House approves bill to fund DHS, ending record-long partial shutdown

(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) — Democratic voters in Illinois are heading to the polls on Tuesday for a slate of midterm election primaries where incumbents aren’t on the ballot, including a marquee Senate race animated by the prospect of generational change and House races dogged by major outside spending.

Six Democratic-favoring seats are opening up in Illinois’ congressional delegation, including the U.S. Senate seat currently held by the retiring Sen. Dick Durbin, and five House seats that are being vacated either due to retirements (in the 4th, 7th, and 9th districts) or because their incumbents are running for Senate (in the 2nd and 8th).

Illinoisans are also voting in primaries for governor, although incumbent Gov. JB Pritzker has no Democratic primary challengers, and other state offices.

‘An opportunity for generational turnover’

In the Senate race, the state’s voters “have an opportunity for generational turnover — where a boomer senator is stepping down, and you’ve got three Gen-Xers, who’ve been around on the scene for quite some time, trying to get the seat,” Northwestern University political science professor and Democratic strategist Alvin Tillery told ABC News. While Tillery is currently working for active campaigns, he is not involved in any races in Illinois.

“It could be another 20 or 30 years before we have a Senate race this competitive in Illinois,” he added.

A few Republican candidates are vying to become the GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate election, including attorney Jeannie Evans and former Illinois GOP chair Don Tracy. The Cook Political Report rates the race as solidly Democrat.

Among the frontrunners in the Democratic Senate primary, U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who represents Illinois’ 8th District in Congress, has led the pack in fundraising, having raised over $30 million, according to campaign finance filings.

“I’m the only one with the background of standing up to bullies and bad actors, and successfully doing so, and now I have to stand up to Donald Trump,” Krishnamoorthi told ABC News in an interview on Sunday.

He also argued that his fundraising gives him “a certain amount of independence that perhaps nobody else has in this race.”

Pritzker’s endorsement in Senate race
Illinois’ lieutenant governor, Juliana Stratton, entered the race with Pritzker’s quick endorsement. Her campaign made some waves when it unveiled a campaign television ad where voters and Illinois’ other senator Tammy Duckworth curse out President Donald Trump, while Stratton says, “They said it, not me.”

“I think that there is something that’s sort of a common theme that I’m hearing, no matter which corner of the state of Illinois that you live in, and that is that people are fed up with what’s happening in D.C.,” Stratton told ABC News in an interview. “They’re tired of the status quo.”

Pritzker — a rumored 2028 presidential hopeful — has campaigned with her and donated $5 million in December to an outside group supporting her bid, according to a filing with the Federal Election Commission.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly is running for the seat with the argument that over a decade of experience in the House has set her up to be successful in Congress’ upper chamber.

“I have a track record that they cannot touch,” Kelly told ABC station WLS-TV on Tuesday in Chicago. “And I think a lot of people know that.”

Kelly has the endorsement of the political arm of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC); longtime CBC member Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., campaigned with Kelly on Tuesday, telling WLS-TV she is “our go-to person on health care issues.”

Some members of the caucus have criticized Pritzker’s support of Stratton, who is Illinois’ first Black female lieutenant governor, and feel her presence in the race risks splitting the Black vote in the primary to benefit Krishnamoorthi.

Stratton told ABC News, “I have the best path in the nation to elect another Black woman to the United States Senate.” Krishnamoorthi, if elected, would only be the second-ever Indian-American senator in the Senate.

On the trail, the candidates have all harshly criticized Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — particularly in the wake of Operation Midway Blitz in 2025 — but only Stratton has outright called to “abolish” the agency.

Krishnamoorthi, however, has framed his position as “abolish Trump’s ICE,” and Kelly has presented a broader position of “dismantling” the whole Department of Homeland Security.

Outside groups’ spending criticized

Opposition to ICE has also become a campaign wedge: Stratton and Krishnamoorthi have criticized each for how they or groups supporting them have previously been supported by companies or donors with ties to the agency.

Outside groups, including some linked to cryptocurrency or artificial intelligence companies, have also spent millions in the Senate primary and House races in Illinois. Over $55 million has been spent on ads by Senate candidates or groups supporting them, according to an analysis by AdImpact, while over $37 million has been spent by House candidates or groups supporting them.

And the conversation around the House races has been dominated by that and other spending, including money from groups directly or allegedly linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), both before and after the Feb. 28 U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran brought the Middle East back to the forefront.

AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC United Democracy Project (UDP) has spent directly in some House races in Illinois, but candidates have alleged that other outside groups are also linked to it.

In the race for Illinois’ 9th District, for example, a slate of progressives including Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and former journalist Kat Abughazaleh are running to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Biss and Abughazaleh have excoriated super PAC spending allegedly linked to AIPAC to support state Sen. Laura Fine’s bid. Fine has also criticized the sheer spending in the race. AIPAC has not confirmed being involved.

