House passes funding package to end partial government shutdown
U.S. Capitol Building (Photo by Mike Kline (notkalvin)/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Republican-led House on Tuesday voted to pass the government funding package to end the partial shutdown.
The measure, which received some bipartisan support, passed with a vote 217-214. It now heads to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.
The measure provides funding for the Pentagon, Education, Treasury, Labor and State departments through the end of the fiscal year. The bill also includes a two-week short-term measure to keep Department of Homeland Security funded through the end of next week.
Earlier — after some drama and delay — the House passed a key procedural hurdle that set up the later vote, with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky as the only no vote along with all Democrats. The vote was held open for about 45 minutes as several Republicans held out on casting their votes.
Republican leaders ultimately worked the holdouts to secure enough votes to advance the package.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, who faces an incredibly tight margin, could only afford to lose one Republican vote with all members present and voting.
Johnson earlier Tuesday told reporters that he was confident the package, passed in the Senate after an 11th-hour deal between Senate Democrats and the White House, will pass.
“This may be hard for some of y’all to believe, but I never doubted this,” Johnson said at his weekly news conference Tuesday morning.
The agreement separated a Department of Homeland Security funding bill from five others funding other agencies for the rest of the fiscal year, and grants two weeks of extended DHS funding to negotiate Democratic demands for restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement amid its immigration enforcement operation, including requiring agents to wear body cameras turned on and to not wear masks.
The funding fight over DHS erupted in the aftermath of the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal law enforcement in Minneapolis on Jan. 24.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Johnson over the weekend that Democrats would not help Republicans expedite the funding package.
Meanwhile, hard-line Republicans also threatened to hold the package up in hopes of attaching an unrelated bill that would require a proof of citizenship in federal elections known as the SAVE Act. Though some hard-liners, including Reps. Anna Paulina Luna and Tim Burchett, had backed down on their demands.
Trump said Monday that he has spoken to congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle and expressed confidence in a resolution coming soon.
President Donald Trump speaks to the press as he departs the White House, May 12, 2026 in Washington.(Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said Americans’ financial situation was “not even a little bit” of a motivating factor for him reaching a deal to end the war in Iran, despite a new report that inflation rose for a second consecutive month and hit a three-year high.
Trump made the comment on Tuesday as he took questions from reporters as he left the White House for a high-stakes trip to China.
“Not even a little bit,” the president said when asked to what extent Americans’ financial situations were motivating him to make a deal with Iran, as the war stretches into its 11th week.
“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran, they can’t have a nuclear weapon,” Trump continued. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all.”
ABC News White House Correspondent Karen Travers pressed Trump to clarify whether he was considering the financial impact of the war on Americans. He doubled down.
“The most important thing, by far, is Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.
“What about the pressure on Americans and prices, right now?” ABC’s Travers asked.
“Every American understands,” Trump said.
He added, “They understand that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, the whole world would be in trouble because they happen to be crazy.”
When pressed on his 2024 campaign promise to bring down inflation in light of Tuesday’s report showing prices rose 3.8% in April compared to last year, Trump insisted his policies are “working incredibly.”
A recent poll from ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos found about two-thirds of Americans (65%) disapproved of how Trump is handling the economy. About three-quarters of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living in the U.S. (76%) with just about a quarter approving (23%). Nearly as many disapprove of how he’s handling inflation (72%), up from 65% who disapproved in February.
Several of the poll’s participants spoke to ABC News about the financial strain they’re experiencing because of soaring gas prices.
As of Tuesday, the national average for a gallon of gas in the U.S. was $4.50, according to data from AAA, up more than $1.50 since the war began in late February.
Trump, who on Monday floated a gas tax holiday to bring some financial relief to Americans, reiterated on Tuesday his belief that prices will go back down once the conflict comes to an end.
“When it’s over, you’re going to have a massive drop in the price of oil,” Trump told reporters.
Pope Leo XIV holds his speech as he pays a visit to the Maqam Echahid Martyr’s Memorial on April 13, 2026 in Algiers, Algeria. (Photo by Simone Risoluti – Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images)
(ALGIERS and LONDON) — Pope Leo XIV on Monday responded to criticism from President Donald Trump, telling reporters while traveling to Algeria that he has “no fear” of the White House.
“I have no fear of the Trump administration, nor speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel,” the pontiff said on Monday, as he began a dayslong visit to four African nations. “That’s what I believe in. I am called to do what the church is called to do.”
The pope on Saturday called for an end to conflict, without explicitly mentioning the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. “Enough of war,” Leo said during a peace vigil in St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City.
The pope also suggested “delusion of omnipotence” is fueling the U.S.-Israel war in Iran, imploring the country leaders to come to a peace agreement.
Trump on Sunday night posted on social media calling the pope “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”
The pope, who was born in Chicago and is the first American to lead the Catholic Church, was elevated to his position in May 2025, a few months into Trump’s second term. The president at that time congratulated Leo, saying on social media that it was “such an honor” for an American to become pope.
The pontiff has voiced concern about several armed conflicts, repeatedly calling for peace, including mentioning the civil war raging in Sudan, the Russia-Ukraine war and the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. He has called for peace in Iran and the broader Middle East since the beginning of the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.
The pontiff has been a strong messenger for global peace since the start of his papacy last May.
He has repeatedly called for the parties involved to engage in negotiations, including saying on March 1 that he was making “a heartfelt appeal to all the parties involved to assume the moral responsibility of halting the spiral of violence before it becomes an unbridgeable chasm.” He has said that “God does not bless any conflict.”
Leo said on Monday that his comments “are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone and the message of the Gospel is very clear, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers.'”
“I will not shy away from pronouncing the message of the Gospel, of inviting all people to look for ways of building bridges for peace and reconciliation, of looking for ways to avoid war any time that’s possible,” Leo continued. “To put my message on the same plane as what the president has attempted to do here I think is not understanding what the message of the Gospel is and I’m sorry to hear that.”
Trump early on Monday had called for the pope to focus on “being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”
“It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!” Trump wrote on his social media network.
Responding to a question from reporters hours later, Leo said of the apparent tensions with Trump, “I do not look at my role as being political … I don’t want to get into a debate with him. I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing.”
“I will continue to speak out loud against war, looking to promote peace, promoting dialogue, multilateral relationships among the states to look for just solutions to problems,” he said. “Too many people are suffering in the world today. Too many innocent people are being killed. And I think someone has to stand up and say, ‘There’s a better way to do this.'”
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(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.
