First to ABC: House Dems urge JD Vance to preserve Smithsonian independence
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — House Democrats are demanding the White House preserve the independence of the Smithsonian Institution after President Donald Trump signed an executive order in late March that directed federal agencies and the Smithsonian to eliminate what the order calls “anti-American” and “improper” content from the vast network of museums and national parks.
The top Democrat of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Joe Morelle, and other Democrats who have oversight of the Smithsonian Institution sent a letter, first obtained by ABC News, to Vice President JD Vance, who serves as a member of the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents.
“We urge you to reject any effort to effectuate the goals of the Proclamation and to preserve the 175-year tradition of curatorial independence that has come to define the Smithsonian Institution,” the lawmakers wrote, raising concerns over Trump’s order.
The order, entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” directs Vance to eliminate what it claims are “improper ideology” from all areas of the institution, which consists of 21 museums, 14 education and research centers and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C.
“Unfortunately, we now stand at the brink of seeing the Smithsonian at its worst: shaped solely by the views and ideology of one individual as a means of expanding his political power,” the letter states.
The letter is the latest effort by Democrats to push back on one of several actions taken by the White House to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion efforts across the federal government.
The order also directs Vance and Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum to restore federal parks, monuments, memorials and statues “that have been improperly removed or changed in the last five years to perpetuate a false revision of history or improperly minimize or disparage certain historical figures or events.”
“If this Proclamation were to be implemented, the Smithsonian’s curatorial independence and excellence would be eliminated, and 175 years of this tradition would end,” the lawmakers warn.
Trump, in the order, singled out the National Museum of African American History and Culture which he said perpetuated “race-centered” and “divisive” ideas.
“This flagrant attempt to erase Black history is unacceptable and must be stopped. The attempt to paper over elements of American history is both cowardly and unpatriotic,” the letter states.
The Smithsonian Institution was first established by Congress with funding from British scientist James Smithson.
(MILWAUKEE, WI) — A reserve judge will be appointed to take over the cases of Judge Hannah Dugan, who was arrested by the FBI over allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant, according to a Milwaukee County official.
The county’s chief judge, Carl Ashley, said late Sunday that a reserve judge would take over Dugan’s calendar on Monday morning. The reserve judge was not named in the statement released to media.
Dugan, a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, was arrested on Friday over allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant “evade arrest” the week prior, FBI Director Kash Patel said.
Patel said on social media that the FBI believes “Judge Dugan intentionally misdirected federal agents away from the subject to be arrested in her courthouse.”
U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement that two FBI agents arrested Dugan “for allegedly helping an illegal alien avoid arrest” by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“No one is above the law,” Bondi said on Friday.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Thursday over President Donald Trump’s emergency request to roll back nationwide injunctions blocking his executive order to end birthright citizenship.
The rare May sitting of the court sets the stage for a decision by this summer on whether Trump can move forward with plans to limit U.S. citizenship only to children born on American soil to lawful permanent residents.
The case is also expected to address the legality of individual district court judges single-handedly blocking a presidential policy nationwide. Trump is seeking to dissolve judicial orders preventing mass federal layoffs, funding freezes, and expedited deportation protocols.
For more than a century, courts and the government have interpreted the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause to apply to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship status of a child’s parents.
The Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order unilaterally declaring that only newborns whose parents have permanent legal status are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. and therefore eligible to be citizens.
“This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained during a February briefing.
Three different sets of plaintiffs sued to block the order, including a group of 22 states, immigrant advocacy groups, and pregnant women whose soon-to-be-born children would be affected.
“Birthright citizenship is at the core of our Nation’s foundational precept that all people born on our soil are created equal, regardless of their parentage,” attorneys for the immigrant advocates wrote in legal briefs.
An estimated 150,000 children are born each year in the U.S. to parents who are not legal permanent residents, according to government data.
“Instead of the right to full participation and belonging in their home country — the United States — these children will be forced to live in the shadow,” the states warned in court filings, “under the constant risk of deportation while the appeals run their course.”
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state — and three federal appeals court panels — have issued nationwide injunctions keeping the Trump policy on hold during litigation, concluding that it very likely violates the Constitution and high court precedent.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here,” said Judge John Coughenour of the Western District of Washington during a January hearing in the case. “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
In 1898, the Supreme Court directly addressed the question of citizenship for children born to non-citizens on U.S. soil, ruling in the landmark case U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that they are Americans under the law.
“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 for the 6-2 majority. “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”
The issue arrives back at the high court in an unusual posture.
Neither side has briefed the justices on the constitutionality of the executive order. Instead, the primary dispute is over the scope of injunctions issued by individual district court judges.
