to expect ahead of today’s oral arguments:

What’s at stake?

Justices will weigh Trump’s executive order 14160, or “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, or children born to parents who are in the U.S. legally but with temporary, non-immigrant visas.

The order would apply retroactively to all newborns born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025. 

Trump’s executive order prompted a flurry of lawsuits in the days after its signing. Critics argued that, among other things, the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, centered their case on the “subject to jurisdiction thereof” phrase, which they argue was intended at the time of its passage to narrowly “grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children” after the Civil War, and has been misinterpreted in the many years since.

U.S. Solicitor General D. Sauer urged the high court to take up the case last October, arguing that a pair of lower court rulings were overly broad and relied on the “mistaken view” that “birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences.”

“Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” he said.

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

He also argued that the lower court rulings overstepped, and “invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security.”

Justices on the high court will have no shortage of strings to pull on in considering the executive order, or questioning lawyers during oral arguments. 

What’s changed?

The Supreme Court will use Wednesday’s arguments to weigh — to varying degrees — the text of the 14th Amendment, legal precedent, and text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, among other issues cited by Sauer, the ACLU, and authors of the dozens of amicus briefs filed to the court since it agreed to review the case last fall. 

Legal experts told Fox News Digital that they expect Sauer could be in for an uphill battle in convincing a five-justice majority to unwind more than 125 years of precedent and text at issue in the case.

Despite their consensus, however, the court’s conservative bloc will still face thorny issues in reconciling more than a century of court precedent with the narrower reading of the 14th Amendment embraced by the Trump administration.

Justices are likely to focus closely on precedent in the Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark — a 1898 ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that the son of two Chinese immigrants born in the U.S. was indeed a U.S. citizen. 

The case is widely considered to be the modern precedent for birthright citizenship, including related cases heard by the high court in the decades since. 

Others cited the text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act statute passed by Congress, which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment in conferring legal status to persons born in the U.S., as yet another argument that could tip the scales in the migrants’ favor.

“I can think of at least five reasons off the top of my head why the Supreme Court should say that the citizenship clause means today what it has always meant,” Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in immigration and citizenship issues, told Fox News Digital.

 SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

“There is text. There is original public understanding, which certainly includes Wong Kim Ark, but also five or six Supreme Court cases after that,” Frost said. 

“There is executive branch practice for the last century,” she added, “which is relevant as well when you’re interpreting the Constitution, and weighing [the question of], ‘What is the longstanding understanding of a constitutional provision by every other actor?’”

“I don’t see how they could easily count to five,” Akhil Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, told Fox News Digital in an interview, speaking of the majority votes needed.

“Even if I lose on one issue, I win on [many others],” Amar said, before ticking through a list of reasons why the Supreme Court, in his view, might swing in favor of the migrant class in question, and ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, who is arguing the case Wednesday on behalf of the migrants.

Others agreed, albeit with a bit more reservation.

“I don’t think history supports the Trump administration’s view,” John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California Berkeley and former lawyer during the Bush administration, told Fox News Digital on the strength of the administration’s case.

JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA

Stateless newborns, enforcement issues

Another question will be one of enforcement. Trump’s executive order does not codify the legal status that should be conferred to children who are born in the U.S. to holders of temporary, long-term visas — including student visas and H1B visas, legal experts told Fox News Digital.

Frost, the University of Virginia Law professor, noted that Congress has not provided a pathway to legal status for the class of children who would be born in the U.S. and not granted citizenship. This means that the government would essentially need to act at lightning speed to confer some sort of status — be it temporary or longer-term — to newborns, should the justices side with Trump.

“The parents may have applied for a green card,” Frost said of newborns born to illegal immigrants, should the court allow Trump’s order to take force. “They might get the green card the next day.”

“It would not matter,” she said. “The child would not be a citizen.”

Yoo, Amar, and others cited similar concerns voiced by justices briefly during oral arguments in another birthright citizenship case, Trump v. CASA, last year. The administration asked the court to review the case not on the merits of the order, but as a means of challenging so-called “universal,” or nationwide injunctions issued by federal court judges.

Despite the focus on the lower court powers, some justices still used their time to question Sauer about the birthright citizenship order and its implementation.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, for his part, pressed Sauer for details on what documentation newborns might need at birth should Trump’s executive order take force.

“On the day after it goes into effect — it’s just a very practical question of how it’s going to work,” Kavanaugh noted, before asking Sauer: “What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?” he asked, in order to determine their citizenship on a birth certificate.

“I don’t think they do anything different,” Sauer said in response. “What the executive order says in Section Two is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order.”

“How are they going to know that?” Kavanaugh pressed, shaking his head.  