And Schakowsky had initially endorsed Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller in the race for the 2nd District, currently represented by Krishnamoorthi. But she withdrew her endorsement after a Washington Post report that an independent group, Affordable Chicago Now, that has spent over $4 million in favor of Miller, appears to use one of the same vendors as AIPAC or UDP.

UDP, which has not spent money directly to support Miller, according to current campaign finance filings, did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.

“Illinois deserves leaders who put voters first, not AIPAC or out-of-state Trump donors. I cannot support any candidate running for Congress who is funded by these outside interests,” Schakowsky wrote in a statement to ABC News.

A spokesperson for Miller’s campaign told ABC News, “Rep. Schakowsky and Commissioner Miller have been friends for over 20 years. Donna’s support reflects the broad base behind her campaign, coming from a diverse coalition of people who believe in her vision for change.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump hosted a signing ceremony for his Board of Peace on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday, saying that it was a “very exciting day” and that the collective would become one of the “most consequential bodies” ever created.

“As everyone can see today, the first steps toward a brighter day for the Middle East and a much safer future for the world are unfolding right before your very eyes,” Trump said in his opening remarks.

He added, “Together we are in a position to have an incredible chance — I don’t even call it a chance, I think it’s going to happen — to end decades of suffering, stop generations of hatred and bloodshed and forge a beautiful, ever-lasting and glorious peace for that region.”

More than two dozen countries have so far accepted Trump’s invitation to join the board, but none of the U.S.’s major European allies have yet made a commitment and some have rejected the idea. Trump was flanked on the stage in Davos by more than a dozen leaders whose countries had agreed to be signatories. He described those who were present as “just the countries that are here.”

U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said in an interview on CNBC on Wednesday that up to 25 countries had accepted the invitation to join the board.

Invitations were sent over the weekend to more than 50 world leaders, according to U.S. officials. A White House official said about 30 countries were expected to join.

The initiative has drawn cautious responses from several U.S. allies who did not explicitly endorse the board or accept Trump’s invitation as leaders question whether a U.N. alternative body is necessary.

“I think the board of peace will be the most prestigious board ever, and it’s going to get a lot of work done that the United Nations should have done,” Trump said Wednesday. “And we’ll work with the United Nations. But the Board of Peace is going to be special. We’re going to have peace.”

When asked by a reporter at the White House on Tuesday if the board would replace the U.N., Trump said: “It might.”

France, Norway, and Sweden, have declined or expressed significant reservations about the board, while others like Germany, the United Kingdom, and Italy have remained noncommittal.

Russia was also extended an invitation, the Kremlin confirmed this week, despite the country’s continued assault on Ukraine.

“The proposal made to us primarily concerns the settlement in the Middle East and the search for possible ways to resolve the pressing problems of the Palestinian people and the most acute problems of the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told a Russian Security Council meeting, state media reported.

As of Thursday morning, more than 20 countries had said that they had accepted Trump’s invitation. Those countries were: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Bulgaria, Egypt, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Mongolia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

“This is the greatest board ever assembled, and everybody wants to be on it,” Trump told reporters in Davos on Wednesday. “I have some controversial people on it, but these are people that get the job done. These are people that have tremendous influence.”

The full invitation list has not been made public by the White House.

Yvette Cooper, the U.K.’s foreign secretary, said during a BBC interview on Thursday that her country would not be among the signatories in Davos. Part of the reasoning behind that decision, she said, was the U.K.’s “concerns” about Putin being invited to be “part of something that’s talking about peace when we’ve still not seen any signs from Putin that there will be commitment to peace in Ukraine.”

The Board of Peace was first introduced last year with a two-year United Nations Security Council mandate to manage and rebuild Gaza, but the board’s charter makes no direct reference to Gaza at all.

A copy of the charter draft reviewed by ABC News makes clear the Board of Peace has a much broader mandate as an “international organization” and “peacebuilding body” seeking to resolve the world’s conflicts and securing enduring peace, akin to a U.S.-led alternative to the United Nations.

Trump, who is expected to chair the board, can potentially hold the position for life.

“The Chairmanship can be held by President Trump until he resigns it,” a U.S. official said. “A future U.S. president, however, may choose to appoint or designate the United States’ representative to the Board.”

The charter draft states that nations that accept the invitation will be given a three-year membership term, but permanent membership would be given to member states that contribute more than $1 billion in cash to the Board of Peace within the first year.

The U.S. official said that contributions to the board are “voluntary” and should not be considered as an entry fee to join. If member states choose to contribute money, the Board of Peace will “implement the highest financial controls and oversight mechanisms,” the official said.

Putin suggested Russia could pay its $1 billion from assets frozen by the U.S. over its war with Ukraine.

The executive committee that would oversee the board will include former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as well as Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.