“It focuses only on whether it is appropriate for courts to issue nationwide injunctions against the President’s egregiously unconstitutional executive order, as opposed to remedies limited to people directly involved in the litigation or those living in states that have sued the government,” said Ilya Somin, a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.
The Trump administration has complained that judges should only be allowed to block a contested policy insofar as it impacts the actual plaintiffs who brought the case — not block it universally.
“Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” acting solicitor general Sarah Harris wrote in the government’s application to the court.
Many of the administration’s high-profile attempts to reshape the federal government, sharply curtail federal spending, transform immigration policy, and limit protections for LGBTQ people have been blocked by nationwide injunctions issued by district courts.
Justice Department attorneys from administrations of both political parties have long complained about the overuse of nationwide injunctions and alleged incursion on executive branch power. The court may use this case to articulate parameters for when such sweeping injunctions are warranted and when they are not.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” Harris said, calling on the justices to narrow the injunctions applied to the birthright citizenship order.
Immigrant advocates, civil rights organizations, and Democratic state attorneys general have warned that blocking Trump’s birthright citizenship in some places but not others — or, exempting a small group of plaintiffs but not others — would create chaos.
“A situation where Trump’s order is in force for some people, but not others (or, alternatively, in some states but not others), creates obvious confusion and anomalies,” he said, “especially when it comes to a policy (citizenship rules) that is supposed to be uniform throughout the nation.”
Some legal scholars say it may be impossible for the court to address the question of nationwide injunctions without also resolving the underlying dispute over Trump’s attempt to redefine birthright citizenship.
“They’re going to have to address the whole thing,” said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. “The only way to avoid the scope of the injunction question is to rule on the merits. I believe they’re going to roll against Trump. He gets maybe one or two votes but not much more than that.”
A decision in the case is expected by early summer.
(WASHINGTON) — A flight carrying 59 refugees from South Africa landed in the United States on Monday afternoon — as the Trump administration insists that the expedited process for white South Africans to seek refuge in the United States has nothing to do with race.
The South African refugees’ arrival also comes amid the administration’s efforts to halt refugee programs from other countries.
Hours before the flight arrived at Dulles International Airport, President Donald Trump defended his administration’s decision to offer refugee status to the Afrikaners — a white minority group in South Africa. The president said that the asylum program is because there is a race-based genocide in the country.
“They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me, but white farmers are being brutally killed and their land is being confiscated in South Africa, and the newspapers and the media, television media doesn’t even talk about it,” Trump said during remarks at the White House.
Last week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this group of South Africans “has faced racial persecution.” She also went on to claim their farmland is being taken away. However, a law passed by South Africa earlier this year does not allow land to be expropriated without an agreement with the owner.
South Africa’s government has pushed back, saying the “allegations of discrimination are unfounded.”
“The South Africa Police Services statistics on farm related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race,” the South African government said in a statement last week. “There are sufficient structures available within South Africa to address concerns of discrimination. Moreover, even if there are allegations of discrimination, it is our view that these do not meet the threshold of persecution required under domestic and international refugee law.
Trump adviser Elon Musk has repeatedly talked about South Africa, his country of birth, on his social media account saying that the country is anti-white.
Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau greeted a group of about three dozen South Africans, many waving American flags, after they got off the plane at the airport in Northern Virginia.
Asked about the administration’s apparent prioritization of white South African refugees over others who are persecuted in their countries of origin, Landau harkened back to the pause on refugee admissions that Trump implemented when he retook the White House.
“That pause, of course, was subject, from the very beginning to exceptions where it was determined that this would be in the interest of the United States. Some of the criteria are making sure that refugees did not pose any challenge to our national security and that they can be assimilated easily into our country,” Landau said. “All of these folks who have just come in today have been carefully vetted pursuant to our refugee standards, and whether or not the broader refugee programs for other people around the world will be lifted is still an ongoing consideration.”
In March, Trump said that he would give some South African farmers and their families a pathway to citizenship. In the same month, the Trump administration kicked out the South African ambassador to the U.S.
In February, Trump signed an executive order that froze all aid to South Africa.
The South African government said in a statement that the order “lacks factual accuracy and fails to recognise South Africa’s profound and painful history of colonialism and apartheid.”
“It is ironic that the executive order makes provision for refugee status in the U.S. for a group in South Africa that remains amongst the most economically privileged, while vulnerable people in the U.S. from other parts of the world are being deported and denied asylum despite real hardship,” the South African government said in the statement.
The Trump administration quickly gave Afrikaners’ applications the green light – while it has paused refugee programs from other countries, including Afghanistan.
