Justice Department expected to announce charges against Raul Castro
Former Cuban President Raul Castro speaks during the National Assembly at Convention Palace on April 19, 2018 in Havana, Cuba. (Photo by Alexandre Meneghini-Pool/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Justice Department is expected to announce charges against Raul Castro, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
The charges are expected to include allegations of murder for shooting down two planes carrying humanitarian aid to desperate migrants in the 1990s that resulted in the deaths of three American pilots.
The charges will be announced in a press conference this afternoon.
This is a developing story. Please back for updates.
The Defense Department has identified Sgt. Benjamin N. Pennington, 26, of Glendale, Ky., who succumbed to his injuries following a March 1 attack on his base in Saudi Arabia. DoD
(WASHINGTON) — The Defense Department on Monday identified another U.S. service member who died following the opening wave of Iranian retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, marking the seventh U.S. service member to die in the war with Iran.
Sgt. Benjamin Pennington, 26, died Sunday from injuries he sustained during a March 1 retaliation strike on U.S. troops at Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia from Iran.
“He gave the ultimate sacrifice for the country he loved,” Lt. Gen. Sean A. Gainey, the top officer for Army Space and Missile Defense Command, said in a statement. “That makes him nothing less than a hero, and he will always be remembered that way. We extend our heartfelt condolences to his family and friends.”
Pennington enlisted in the Army in 2017 as a supply specialist and was assigned to the 1st Space Battalion, 1st Space Brigade at Fort Carson, Colorado. He is set to be posthumously promoted to staff sergeant, the Army announced.
Pennington was working at a strategic radar installation responsible for early warning against incoming missile threats, a critical node in the U.S. military’s missile-defense architecture, according to a source familiar with the situation.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump attended the dignified transfer of the other six American service members killed in the war’s opening hours, after an Iranian drone struck in Kuwait. All six were killed in the same attack.
Even as the ceremony underscored the war’s early toll, the president and senior Pentagon officials have been preparing the public for the likelihood that more casualties are ahead.
“The president’s been right to say there will be casualties,” Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said in an interview with the CBS News program “60 Minutes” on Sunday. “Things like this don’t happen without casualties. There will be more casualties.”
Hegseth cast the losses as a grim but familiar feature of war for a country that has spent more than two decades fighting in the Middle East.
“Especially our generation knows what it’s like to see Americans come home in caskets,” he said. “But that doesn’t weaken us one bit. It stiffens our spine and our resolve to say this is a fight we will finish.”
ABC News’ Martha Raddatz contributed to this report.
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(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.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise speaks alongside House Republican leadership during a news conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, on April 15, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In the dead of night at 2:09 a.m. on Friday, the House passed a bill to extend FISA through April 30 by unanimous consent, after Republicans tanked procedural votes on the controversial warrantless surveillance law.
The short-term extension buys GOP leaders more time to continue negotiations amid Republican infighting over the program that was set to expire on Monday.
The program allows the federal government to collect communications of foreigners abroad without a warrant, including when those people are interacting with Americans.
According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. government believes it’s a vital tool for protecting the country against “hostile foreign adversaries, including terrorists, proliferators, and spies, and to inform cybersecurity efforts.”
The Senate approved a 10-day extension of FISA by voice vote Friday morning, giving Congress more time to negotiate reforms on the bill.
President Donald Trump has urged Republicans to back the measure and hosted a group of hardliners at the White House Tuesday night to find a path forward as the law is set to expire on Monday.
“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor. We need to stick together when this Bill comes before the House Rules Committee today to keep it CLEAN!” Trump wrote on social media on Wednesday.
“Our Military Patriots desperately need FISA 702, and it is one of the reasons we have had such tremendous SUCCESS on the battlefield,” Trump added. “It has already prevented MANY such Attacks, and it is very important that it remain in full force and effect.”
Despite opposition from some GOP hardliners, House Speaker Mike Johnson was this week still trying to determine a path forward to muscle through an 18-month clean extension of the program.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Friday that Congress can no longer afford to “go dark” on the issue, amid the pushback from some Democrats and hardline Republicans.
“We can’t wait around for long,” he said. “We’ve got to pivot and figure out what can pass.”
CIA Director John Ratcliffe attended the House Republican closed-door conference meeting on Wednesday and also advocated for a clean extension of the program.
Some Republicans, who oppose a clean extension of the surveillance tool and demand reforms like a warrant requirement, were not convinced to change their position following the meeting.
Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Maryland said “no” when asked if progress was made on FISA during the meeting.
“They have to deal with the FISA court’s objection to the warrantless searches,” Harris said.
There has been a continued debate over Section 702 because it sometimes allows the government to collect Americans’ communications without a warrant.
“Discussions are ongoing still,” Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona said leaving.
Rep. Keith Self of Texas, who attended the White House meeting on Tuesday night, said he does not believe a clean extension will pass.
“We’ll see … but, I don’t think the clean extension will pass,” he said.
After the meeting, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise suggested some “minor changes” could be made to the legislation to appease the holdouts but did not divulge specifics.
“FISA has been important for our country’s national security,” Scalise said. “We’ve put some important much needed reforms in place the last time it was up for reauthorization and what President Trump has asked is that now we reauthorize it with those reforms in place, and that’s what we’re working to do. So, we’re having some final conversations. Not all of our members are quite there yet.”
Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said several Republicans “want to see further reforms” to the program.
“We feel like we need improvements. Obviously, we want greater protections for citizens with respect to warrants,” he said. “We want to make sure that there’s greater penalties, for example, for government officials who abuse their authority and power.”
Scalise said Ratcliffe explained to Republicans how FISA is being “used in the real world to stop bad things from happening.”
As he was leaving, Ratcliffe said the meeting “went great.”