The government’s position “makes no sense whatsoever,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said at the time, before noting that it appeared to violate “four Supreme Court precedents,” and risked leaving some children stateless.

Who to watch

While it’s difficult to speculate how justices on the high court might position themselves in considering a case, there are some conservative justices that have signaled early skepticism about the Trump administration’s arguments. Their votes could prove to be decisive, experts said.

“In terms of oral arguments, I think what you’re going to see is a lot of attention paid to how Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh view the issue in particular,” Yoo said. “I think it will be up to them” to determine the majority ruling, he said.

Roberts, in particular, often relies heavily on Supreme Court precedent, Yoo noted, and has been wary of overturning decisions made under previous courts — pointing to the “sort of anguished dissent” he authored in Roe v. Wade. 

“I think that’s really the question: whether there’s going to be enough historical evidence to change Robert’s mind about how to treat precedent,” he said, noting the chief justice tends to view questions of institutional importance and consistency as top-of-mind.

When it comes to birthright citizenship, Yoo said, there is a much longer history and court precedent that is older and “more well-followed” than Roe ever was, he noted, which could swing the conservatives in the ACLU’s favor.

“We never know why the Supreme Court decides to hear a case,” Amar told Fox News Digital. “But I’m hoping that they heard the case because America deserves an answer.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A decision from the high court is expected by late June. 

After kicking off in March, the 2026 primary calendar takes a break this month before returning with a vengeance in May.

But that doesn’t mean there’s a dearth of consequential elections in April.

Special U.S. House contests in Georgia and New Jersey, a state Supreme Court election in battleground Wisconsin, and a Virginia referendum that is the latest face-off between President Donald Trump and Republicans and Democrats in the high-stakes congressional redistricting wars — with the House majority on the line — will all draw national attention this month.

Here’s a closer look at the four ballot box showdowns.

TRUMP-BACKED FULLER ADVANCES IN RACE TO FILL MTG’S CONGRESSIONAL SEAT

April 7 — GA-14 special election

Trump-backed Republican House candidate Clay Fuller faces off with Democratic candidate Shawn Harris to fill a vacant congressional district in solidly red northwest Georgia that was once held by MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Harris, a retired brigadier general and cattle farmer, and Fuller, a local prosecutor and Air National Guard member, were the top two finishers in a field of 17 candidates, including 12 Republicans, in the early March special election. With no candidate topping 50%, Harris and Fuller advanced to a runoff.

SPECIAL ELECTION TO FILL MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE’S OLD SEAT IN CONGRESS HEADS INTO OVERTIME

The special election comes as Republicans cling to a razor-thin 218–214 majority in the House. That means the GOP cannot afford any surprises or allow Democrats to pull an upset in a district that extends from Atlanta’s northwest exurbs to Georgia’s northwestern border with Alabama and northern border with Tennessee, which Trump carried by 37 points in his 2024 presidential victory.

Fuller, who is expected to consolidate the Republican vote that was divided in the first round, is considered the clear frontrunner in the race. But if Harris holds Fuller’s margin to the mid-teens or less, national Democrats will argue the election is the latest in the 14 months since Trump returned to the White House in which they’ve overperformed.

The congressional seat was left vacant when Greene stepped down at the beginning of January. Greene quit Congress with a year left in her term, after a very public falling out with Trump mostly over her push to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.

April 7 — Wisconsin Supreme Court election

While officially a non-partisan contest, state Supreme Court elections in the Midwestern battleground have become extremely partisan in recent years.

HEAD HERE FOR THE LATEST FOX NEWS REPORTING FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

With the court’s majority on the line in last year’s contests, outside money poured in and out-of-state door knockers blanketed Wisconsin. One of the biggest spenders was Trump ally Elon Musk, who headlined a rally days before the election and donned a cheesehead hat worn by fans of the Green Bay Packers.

Democrats won that election by a larger-than-expected margin and currently hold a 4-3 majority on Wisconsin’s highest court.

With a conservative justice retiring, the majority isn’t at stake in this year’s election, although liberals with a win could expand their majority to 5-2.

But if the conservative candidate wins, or keeps it close, the GOP may claim a moral victory.

April 16 — NJ-11 special election

Republican Joe Hathaway, a local mayor, is hoping to pull off an upset in the special election to fill the congressional seat left vacant after now-Gov. Mikie Sherrill stepped down after winning last November’s gubernatorial election.

Hathaway, who was unopposed in February’s primary, faces off in the election against Democrat Analilia Mejia, a progressive organizer backed by left-wing champions Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Mejia pulled off an upset, narrowly edging out front-runner former Rep. Tom Malinowski in a field of 11 candidates. The face-off was one of the latest between progressives and more mainstream Democrats.

