ICE and CBP officials grilled on enforcement tactics at hearing on immigration

(WASHINGOTN) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard returns to Capitol Hill this week for an annual set of hearings on worldwide threats — her most significant public appearance in months and her clearest opportunity yet to address the intelligence picture surrounding the war in Iran.

Lawmakers are expected to press Gabbard on the administration’s handling of the Iran conflict, homeland security concerns, election integrity and the broader global threat environment at a moment of rising tension.

The hearings will also offer a rare extended look at an intelligence chief who has spent much of the past year largely out of public view. The Senate Intelligence Committee is scheduled to hear from her on Wednesday, March 18, with the House hearing set for Thursday, March 19.

She heads into the hearings under fresh scrutiny after the resignation of Joe Kent, the administration’s top counterterrorism official, who stepped down Tuesday over his objections to the Iran war — the highest-profile administration official to resign publicly over the conflict.

An ODNI official told ABC News that Gabbard was not asked by the White House to fire Kent, pushing back on a report first aired by Fox News.

Kent’s resignation sharpened questions already hanging over the administration’s case for war — whether Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States.

In his resignation letter, Kent said he could not “in good conscience” support the war and argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the nation, directly undercutting President Donald Trump’s repeated public justification for the conflict.

Trump has previously said Tehran posed an imminent threat and was “very nearly” in a position to strike.

Hours after Kent’s resignation became public, Gabbard moved to publicly back Trump’s authority to make that call.

In a post on X, she said the president, as commander in chief, is responsible for determining “what is and is not an imminent threat” and whether action is necessary to protect U.S. troops, the American people and the country.

She added that ODNI’s role is to coordinate and integrate intelligence, so the president has the best information available to inform his decisions, and said Trump had concluded Iran posed an imminent threat after reviewing the available intelligence.

She did not directly address Kent’s allegations or mention him by name.

The moment is especially striking for Gabbard because few figures in Trump’s orbit spent more time warning about regime change wars, intelligence failures and the cost of Washington interventionism.

As a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, she was so vocal in her opposition to war with Iran that she sold “No War With Iran” T-shirts.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News last year, she again spoke about diplomacy, military restraint and the human cost of conflict in terms that reflected a worldview she has carried for years.

In that interview, Gabbard said the stress of her first deployment in her mid-20s turned part of her hair white, and that she kept the streak as a reminder of the high human cost of war.

“War must always be the last resort, only after all measures of diplomacy have been completely exhausted,” she told ABC News in the interview.

This week’s hearings will also unfold against the backdrop of Gabbard’s broader and unusually quiet tenure. Before taking office, she was rarely far from public view, frequently appearing on television, podcasts and social media.

As DNI, that version of her has largely faded from public view.

In recent months, she has appeared mostly in glimpses, at major administration moments.

Gabbard, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve and the first person in U.S. history to serve as DNI while in military uniform, appeared in uniform at Dover Air Force Base earlier this month during the dignified transfer of six American soldiers killed in a drone strike in Kuwait in the opening hours of the war with Iran.

She also heads into the hearing with other controversies still hanging over her.

Gabbard has drawn scrutiny for her role in the administration’s election integrity push, including her appearance outside the FBI’s operation in Fulton County, Georgia, in January, where federal agents seized election materials tied to the 2020 election, and her subsequent acknowledgment that she arranged a call between President Donald Trump and the agents involved. She has also faced continuing questions about her investigations into election security in Puerto Rico and Arizona.

ABC News previously reported that Gabbard arranged a call between Trump and FBI agents involved in the seizure of election materials in Fulton County, an unusual move given the sensitivity of the investigation. In Arizona, a senior administration official told ABC News that Gabbard was not on the ground but was still “working across the agency to ensure election integrity.”

The hearing is shaping up as more than a routine annual threat assessment.

It will be the clearest public test yet of how Gabbard explains the role she has carved out inside the Trump administration, and how she reconciles the anti-war politics that helped define her rise with the office she now holds at the center of a war she is being asked to defend.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The standoff between Democrats and the White House over Department of Homeland Security funding and immigration enforcement continued on Wednesday, with both sides digging in as the partial government shutdown hit its fifth day.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the counteroffer made by Democrats “very unserious,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries remained firm that Democrats would not back away from their demands for reform.

