House approves bill to fund DHS, ending record-long partial shutdown
The US Capitol is seen, April 20, 2026 in Washington. (Leigh Vogel/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After months of resistance, the House on Thursday passed the Senate-backed Department of Homeland Security funding bill, which funds all agencies inside DHS except immigration enforcement operations.
There was no recorded vote requested.
The measure now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk now for signature — ending the record-long DHS shutdown after 76 days. Trump will sign the DHS funding bill later Thursday, according to a White House official.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Solicitor General D. John Sauer got a somewhat frosty reception from at least two key Supreme Court Justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — as oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s landmark birthright citizenship case got underway Wednesday.
President Donald Trump arrived at the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, making him the first sitting president to attend the high court’s arguments.
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.
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Gorsuch also remarked that the Trump administration seems to be relying on outdated “Roman law sources” and court precedents that do not work in their favor.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 voices concerns about the sources cited by the Trump administration.
“You’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept,” she said.
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 Elena 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.
Sauer began his arguments by arguing 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,” he said.
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 this morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance at the proceedings, saying he will “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.
Although the proceedings should provide a sense of how interested the judges are in Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, a ruling in the case isn’t expected until the end of June.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — An 11th hour plea from the prime minister of Pakistan appears to have swayed both President Donald Trump and the Iranian regime to agree to a two-week ceasefire deal in exchange for temporarily opening the Strait of Hormuz, at least temporarily staving off Trump’s promise to bomb Iran back to the “stone ages.”
With just hours to go until Trump’s 8 p.m. ET Tuesday deadline, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif — one of the key mediators attempting to the end the conflict — issued a public call to Trump, urging him to allow more time for negotiations.
“Diplomatic efforts for peaceful settlement of the ongoing war in the Middle East are progressing steadily, strongly and powerfully with the potential to lead to substantive results in near future,” Sharif said. “To allow diplomacy to run its course, I earnestly request President Trump to extend the deadline for two weeks.”
Sharif also implored Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz as a “goodwill gesture.”
Just after 6:30 p.m. ET, Trump posted on his social media platform that he would suspend military attacks.
“Based on conversations with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, of Pakistan, and wherein they requested that I hold off the destructive force being sent tonight to Iran, and subject to the Islamic Republic of Iran agreeing to the COMPLETE, IMMEDIATE, and SAFE OPENING of the Strait of Hormuz, I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two week,” he wrote.
“We received a 10 point proposal from Iran, and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate,” Trump continued, referring to an Iranian counterproposal transmitted to negotiators after rejecting plans for a longer ceasefire on Monday. “Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two-week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated.”
Within the hour, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council claimed that the U.S. agreed to its plan which includes numerous concessions.
In a lengthy statement on Iranian state media, the council said the U.S. “committed in principle to non-aggression, continued Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, acceptance of enrichment, lifting of all primary and secondary sanctions.”
Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi, meanwhile, said Iran would agree to a ceasefire if attacks against it are halted. He also said passage through the Strait of Hormuz would be allowed during the two-week period if coordinated with Iran’s armed forces.
The White House did not respond to specific questions Tuesday evening on whether the U.S. agreed to Iran’s 10-point plan — which includes lifting all primary and secondary sanctions and withdrawing combat troops from the region — or what it made of Iran saying the Strait of Hormuz would open with coordination from Iran’s military.
In response, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement:
“President Trump’s words speak for themselves: this is a workable basis to negotiate, and those negotiations will continue. The truth is that President Trump and our powerful military got Iran to agree to reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and negotiations will continue.”
Despite Trump calling Iran’s counterproposal a “workable basis” for negotiations, it contains many terms the U.S. and the president himself have long rejected and was previously described by administration officials as “maximalist.”
After the two-week ceasefire was announced, mediators began making arrangements to hold the first round of talks following the implementation of the ceasefire on Friday in Islamabad, but the White House said late Tuesday that it had not yet committed to any plans.
