Democratic senators demand answers from Hegseth over reported defense investment inquiry ahead of Iran war

(WASHINGTON) — Friday marks a key procedural deadline for how Democrats will figure out which states will hold the first presidential nominating contests of 2028, amid broader debates within the party over diversity and voter representation, and which states will show which candidates are viable for the long haul. 

The Democratic National Committee set a Friday afternoon deadline for state parties to apply to have their 2028 presidential nominating contests be held in the period before Super Tuesday, the first Tuesday in March during a presidential calendar year where the most primaries are held.

The order of the primaries and caucuses matters because the early contests help indicate which candidates have momentum and are striking a chord with voters, and often narrow the candidate field ahead of Super Tuesday.

The debate about the order is also about diversity and voter representation in the Democratic Party. Some Democrats have argued that states with larger Black and minority populations should be prioritized, to reflect the diversity of the country, while others say the party should prioritize traditional “early states,” such as New Hampshire, to spur turnout and buzz, even though their populations may be less diverse. 

Traditionally, Iowa has held first-in-the nation caucuses and New Hampshire has first-in-the-nation primaries. But in 2024, a reshuffled DNC primary calendar pushed the states from the first two slots on the party’s official calendar and officially put South Carolina first.

While Iowa Democrats found a compromise with the DNC by switching their in-person caucus to an entirely mail-in voting process, New Hampshire’s primaries were kept in January, causing conflict between the state and national party. 

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart, in a statement to ABC News, said that the party is applying to hold its caucuses before Super Tuesday, and said Democrats need to keep Iowa toward the front of the line in order to stay competitive with Republicans.

“No matter what the Rules and Bylaws Committee decides, Republican presidential candidates will be in Iowa,” Hart wrote. “It was a mistake for the DNC to cut us out of the calendar, letting Republicans’ attacks go unanswered in Iowa while millions of dollars in advertising, organizing and the worldwide media flooded our state.”

Some state party leaders have said their states being early in the calendar will help candidates show if they can stick it out throughout 2028.

New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley said the case his party is making to the DNC is that New Hampshire is a prime state for 2028 candidates to build up support and to show their viability. He said its small size allows for easy campaigning in a purple state, “which is exactly what you need in the November general election.”

New Hampshire also has a state law requiring it to hold the nation’s first presidential primaries, which is what led in large part to the disarray in 2024 between the state party and the DNC. But Buckley said that it’s not a factor right now.

“It’s not about the tradition, it’s not about the law; it’s really about our involvement, and we just think that we have an unmatched record of being able to give the opportunity for candidates to talk to voters one-on-one,” Buckley said.

Buckley said New Hampshire’s population of union members, as well as the large percentage of students of color in the public school systems of the state’s two largest cities make it a great state for candidates to test the waters.

But the South Carolina Democratic Party said it wants to stay first in the calendar. 

Party Executive Director Jay Parmley told ABC News that the state is making its case to the DNC to remain in the early window because it’s compact and allows unknown candidates to compete. Also, Parmley said the state does not have a major population center, so candidates need to fan out across it. 

Regarding the debates surrounding diverse primary states, Parmley pointed to how the state has a “diverse electorate,” and highlighted its Black community. Around 1 in 4 registered voters in South Carolina are Black, according to data from the South Carolina Election Commission.

“Our Black electorate — it legitimizes and rewards the role of Black voters and as the backbone and soul, if you will, of the Democratic Party.”

Nevada’s Democratic Party also confirmed it’s submitting a bid to go early, arguing that galvanizing the state’s minority and working-class populations is critical for the Democrats. 

In a draft of their application, the state party wrote, “The Democratic Party is facing a critical moment where we must be strategic in our efforts to earn back Latino support, craft an economic message that resonates across the country, begin the work to reach working-class voters, and turn out diverse communities. We cannot afford to have overwhelmingly college-educated, white, or less competitive states kick off the process of selecting our party’s nominee.”

Michigan is also submitting a bid to be among the early states similar to how it was in 2024, the state’s party confirmed to ABC News — arguing in part that Michigan is the most important and diverse of the battleground states.

“For Democrats to have the strongest presidential candidate, the early nominating states should closely mirror Democratic voters nationwide and be representative of America,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel said in a statement to ABC News.

Illinois’, North Carolina’s and Georgia’s state Democratic parties also confirmed to ABC News that they are submitting bids. As Georgia’s state’s presidential primaries are usually held after Super Tuesday, they’d have to work with the Republican-dominated state legislature to move up the date.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A senior adviser to first lady Melania Trump, Marc Beckman, said she wanted to “set the record straight” when she delivered her surprise statement at the White House denying any ties to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Beckman elaborated on the first lady’s decision to publicly address the Epstein controversy during an appearance Friday morning on “Fox & Friends.”

“If she can’t stick up for herself, if she can’t defend herself and make sure that her reputation is impeccable, who will do it? Nobody’s done it to date,” Beckman said.

“She’s ready to fight,” he added.

The press was not given advance notice on the topic of the first lady’s Thursday remarks, in which she said she never had any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and that she had no relationship with Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, his co-conspirator who was convicted of sex trafficking.

The first lady also called for public hearings into the Epstein controversy and to allow survivors to testify before Congress if they wish to do so.

“The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today,” Melania Trump said.

A spokesperson for the first lady’s office said the West Wing was aware she would make a statement.

But sources told ABC News that White House officials were caught off guard by the topic of her address, with some questioning why she was commenting on the subject now.

President Donald Trump said he did not know the first lady was going to make a statement today about Epstein, according to an MS Now reporter who said she had a brief phone interview with the president.

Asked by ABC News for clarification, a spokesperson for the first lady directed any questions about Trump’s knowledge about her statement to the West Wing. But the White House has said any questions related to the statement should come from her office.

President Trump has tried to shift focus away from the Epstein controversy, repeatedly calling it a “Democratic hoax.” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, in a recent interview, said the Epstein files matter “should not be a part of anything going forward” at the Department of Justice.

Beckman was asked on “Fox & Friends” why Melania Trump decided to come forward at this moment.

“First, enough is enough. This has been ongoing and it’s time for the public to refocus their attention on what achievements our first lady has done,” Beckman said, pointing to her foster care and education initiatives.

Beckman echoed the first lady’s comments that fake images and stories about her and Epstein have circulated for years, prompting her to come out and address them — despite headlines in recent weeks moving on from the Epstein files.

“The first lady accomplished three things yesterday as it relates to the disgraceful Epstein,” he said. “First, she cleared her record. She set the record straight. She debunked all of the lies surrounding her and Epstein. Second, she became a champion for these women, for the victims. Finally, third, she is a real leader in Washington, D.C. She is calling on Congress to act now.”

ABC News asked the White House if the president agrees with the first lady that Epstein’s victims should testify before Congress but has not gotten a response.

A group of 13 Epstein survivors and the brother and sister-in-law of another accused the first lady of “shifting the burden onto survivors,” rather than pushing for accountability.

“Survivors have done their part. Now it’s time for those in power to do theirs,” they said.

ABC News’ Rachel Scott and Isabella Murray 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.