White House chief of staff Susie Wiles diagnosed with breast cancer: Trump

(WASHINGTON) — Later this month, President Donald Trump is hosting an annual meeting with governors at the White House, but he will not invite any Democrats, only Republicans, breaking a long-standing tradition.

The meeting, part of the National Governors Association winter gathering, will only include Republican governors, a spokesperson for the organization confirmed to ABC News.

“The bipartisan White House governors meeting is an important tradition, and we are disappointed in the administration’s decision to make it a partisan occasion this year. To disinvite individual governors to the White House sessions undermines an important opportunity for federal-state collaboration,” Brandon Tatum, acting Executive Director and CEO of the National Governors Association, said in a statement to ABC News.

Trump is still planning to hold a separate, bipartisan dinner for governors and their spouses at the White House as part of the NGA activities. But Trump did not give invites to two Democrats: Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.

It’s unclear why Trump did not invite Polis and Moore to the dinner. Moore also serves as the vice chair of the NGA.

“This is a disappointing decision for a traditionally bipartisan event between Governors and whomever occupies the White House,” Ally Sullivan, a spokesperson for Polis, said to ABC News in a statement. A source close to Polis said the governor was not given a reason for not being invited.

Over the past few months, Trump has put pressure on Polis to release Tina Peters from prison following her receiving a presidential pardon. Peters was convicted on state charges for a scheme to tamper with voting systems driven by false claims about the 2020 election. Trump’s pardon power does not extend to state crimes.

Moore was also not informed why he was not invited to the annual dinner and blasted Trump in a statement released on Sunday, appearing to suggest his race was a factor.

“My peers, both Democrats and Republicans, selected me to serve as the Vice Chair of the NGA, another reason why it’s hard not to see this decision as another example of blatant disrespect and a snub to the spirit of bipartisan federal-state partnership,” Moore said.

“As the nation’s only Black governor, I can’t ignore that being singled out for exclusion from this bipartisan tradition carries an added weight — whether that was the intent or not,” he continued.

ABC News has requested comment from the White House regarding Moore’s remarks.

Moore said to CNN on Sunday that he has received a commitment from the bipartisan National Governors Association that it will not recognize the dinner as an official NGA event.

In a statement to ABC News, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s decision to exclude Democratic governors from the annual NGA meeting at the White House, adding that Trump did invite them to the dinner.

“These are White House events and the President can invite whomever he wants. With that being said, the White House has been coordinating meetings with the President, cabinet secretaries, and Democrat governors for more than a week,” Leavitt said in her statement. “Democrats were invited to the dinner at the White House. This is a non-story.”

Kentucky’s Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, in an appearance on ABC’s “The View” on Monday, slammed Trump’s decision to only invite Republicans to the annual meeting with governors at the White House and exclude Moore and Polis from the bipartisan dinner. Beshear also said he would not be attending the bipartisan dinner.

“No, I ain’t going,” Beshear said. “Wes is a friend of mine. Even if he wasn’t a friend of mine, this would be wrong — and Jared as well — but the other thing that’s going on is they didn’t invite any Democratic governor to the business section.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Congress returns from its two-week recess early this week — thrusting lawmakers back into the debate surrounding the Iran war as the President Donald Trump’s strategy faces continued scrutiny.

House and Senate Democrats plan to force separate votes in both chambers on Iran war powers resolutions this week. These resolutions would call on the president to terminate the use of U.S. armed forces in hostilities against Iran or any part of the Iranian government or military unless a declaration of war or authorization to use military force is enacted.

Previously these efforts have narrowly failed, but as the conflict drags on and lawmakers continue to face questions about the president’s actions, additional Republicans could decide to support the efforts.

Expulsion votes possible for four lawmakers
The House could move as early as this week to expel several members of Congress.

Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida said she will force a vote to expel Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., next week amid allegations of sexual assault. Texas GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales could also face a similar vote after he admitted to having an affair with a former staffer. And Florida Democrat Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick is expected to face an expulsion vote, likely following a House Ethics Committee sanction hearing on April 21. The congresswoman was indicted on charges of stealing $5 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, which she is accused of laundering to support her 2021 congressional campaign.