Before Sharif’s proposal was made public, two U.S. officials cautioned that although talks showed signs of progress, the Trump administration and Iranian regime still appeared to be far apart on core issues, expressing doubt that a broad deal could be reached on such a tight timeline.
One U.S. official also said the dynamic proposed by Sharif mirrored confidence-building measures under discussion behind closed doors, but up until the president and Iranian authorities accepted the terms, it was unclear whether both sides could be brought on board.
Fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz is a top priority for U.S. officials, who indicated that any agreement with Iran would have to lead to near-immediate progress on that front.
Asked about the state of negotiations with Iran on Tuesday morning, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he hoped “to have more news” later in the day and called Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz “a big problem for the world.”
“The whole world’s been impacted unfortunately because Iran is violating every law known by striking commercial vessels in the Straits of Hormuz,” he said. “I mean this is a regime that doesn’t believe in laws, rules or anything like that — it’s a State Sponsor of Terrorism, so it’s not surprising that they’re now conducting terrorist activity against commercial vessels.”
Iran sees the strait as equally important and has signaled publicly and in private negotiations that it is highly reluctant to agree to any terms that would see it losing leverage over the waterway.
Iran’s counterproposal issued Monday stipulated that the country would fully open the Strait of Hormuz but set the rules for passage through the waterway and extract a toll of $2 million per vessel, a situation the Trump administration has repeatedly said would be untenable.
Republican congressional candidate Brandon Herrera speaks during a campaign rally at the Constantino S Pizza restaurant on February 26, 2026, in Somerset, Texas. Brandon Bell/Getty Images
(TEXAS) — The Texas 23rd Congressional District race is projected to head to a runoff, as incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales, who was accused of having an affair with a staffer who later died by suicide, and conservative activist Brandon Herrera both failed to receive more than 50% of the vote.
With 94% of the expected vote reporting Wednesday morning, Herrera holds just about a 1-point advantage over Gonzales (roughly 43% to 42%).
Gonzales and Herrera previously went head-to-head in the 2024 Republican primary and similarly advanced to a runoff. Gonzales ultimately won by just 400 votes.
Tuesday’s primary election came as Gonzales battles calls from some House Republicans to resign amid allegations that he engaged in an extramarital affair with a congressional aide who died by suicide last fall. Gonzales has denied the allegations of the affair with the aide, Regina Santos-Aviles.
Asked recently if he had an extramarital affair with Santos-Aviles, Gonzales said “what you have seen is not all the facts.”
Text messages, provided to ABC News by Santos-Aviles’ widower, appear to show Gonzales pursuing a relationship with the former staffer. ABC News has reached out to Gonzales for a request for comment on the text messages.
In February, Gonzales told ABC News that “Ms. Santos-Aviles was a kind soul who devoted her life to making the community a better place.”
ABC News has also confirmed that Gonzales has been under investigation by the Office of Congressional Conduct, which has already completed its probe. Due to its rules, the OCC can’t transmit a report against a member of Congress 60 days prior to an election.
The runoff election is scheduled for May 26, which is more than 60 days away from the primary election.
On Wednesday, the House Ethics Committee announced that it started an investigative subcommittee to look into the allegations against Gonzales.
Gonzales has notably lost many endorsements in his bid for reelection as calls for his resignation continue. He said last month that he is “not going to resign.”
President Donald Trump had endorsed Gonzales prior to the allegations. Since then, the White House has not responded to ABC News’ questions about whether the president still supports Gonzales.
In a post on X reacting to the news of a runoff, Gonzales began by thanking the president and looking forward to a “victorious May.”
In a reply to Gonzales post, Herrera retorted: “Are you seriously congratulating yourself for not winning your primary?”
Herrera, a Second Amendment activist and social media personality, has also faced his share of controversy, including accusations that his YouTube videos allegedly featured Nazi-related imagery. In response, Herrera wrote in a social media post that “I am not, nor have I never been a neo-Nazi.”
Both candidates have sought to align themselves closely with the president.
ABC News’ Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
