Angry crowd confronts Republican Rep. Mike Flood at Nebraska town hall over Trump policies
Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., leaves the House Republican Conference caucus meeting at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington on Wednesday, May 13, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(BELLUVUE, Neb.) — While Congress is out of session this week, a House Republican encountered a hostile crowd at a heated town hall meeting in Bellevue, Nebraska, Tuesday night – a sour reception that may preview the tenor other lawmakers could face heading into the midterm elections.
Rep. Mike Flood faced repeated boos and shouts from audience members as they pressed him on the SAVE America Act, Israel, NATO, the bipartisan housing bill, the Trump administration’s policies and more, as seen on video of the town hall recorded by ABC affiliate KETV in Omaha.
While it’s uncertain how many in the audience were constituents, Tuesday’s contentious event wasn’t the first time Flood has found himself before angry crowds at town halls. Flood was shouted down and booed in Seward, Nebraska, where hundreds of people attended his town hall May 28 of last year, while defending the then-proposed One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
“F—— liar!” one attendee shouted at Flood Tuesday while he was discussing violent crime rates declining and the Trump administration’s ongoing deportation efforts.
“Listen, violent crime is down – ask the people of Washington, D.C., how much safer Washington is today compared to a year ago,” Flood said as the audience jeered.
“Violent crime is down in American cities. Violent crime is down in New York City. A lot of people that came here that were committing crimes have either been incarcerated or deported. The numbers speak for themselves,” Flood said.
Flood also was drowned out by the audience as he voiced his support for the proposed SAVE America Act and voter ID laws – key issues that are part of President Donald Trump’s policy agenda.
“What I can’t stand is what is so objectionable about having to show a driver’s license, a passport, or a birth certificate at your place where you vote,” Flood said, as the attendees booed.
The congressman further said that while Nebraska in his “opinion” deals with “little” election fraud, he added, “when people believe that our elections are secure, it breeds respect for the law, our democracy, our country, our election leaders. There are so many benefits.”
A man in the audience demanded the congressman explain the evidence he has to back up claims of election fraud, which Trump continues to promote without evidence to support his claims. Flood pushed back, saying he believes Joe Biden was duly elected president in the 2020 election.
”I have never argued that there was an inaccurate result, and I always recognized Joe Biden was our president, so I am not a congressman that has ever made that claim,” Flood responded.
Constituents further heckled Flood when the congressman said, “I want to be very clear: We have no greater ally in the Middle East than Israel,” prompting loud boos from the audience.
“What happened in Israel was horrific,” Flood said, referring to the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas. “If that had happened on our soil, we as Americans would rise up and eliminate that threat.”
As the conversation continued to scrutinize the Trump administration’s foreign policy, Flood also appeared to defend the administration’s actions in Iran.
“We need to finish the job. We cannot put up with a regime that in the last 12 months has killed 45,000 of their own people. That is wrong. We have to have moral clarity here,” he said. “I support Israel.”
While Trump attends the NATO Summit in Turkey, Flood said he fully supports the alliance, declaring it “has contributed greatly to the security of the world. I think they’re an important part of us.”
Flood received a more positive response regarding other topics, such as when he called Russian President Vladimir Putin “a thug” and voiced his support for Ukraine. He also earned some applause when he expressed confidence that the bipartisan housing bill currently on Trump’s desk will become law.
“If [Trump] doesn’t sign it, it becomes law, and the good news about this is next week it’s likely to be a public law,” he said. “That’s what I’m focusing on – bipartisan common-sense results.”
However, when Flood brought up the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes massive cuts to government benefits such as Medicaid and SNAP food assistance, the audience loudly booed. Several constituents raised concerns about losing SNAP benefits under the new law.
“I want people that are food insecure to get resources. I also want people that are able-bodied and can work to work. If you don’t work, you shouldn’t expect free healthcare,” Flood said.
Flood’s comments about Medicaid prompted one audience member to shout “tax the rich” in response.
Demolition of the East Wing of the White House, during construction on the new ballroom extension of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025. (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Republicans are aiming to secure $1 billion in funding for security-related aspects of the White House ballroom project as part of a broader, roughly $70 billion funding package for immigration enforcement, which they aim to pass with little-to-no support from Democrats.
Republicans began unveiling aspects of their reconciliation package late Monday night. Included within the bill is a $1 billion allocation to the Secret Service for “the purposes of security adjustments and upgrades … relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features.”
The funding can only be used for security-related aspects of the project, according to the bill text.
The Trump administration has previously said it aims to raise $400 million in private donations to pay for the ballroom, and has said it will cost the taxpayer nothing.
President Donald Trump said in October that the ballroom would be “paid for 100% by me and some friends of mine,” referencing donors.
“The government is paying absolutely nothing,” Trump said.
Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation that they have titled “The Stop Ballroom Bribery Act” to regulate the project and impose restrictions on donations.
A group of GOP senators led by Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced separate legislation that would provide $400 million in funding. The senators on that bill say their proposal is to offset the cost of the ballroom by using customs fees. Because it is not in a reconciliation bill, it will almost certainly fail to pass if it even gets a vote on the Senate floor.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul put forward a separate bill that would authorize the ballroom but not fund it. He attempted to pass that by unanimous consent last week and it failed.
This bill text comes as Republicans have increasingly called for the construction of the ballroom following the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner last month. They say a secure facility is necessary for the president and Cabinet members to gather with large groups on the White House grounds.
The White House said Tuesday that “Congress has rightly recognized the need for these funds.”
“Due in part to the recent assassination attempt on President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the proposal would provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement. “As President Trump has repeatedly said, the White House must be a safe and secure complex that generations of future presidents and visitors to the People’s house can enjoy.”