Expelling a member of Congress — which is a rare occurrence — requires a two-thirds majority vote, a higher threshold than the simple majority needed to pass most legislation. Only six lawmakers in U.S. history have been expelled, including George Santos in 2023.

As the expulsion resolutions stack up, Democrats are also clamoring for the expulsion of Florida Republican Rep. Cory Mills, who has faced his own allegations of misconduct.  

Speaker Mike Johnson has previously been opposed to expulsion efforts and has argued that lawmakers deserve due process.

Awaiting Johnson’s next move on DHS funding
Lawmakers return as the Department of Homeland Security’s partial shutdown drags on — hitting Day 66 on Monday when the Senate returns to session.

The partial shutdown is the longest in U.S. history.

Johnson has not yet acted on the Senate’s DHS funding bill, which stripped out funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection.

It’s not clear what Johnson’s next move will be to attempt to reopen the agency, as he balances threats to the gavel against an arduous path to fully fund DHS’ breadth of agencies via reconciliation. 

The Senate plans to move forward with a narrow budget reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CPB for the next three years with Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham leading the charge, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

Trump said on Friday that he met with senators Graham and John Barrasso to discuss the matter.

“Reconciliation is ON TRACK, and we are moving FAST and FOCUSED in keeping our Border SECURE, and getting funding to the Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department to continue our incredible SUCCESS at MAKING AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!” Trump wrote on his social media platform on Friday.

While reconciliation is a lengthy process that sidesteps the filibuster, Trump has demanded that the bill land on his desk by June 1 — an enormous challenge for Republicans navigating small margins in both chambers.

As the next legislative blitz approaches, House Republicans get a smidgeon of relief with the arrival of Rep.-elect Clay Fuller, who won a special election in Georgia’s 14th Congressional District earlier this month to fill the seat once occupied by Marjorie Taylor Greene. Fuller is expected to take the oath of office during the House’s first vote series on Tuesday, April 14.

The addition means that Johnson can afford to lose two GOP votes with all members voting and present.

Cabinet members defend their budgets
Trump’s FY2027 budget requests also take center stage as several Cabinet secretaries and administration officials are slated to testify before lawmakers including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Director of the United States Office of Management and Budge Russ Vought, United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, Secret Service Director Sean Curran and more. 

Bipartisan backlash over Bondi
While first lady Melania Trump brought the saga around convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein back into the headlines, the GOP-led House Oversight Committee is not slated to hold any depositions this week as part of their ongoing investigation into Epstein. The Department of Justice said former Attorney General Pam Bondi will not appear for a closed-door deposition with the committee on Tuesday, April 14 — which has prompted bipartisan backlash from lawmakers on the committee. The next scheduled deposition is expected April 30. 

Conservatives present challenge for Johnson on FISA
House Republican leadership are also aiming to put a clean extension of FISA Section 702, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on the floor for a vote sometime this week. The federal law sets out rules and procedures for gathering foreign intelligence through electronic surveillance, physical searches, pen registers and more.

Johnson and Trump have publicly backed a clean extension through October 2027. However, several House conservatives do not support a clean extension — presenting Johnson a challenge to pass the bill relying on help from Democrats, who are mostly reluctant to help Republicans and Trump accomplish anything legislatively.

Once the House passes FISA legislation, the Senate will need to take up the measure by April 20 — when the law is set to expire.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — For more than a century, an American birth certificate has been a key to unlocking the benefits of American citizenship.

Most parents of newborns on U.S. soil have simply needed proof of birth from a hospital to apply for social security numbers, passports and early life benefits for their children. Into adulthood, the birth certificate has been universally recognized as proof of citizenship for voter registration, employment, home loans and military service.

A landmark case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday will determine whether that longstanding cultural norm and legal precedent will continue, or whether sweeping bureaucratic changes that could impact millions will soon take effect.

President Donald Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.

