Acting AG Blanche says Trump administration is nixing ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’

(WASHINGTON) — Overturning a new congressional map in Virginia that would have favored Democrats has had an outsized impact on the state’s U.S. House primaries, with at least four high-profile candidates so far suspending their campaigns.

With Virginia keeping its current congressional map, which currently has six Democrats and five Republicans, Democratic candidates face the prospect of either running in a GOP-leaning district or of mounting primary bids to incumbent Democrats.

Virginia’s primaries are Aug. 4, having been changed from their original date of June 16. The state had also moved its candidate filing deadline to May 26, so candidates can still get on the ballot ahead of the primary.

Col. Bree Fram, a transgender woman who came out and transitioned while serving in the Air Force and who had joined a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its ban on transgender individuals in the military, suspended her campaign for the proposed 11th District. She would have been mounting a primary challenge to incumbent Rep. James Walkinshaw regardless of which map was in place.

“With only five weeks before early primary voting, the ruling left this campaign without sufficient time and resources to meaningfully pivot to the previous district and have the kind of substantive debate voters deserve,” Fram wrote.

 Dorothy McAuliffe, the former first lady of Virginia who was running in the redrawn 7th District, announced last Saturday that she will similarly suspend her campaign. The 7th District is represented by Democratic Rep. Eugene Vindman.

“For me, representing Virginia in Congress was an opportunity to do good, make government deliver, protect fundamental freedoms, lower costs, defend democracy, and fight for those too often ignored,” said McAuliffe, who is married to former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

J.P. Cooney, who had launched a bid for the 7th District and was the top deputy for former special counsel Jack Smith, who led investigations into President Donald Trump’s alleged interference in the 2020 election and alleged mishandling of classified documents, suspended his campaign last Friday.

“I am disappointed that the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision at the expense of the Commonwealth’s voters is now final. Although this means the end of my congressional campaign, our movement to fight corruption and lawlessness is just beginning,” Cooney wrote on X.

Dan Helmer, a Virginia state delegate who had also launched a bid for the redrawn 7th District, said last Friday he had ended his campaign. 

“While I’m incredibly disappointed at tonight’s news, I can’t say I’m surprised. The MAGA playbook is straightforward: if you can’t win at the ballot box, pack the courts… While our candidacy for Congress has ended, the path forward is clear: as I’ve said consistently, we need reform of the courts, here in Virginia, and in the federal judiciary,” he wrote in a statement on X. 

One major name has not yet confirmed her plans.

Olivia Troye, a former aide to Vice President Mike Pence who changed parties and was running as a Democrat in the proposed 7th District, wrote in a blog post last Wednesday that she had visited an ICE detention facility on the day of the Virginia Supreme Court decision, and that both that visit and the court decision “made me more certain than ever that I cannot walk away from this fight.”

Troye has not confirmed if she plans to withdraw from the race. ABC News has reached out to Troye and her campaign. Troye was among the highest-profile Trump administration officials to become a critic of the president during his first term.

One candidate has said he’s staying in the race even with the Democratic-favoring map thrown out.

Tom Perriello, a former member of Congress who had planned to run in the redrawn 5th District, said the day the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling dropped that he is still going to run for Congress but is shifting to the current 5th District to try to unseat incumbent GOP Rep. John McGuire. Perriello represented the 5th from 2009 to 2011. 

“We are obviously aware of the Virginia Supreme Court decision, and as we said from the launch of the campaign, we will respect the will of the voters and the courts … having done hundreds of listening sessions across Central and Southside Virginia over the last few months, I can say one thing that people on the right, left and center, seem to agree on is that McGuire needs to be fired and replaced by somebody who actually cares about Central and South Side Virginia,” he told reporters on Friday, just hours after the seismic court decision.

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.

(WASHINGTON) — Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is set to testify behind closed doors on Wednesday about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, making him the first Trump Cabinet official to face questions as part of the House Oversight Committee investigation.

Lutnick agreed to the voluntary transcribed interview after months of criticism over his relationship with Epstein — who was once Lutnick’s neighbor — and past statements distancing himself from the notorious sex offender.

During an interview last year with The New York Post, Lutnick described Epstein as “gross” and claimed that he said in 2005 he would “never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again” after touring Epstein’s New York City mansion.

However, documents released by the Department of Justice showed that Lutnick planned a visit to Epstein’s private island in 2012 — years after Epstein pleaded guilty to two prostitution-related charges in 2008.

“We are looking forward to visiting you,” Lutnick’s wife emailed Epstein’s assistant. “We would love to join you for lunch.”

When asked about the documents in February, Lutnick acknowledged he visited the island and said that he did not see anything inappropriate during his visit.

“I did have lunch with him, as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies,” Lutnick testified on Capitol Hill in February.

While the DOJ’s Epstein files included a photo from that trip, the Department of Justice acknowledged they temporarily removed the photo before restoring it following backlash. A DOJ official claimed that the photo was temporarily removed with a “batch of files that were flagged for nudity,” though the photo did not contain any nudity and did not include any redactions when it was restored.

Lutnick also appeared to enter a business deal with Epstein in 2012, according to documents released by the Department of Justice. Both men signed business documents in 2012 to acquire an advertising company called Adfin.

Other documents released by the DOJ showed Epstein agreed to donate $50,000 in 2017 related to a dinner hosted in Lutnick’s honor.

During his New York Post interview last year, Lutnick said he believed that Epstein may have used blackmail to get the “sweetheart deal” he received during his first criminal case in 2008.

“I assume, way back when, they traded those videos in exchange for him getting that 18-month sentence, which allowed him to have visits and be out of jail. I mean, he’s a serial sex offender. How could he get 18 months and be able to go to his office during the day and have visitors and stuff? There must have been a trade,” Lutnick said.

But those allegations contrast with statements from multiple Trump administration officials who have insisted that Epstein neither trafficked young women for people beyond himself nor held compromising information about high-profile individuals,

“There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals,” FBI Director Kash Patel said last year.

When asked about Lutnick’s relationship with Epstein in February, President Trump described Lutnick as a “very innocent guy” and suggested he would be willing to testify.

“Well, Howard would go in and do whatever he has to say,” Trump said. “He’s a very innocent guy, doing a good job.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.