President Donald Trump, who had said he would be personally involved in negotiations, hasn’t yet spoken with Democrats, according to Leavitt.

“He hasn’t had any direct conversation or correspondence with Democrat lawmakers recently. It doesn’t mean he’s not willing to. I’m just not aware of any conversations that have taken place,” she told reporters at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Funding for DHS lapsed on Saturday, affecting agencies like the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Secret Service.

A majority of DHS employees are expected to work during the shutdown, though they could miss a paycheck.

FEMA has paused almost all travel related to the agency’s work, according to multiple sources familiar with the decision, though travel related to disaster relief will continue.

“These limitations are not a choice but are necessary to comply with federal law. FEMA continues to coordinate closely with DHS to ensure effective disaster response under these circumstances,” a FEMA spokesperson said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is at the center of the funding fight after two fatal shootings of American citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection remain operational due to billion-dollar infusions from Trump’s massive spending and tax-cut bill passed by Republicans in Congress last summer.

Democrats have asked for a range of new restrictions on immigration enforcement, including a mandate for body cameras, judicial warrants before agents can enter private property — rather than administrative warrants — and a ban on ICE agents wearing face masks. They also want stricter use-of-force policy and new training standards for agents.

The White House and Democrats have traded offers over the past week, though the details haven’t been released publicly. Both sides have called the other’s proposals “unserious.”

“We’ve been engaged in good faith negotiations with the Democrats … They sent over a counterproposal that, frankly, was very unserious. And we hope they get serious very soon because Americans are going to be impacted by this,” Leavitt said on Wednesday.

Jeffries said Wednesday the ball was in the White House’s court.

“We’ve reiterated our perspective on the types of things that are absolutely necessary in order for a DHS funding bill to move forward, all anchored in this principle that ICE needs to conduct itself like every other law-enforcement agency in the country, and stop using taxpayer dollars to brutalize the American people,” he said. 

Trump said on Sunday he didn’t like some of what Democrats are asking for, and emphasized his administration is “going to protect ICE.”

In the wake of the killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis during the administration’s immigration crackdown and resulting protests, an ABC News review found multiple examples of public statements appearing to be in inaccurate that the agency initially made after using force. 

One example occurred last month in Minneapolis when Julio Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan migrant, was shot in the leg by an ICE agent.

At the time, DHS said its agents were “violently assaulted … with a shovel and broom handle.” ABC News obtained a frantic 911 call made by apparent relatives saying agents fired the shot as Sosa-Celis ran away. Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, later said two of his agents appear to have made “untruthful statements” about the moments before the shooting. Both officers were placed on administrative leave and Lyons said they may face federal charges.

Another case unfolded in Chicago last October when Marimar Martinez, an American citizen and teacher’s assistant, was shot five times by federal agents.

DHS initially said that the agents were “forced to deploy their weapons and fire defensive shots at an armed US citizen” after their SUV was “rammed by vehicles and boxed in by 10 cars.” But an ABC News analysis of video footage shows that agents were being followed by two, not 10 vehicles, and that at no time was their vehicle blocked from the front. A CBP spokesperson said in a statement that the officer who shot Martinez was placed on administrative leave following the incident and the Department of Justice dropped the charges against Martinez.

ABC News’ Luke Barr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As President Donald Trump looked on during an unprecedented visit to the Supreme Court, a majority of justices appeared skeptical of his administration’s bid to end birthright citizenship during arguments in the landmark case Wednesday.

Most of the court’s conservatives and all three liberal members raised doubts about the constitutionality of Trump’s Day 1 executive order that would limit American citizenship at birth only to those born to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

It would also impose sweeping changes for all new parents and current American citizens going forward, requiring a new system to verify a person’s citizenship beyond a simple birth certificate.

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, says all “persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. Congress later codified the same language in federal citizenship law in 1940 and again in 1952.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” applies only to children whose parents have “allegiance” to the U.S., which he said is determined by being “domiciled” in the country.

The meaning of ‘domiciled’

The 1898 landmark Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, widely considered to be the precedent affirming birthright citizenship, concluded, “The [14th] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”

Sauer said “domiciled” means living in the U.S. lawfully with “intent to stay.”

But many of the court’s conservatives questioned how that definition was derived and whether it aligned with the views of the framers of the 14th Amendment and members of Congress who codified the citizenship clause.