All lower courts that have considered the case struck the order down.

The amendment, which was 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.

“Look at the dates of this long ago legislation – THE EXACT END OF THE CIVIL WAR!” Trump posted on social media Monday. “It is about the BABIES OF SLAVES!”

Trump argues children born to parents who are not American citizens or legal permanent residents were never considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they still owe political “allegiance” to a foreign nation.

Courts and the government, however, have repeatedly interpreted the 14th Amendment to unambiguously confer citizenship on all children born on U.S. soil, including to babies of unauthorized noncitizens and temporary residents, such as international students, foreign nationals who are in the U.S. on tourist visas and seasonal workers.

“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,” wrote Justice Horace Gray in an 1898 Supreme Court opinion addressing the status of children born to noncitizens.

Immigrant advocates and civil liberties groups insist Trump’s order is blatantly unconstitutional — contrary to the plain text of the Constitution and history of the citizenship clause — and would unleash “chaos” nationwide.

“The impacts on this country would be catastrophic,” said ACLU attorney Cody Wofsy, who is leading the case against the order.

“Most directly, the children who would be stripped of their citizenship would be … subject to arrest, detention and deportation from the only country they’ve ever known,” Wofsy said.

An estimated 255,000 children born every year on U.S. soil to noncitizen parents could lose legal status under Trump’s order, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Some may have difficulty establishing citizenship in any country, effectively being born as “stateless.”

“Babies [born to parents] from countries like Nepal, Afghanistan, Bhutan, where there is not a clear pathway to citizenship in their home countries,” said Anisa Rahm, legal director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative. “So therefore, where do they belong?”

While the administration insists the order will only apply to children born after it takes effect, legal scholars have warned that a ruling striking down birthright citizenship could have retroactive consequences.

“The citizenship of other Americans could be called into question,” said Winnie Kao, an attorney with the Asian Law Caucus, one of the groups that brought a class-action suit against the administration over the order.

“Vast swaths of U.S. law would need to be reexamined because they are premised on birthright citizenship,” added Kao. “It will also be a total administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for everyone — even for parents who are U.S. citizens.”

An ABC News review of Trump administration plans for implementing a new citizenship policy across federal agencies suggests a more involved and potentially complicated process for new parents than currently exists, if the executive order takes effect.

The Social Security Administration says birth certificates would no longer be sufficient documentation to obtain a new Social Security Number for a newborn.

“SSA will require evidence that such a person’s mother and/or father is a U.S. citizen or in an eligible immigration status at the time of the person’s birth,” the agency wrote in a July 2025 guidance memo.

Parents would first need to submit their own citizenship documentation by mail, phone or online, the agency said. Alternatively, parents could provide a “self-attestation” of citizenship subject to “state and federal penalties for perjury,” according to the memo.

The State Department says it would adopt similar verification measures for passport applicants.

For children born to lawful but temporary immigrants — who would no longer be eligible for citizenship — the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services says parents would need to register to obtain the same temporary legal status for their kids.

Federally funded benefits for children, like nutrition assistance and health care services, provided by the Department of Health and Human Services would also require extensive documentation by all parents to prove their children were citizens at birth, the agency said in a memo.

During oral arguments last year in a predecessor case involving Trump’s birthright citizenship order, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — often a key vote in hotly contested cases — voiced concern about whether the government would be able to carry out citizenship checks for parents of the more than 3.6 million babies born in the U.S. each year.

“Federal officials will have to figure that out essentially,” U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justice under questioning.

“How?” Kavanaugh responded skeptically.

“So, you can imagine a number of ways –” Sauer began.

“Such as?” Kavanaugh quipped. “For all the newborns? Is that how it’s going to work?”

Sauer replied at the time that the administration did not have all the details worked out because courts had blocked the executive order in full.

Polls show the nation is sharply divided over the issue of American citizenship for newborn children of unauthorized immigrants. Half of adults — 50% — say they should receive U.S. citizenship; 49% say they should not, according to an April 2025 Pew Research Center survey.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.