Greenland rejects Trump’s unsolicited medical mission

(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.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday touted the arrival of his border czar, Tom Homan, on a mission to Minneapolis — as he took personal charge of dealing with the backlash following the second fatal shooting of an American citizen by federal agents in the city.

The president, who had said Homan would report directly to him, sounded positive about his change in course so far, saying Homan had met with Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and would do the same with Minneapolis Democratic Mayor Jacob Frey.

“I hear things are going very nicely,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Iowa, where he was set to deliver remarks on the economy. But there has been no apparent immediate change or pullback in the deployment of federal immigration enforcement agents — as Walz and Frey have demanded.

The White House has noticeably sought to put some distance between the president and the controversial words of his top officials in the immediate aftermath of the deadly shooting of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse.

Trump on Sunday declined to defend the agents involved, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday said she hadn’t heard Trump characterize Pretti the same way as White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — both of whom had quickly accused him of domestic terrorism without any evidence.

Trump on Tuesday also publicly broke with Miller, telling reporters he does not believe Pretti was an “assassin” as Miller had described him.

When asked if he believes Pretti’s death was justified, Trump said a “big investigation” is underway and suggested he would be monitoring it personally.

“I want to see the investigation. I’m going to be watching over it. I want a very honorable and honest investigation. I have to see it myself,” Trump said.

At the same time, Trump continued to criticize Pretti for having a gun on him, which state and local officials said he was lawfully carrying with a concealed carry permit, telling reporters: “You can’t walk in with guns.”

On what his message is for Pretti’s family, Trump told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Mary Bruce: “Well, I’m looking at that whole situation. I love everybody. I love all of our people. I love his family. And it’s a very sad situation.”

Still, Trump stood by Noem on Tuesday and told reporters she won’t be stepping down.

“I think she’s done a very good job. The border is totally secure,” Trump said.

Noem met with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday as scrutiny grew over the shooting and the administration’s response, sources told ABC News. While sources said Noem is expected to keep her job as of now, her focus is expected to shift to other priorities.

A person familiar with the planning said Homan is likely to focus on more targeted immigration enforcement efforts. 

Homan’s arrival also comes as Customs and Border Protection commander-at-large Greg Bovino is set to leave Minneapolis to return to El Centro, California, and resume his duties as chief of that sector, multiple sources told ABC News. Some Border Patrol agents are also leaving Minneapolis.

Earlier Tuesday, in a radio interview on “Sid & Friends In the Morning,” Trump said that if Minneapolis officials give the federal government “their criminals” then it “all goes away” when asked about the possibility of some federal forces leaving the state.

“What we need is their criminals. You know, they have criminals. And all I said, ‘just give us your criminals’ and if you give us the criminals, it all goes away,” the president said.

Trump also recounted calls he had with both Walz and Frey on Monday amid growing tensions in Minneapolis.

“Actually, they were both great conversations,” Trump said. “So, let’s hope that turns out to be so.”

Walz, who was critical of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in an op-ed on Monday, said he and Homan agreed to an “open dialogue” after their meeting on Tuesday.

“Governor Walz met with Tom Homan this morning and reiterated Minnesota’s priorities: impartial investigations into the Minneapolis shootings involving federal agents, a swift, significant reduction in the number of federal forces in Minnesota, and an end to the campaign of retribution against Minnesota,” Walz’s office said in a statement.

“The Governor and Homan agreed on the need for an ongoing dialogue and will continue working toward those goals, which the President also agreed to yesterday. The Governor tasked the Minnesota Department of Public Safety as the primary liaison to Homan to ensure these goals are met,” the statement read.

Frey called his meeting with Homan “productive” in a series of posts on X.

“I reiterated that my main ask is for Operation Metro Surge to end as quickly as possible. Public safety works best when it’s built on community trust, not tactics that create fear or division,” he said.

Frey added he made it clear to Homan that “Minneapolis does not and will not enforce federal immigration laws.” 

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has pushed back against news reports that his top military adviser, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, privately cautioned that if Trump ordered a U.S. military strike on Iran, a lack of critical munitions and support from allies could pose risks to American troops.

“General Caine, like all of us, would like not to see War but, if a decision is made on going against Iran at a Military level, it is his opinion that it will be something easily won,” Trump posted Monday on his social media platform.

That statement came as Trump was said to be considering military options as he puts pressure on Iran to end its nuclear program or face “bad” consequences.

According to a U.S. official, Tehran was expected to offer a new nuclear proposal by Tuesday ahead of another round of negotiations in Geneva led by special envoy Steve Witkoff on Thursday.

The meeting would be the second round of indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran, with Omanis and Qataris passing notes between the delegations.

In a statement, a Joint Staff spokesman emphasized that Caine’s role is to provide “a range of military options, as well as secondary considerations and associated impacts and risks, to the civilian leaders who make America’s security decisions.”

The president added that he will make the final call regarding military action, and repeated that he wants a deal with Iran, but warned that if there is not a deal “it will be a very bad day for that Country.”

“I am the one that makes the decision, I would rather have a Deal than not but, if we don’t make a Deal, it will be a very bad day for that Country and, very sadly, its people, because they are great and wonderful, and something like this should never have happened to them,” Trump said. 

Trump also doubled down on his previous claims that Iran’s nuclear supply has been “obliterated” after last summer’s Operation Midnight Hammer, saying that it was “blown to smithereens.” 

“He knows Iran well,” he said, referring to Caine, “in that he was in charge of Midnight Hammer, the attack on the Iranian Nuclear Development. It is a Development no longer, but rather, was blown to smithereens by our Great B-2 Bombers.” Trump said. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu threatened Iran during a speech to the Knesset on Monday, warning the Iranian ayatollah if Iran strikes Israel, “we will respond with a force they cannot even imagine,” according to remarks of his speech google translated from Hebrew to English.

“No one knows what the day will bring. We are vigilant, we are prepared for any scenario,” Netanyahu said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.