Trump — the first sitting president to attend the high court’s arguments — was seated in the front row of the public gallery alongside White House Counsel David Warrington, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.  

As Sauer parried with the justices, Trump sat attentive and expressionless. His presence in the chamber was not publicly announced or acknowledged by any of the justices on the bench. While Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Brett Kavanaugh, and Elena Kagan were most immediately in his line of sight, it was not clear whether any justice on the bench made eye contact with him. Trump also did not engage with anyone seated beside him or in the chamber.

Trump departed the chamber as ACLU Legal Director Cecilia Wang was in the middle of delivering her opening statement, in which she argued that the principle of birthright citizenship was enshrined in the Constitution to prevent government officials from stripping citizenship away.

“Ask any American what our citizenship rule is, and they’ll tell you, everyone born here is a citizen alike,” Wang said. “That rule was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to put it out of the reach of any government official to destroy.”

“If you credit the government’s theory, the citizenship of millions of Americans past, present and future could be called into question,” Wang said.

‘Very quirky arguments’

Sauer got a somewhat frosty reception from at least two key Supreme Court Justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — during his arguments, in which he contended that the longstanding understanding of the 14th Amendment is incorrect.

“The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile. Here, it did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance,” Sauer said.

Roberts noted that the Trump administration is relying on “very quirky” arguments, saying they are using “narrow exceptions” to claim that a much broader class of people should be ineligible for birthright citizenship.

“You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens here in the country — I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” said Roberts.

Gorsuch also remarked that the Trump administration seems to be relying on outdated “Roman law sources” and court precedents that do not work in their favor.

“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” Gorsuch remarked about the landmark 1898 case that enshrined birthright citizenship.

Justice Elena Kagan similarly voiced concerns about the sources cited by the Trump administration.

“You’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept,” she said.

‘Illegal immigration’

Justice Samuel Alito initiated a discussion on “illegal immigration” by noting that it was “something that was basically unknown” at the time when the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1860s.

“What we’re dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration,” Alito said. “So how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?”

Sauer responded by agreeing with Alito, saying that “illegal immigration did not exist [then],” and “the problem of temporary visitors didn’t exist.”

Sauer pointed to “commentators” from 1881 to 1922 who, he claimed, were “uniformly saying the children of temporary visitors are not included.” He argued that this logic “naturally extends” to those who enter the country illegally.

Justice Kagan challenged Sauer’s argument on immigration, saying his arguments in his brief did not focus on “illegal immigration.”

“Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding that there were going to be temporary inhabitants,” Kagan said. “And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.”

“You don’t get to talking about undocumented persons until quite later, and at much lesser … I think it’s like 10 pages to three pages or something like that,” she said.

When asked about how the Trump administration would apply their birthright citizenship executive order, pointed to a guidance document from the Social Security Administration issued last year.

“How does this work? Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents present in the delivery room?” Justice Jackson asked.

“I think that’s directly addressing the SSA guidance that cited in our brief, what SSA says,” Sauer responded.

Justice Jackson appeared skeptical of that response, pressing Sauer about the steps of the process and whether a parent could challenge a final decision.

“We’ll give you a social security number, provided that there’s the system [that] automatically checks the immigration status of the parents — which there are robust databases for — and then it appears no different to the vast majority of birthing parents,” Sauer said.

Birth tourism

In his opening statements, Sauer laid out one of the Trump administration’s key arguments about why birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of undocumented immigrants, claiming that if it remains “unrestricted” it will continue to be a “pull factor for illegal immigration” and would “reward” immigrants who violate immigration laws.

“It 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,” Sauer said.

The Trump administration has often claimed that birth tourism — the idea that foreign nationals travel to the U.S. with the sole purpose of having a child here — poses a national security risk and undermines birthright citizenship.

Justice Roberts pressed Sauer to explain how common the problem is, but Sauer was unable to give a clear answer.

“No one knows for sure. There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over one million, or 1.5 million from the People’s Republic of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies,” Sauer said.

Sauer went on to claim that media reports indicate there are 500 “birth tourism companies” in China, prompting Justice Roberts to interject to ask if Sauer agreed that had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.”

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

In a statement Wednesday morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance at the proceedings, saying Trump would “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”

“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he said.

Wednesday’s arguments concluded after about two hours. A ruling in the case isn’t expected until the end of June.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.