The 11th Congressional District in northern New Jersey‘s New York City suburbs was once the kind of seat where Republicans excelled at the ballot box. Hathaway, who has pointed out his differences with Trump, is the type of Republican who could attract crossover voters.

Add in that Mejia may be too far to the left for some voters in the district, and there’s a chance for some intrigue on Election Day.

April 21 — Virginia redistricting referendum

Voters in Virginia are casting ballots on a Democrat-pushed referendum that would give the competitive state up to four more left-leaning U.S. House districts in time for this year’s midterm elections.

That could result in a 10-1 advantage for Democrats in the state’s U.S. House delegation, up from their current 6-5 edge. 

With three weeks until Election Day, early voting is surging, according to officials, with turnout outpacing early voting from last autumn’s general election. Despite being vastly outraised by Democrats, Republicans see positive signs in early turnout.

Republicans call the Democrats’ redistricting effort an “unconstitutional power grab.” Democrats counter that it’s a necessary step to balance out partisan gerrymandering already implemented in other states by the GOP.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Virginia is the latest redistricting battleground, with Florida on deck, to alter congressional maps ahead of November’s elections.

Republicans are defending their razor-thin House majority in the midterms, and Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to win back control of the chamber. That means the redistricting efforts in Virginia and other states may very well decide which party controls the House next year.

A Minnesota man was sentenced on Monday to more than a year in prison after pleading guilty to creating fake invoices to a nonprofit that falsely claimed it served 1.5 million meals to children in need within seven months.

Abdul Abubakar Ali, of St. Paul, Minn., was one of nearly 100 defendants charged in the “Feeding Our Future” fraud scheme, which the Department of Justice (DOJ) claims exploited a federally-funded child nutrition program during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ali pleaded guilty in 2022 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, but he was initially charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, according to the DOJ.

The nonprofit, Youth Inventors Lab, allegedly acted as a shell company to submit millions of dollars in fraudulent reimbursement claims for meals that were never served, FOX9 Minneapolis reported.

GOP SENATOR’S SOMALIA ACT WOULD FORCE MINNESOTA FRAUDSTERS TO REPAY STOLEN TAXPAYER FUNDS

According to his guilty plea, Ali submitted fake invoices for technology services from his company, Bilterms Solutions, to Youth Inventors Lab. 

The Justice Department claimed the Youth Inventors Lab received more than $3 million in reimbursements, of which Ali personally pocketed at least $129,000.

During his sentencing hearing Monday, Ali apologized for his role in the scheme, telling U.S. District Judge Nancy Brasel he would be “sorry for the rest of his life.”

“Your honor, I just want to say I’m sorry to everyone that my actions have hurt,” Ali said, according to local reports. “This was a mistake. I will try to correct it for the rest of my life. It’s not something that’s in the past. I’ve let down a lot of people. I promise I will attempt to fix it for the rest of my life. So, I’m sorry.”

CONGRESS OPENS ‘INDUSTRIAL-SCALE FRAUD’ PROBE IN MINNESOTA, WARNS WALZ DEMANDS ARE ‘JUST THE BEGINNING’

While the recommended sentence for Ali’s crimes is about three years, the court noted Ali had already paid $90,000 of the $122,000 of ordered restitution, and was one of the first people to plead guilty.

Despite his cooperation, Brasel, an appointee of President Donald Trump, denied Ali’s request for probation, sentencing him to one year and one day in prison.

“This is part of a very large fraud scheme, the largest in the District of Minnesota and one of the largest ever in the country. And you stand responsible for that, and for that reason, I just can’t see, despite your cooperation, a noncustodial sentence here,” Brasel reportedly said.

COMER CLAIMS WHISTLEBLOWERS WARNED WALZ FOR YEARS ABOUT MINNESOTA FRAUD AND WERE TOLD TO ‘STAND DOWN’

“Let me also add, aggravating factors of not just the money, but the fact that the public trust in government programs has been so substantially undermined and continues to be so,” she continued. “We are still having a conversation in this state about the structure of government programs, given the fraud you participated in, and the impact and ripples of that scheme just keep going on and on and on, and you are one reason for it.”

Right-wing users on X expressed outrage over the sentencing decision.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Stole millions from a program meant to feed children and got one year,” one user wrote. “Meanwhile, people go to jail longer for drug possession. This is the Minnesota fraud that Tuberville was talking about. The system is broken and the sentence proves it.”

Other users said the outcome failed to rebuild confidence in the legal system, noting “a slap on the wrist isn’t justice.”