In a statement to ABC News on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said the bill does “does not fund ballroom construction,” but “provides funds for Secret Service enhancements that will ensure all presidents, their families and their staffs are adequately protected.”
The ballroom has been the target of a lawsuit filed late last year by historic preservationists, with a federal judge finding it to be illegal without the approval of lawmakers.
In a filing in the case last month, the Trump administration said that the security enhancements to the East Wing project would include “missile resistant steel columns, Military-grade venting, drone-proof ceilings and bullet, ballistic, and blast proof glass,” all aimed at forming a “fortified structural buffer” to protect not only the ballroom, but also the main White House residence and the offices in the West Wing.
That April 27 Justice Department filing, which read in part like a social media post written in the president’s own voice, also said the upgrades would include “bomb shelters, a state of the art hospital and medical facilities, Top Secret military installations, structures, and equipment, protective partitioning, and other features.”
District Judge Richard Leon ruled in late March that building the ballroom without congressional authorization violated the law. While Leon carved out an exception for work that would be necessary to ensure the “safety and security of the White House,” he later clarified his decision to allow for “below-ground construction” on the project, as well as anything above ground that would be “strictly necessary” to secure and protect that work.
Leon’s injunction has been administratively stayed by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, pending oral argument at a hearing set for next month. The appeals court’s order means that, for now, work on both the ballroom and the project’s security-related features can continue.
For weeks, Republicans have been working to put forward a funding package in response to political gridlock that left Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Border Patrol without their regular annual appropriations. Though these agencies received funding through the previously passed One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans say more funding is needed, and they’re looking to secure $26 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and $38 billion for ICE in this just-released bill.
Republicans are aiming to pass the funding using a budgeting tool called reconciliation, which, if successful, would allow Republicans to send this funding to Trump’s desk without the support of a single Democrat and without the possibility of a filibuster. But there are rules governing this process, and it’s not yet clear whether the Senate parliamentarian, who must determine whether items in a reconciliation package are “substantive to the budget,” will green light the ballroom security funding or other items in the bill.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that Republicans are “on a different planet” than American families with their spending priorities.
“Republicans looked at families drowning in bills and decided what they really needed was more raids and a Trump ballroom,” Schumer wrote in a post on X Tuesday.
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.
President Donald Trump speaks during a cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House, March 26, 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Thursday insisted Iran is “begging to make a deal” to end the war amid seemingly tenuous indirect talks between the U.S. and Tehran.
“I mean, I read a story today that I’m desperate to make a deal. I’m not,” the president said during a meeting of his Cabinet at the White House.
“I’m the opposite of desperate, I don’t care … In fact, we have other targets we want to hit before we leave. We’re hitting them on a daily basis,” Trump added.
Trump also revealed the “very big present” from Iran he said earlier this week was a sign talks were progressing: 10 oil tankers were allowed safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
“I say they’re lousy fighters, but they’re great negotiators,” he said of the Iranians.
“And they are begging to work out a deal,” Trump said. “I don’t know if we’ll be able to do that. I don’t know if we’re willing to do that.”
White House special envoy Steve Witkoff confirmed during Thursday’s meeting that the U.S. presented Iran with a 15-point framework for a peace deal by way of Pakistan.
Witkoff did not provide any specifics on what is in the proposal, though sources previously told ABC News it addressed Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs as well as maritime routes.
“I can say this, we will see where things lead and if we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point with no good alternatives for them other than more death and destruction,” Witkoff said. “We have strong signs that this is a possibility, and if a deal happens, it will be great for the country of Iran, for the entire region and the world at large.”
Iran responded to the plan through intermediaries overnight, according to the semi-official Tasnim news agency, which quoted an informed source. Reuters reported that according to a senior Iranian official, Iran’s initial response to the U.S. proposal was that it was “one-sided and unfair.”
The administration now ramping up pressure on Iran to agree to a diplomatic off-ramp.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt warned on Wednesday: “President Trump does not bluff, and he is prepared to unleash hell. Iran should not miscalculate again.”
President Trump earlier Thursday told Iran to “get serious, before it is too late.”
The first indication of new talks came from President Trump on Monday, as he announced he was postponing major attacks he’d threatened on Iran’s energy infrastructure for five days — until Friday — due to what he said were “very strong talks.”
Trump was asked Thursday about the status of that deadline, and whether it would be pushed back.
“I don’t know yet. I don’t know,” Trump said. He later added, “And we have a lot of time. You know what? It’s a day. In Trump time, a day, you know what it is, that’s an eternity.”
Hours later, Trump posted on social media that he was pushing the deadline to April 6.
“As per Iranian Government request, please let this statement serve to represent that I am pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M., Eastern Time. Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well,” his post read.
Involved in negotiations are Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to Trump.
Vance, during Thursday’s Cabinet meeting, emphasized the importance of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and warned that there are “further military options” possible.
The U.S. is continuing to send thousands more U.S. troops to the Middle East, and the Pentagon is seeking $200 billion in supplemental funding as the conflict continues.
With the conflict in its fourth week, President Trump on Thursday continued to repeat the four-to-six-week timeline he estimated at the onset of the conflict and said the operation is “ahead of schedule.”
Trump said the war will “end soon” and once again referred to it as an “excursion” and a “little detour.”
Trump and his top officials have changed their rhetoric over the course of the conflict, first calling it a “war” but more recently calling it a “military operation.”
Trump acknowledged that inconsistency in remarks at the annual National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) dinner on Wednesday night. He said the change was because of concerns that Congress has not authorized military action.
“I won’t use the word war, because they say if you use the word war, that’s maybe not a good thing to do. They don’t like the word war because you’re supposed to get approval. So, I’ll use the word military operation, which is really what it is,” the president said.
