National Guard shooting suspect to be arraigned Wednesday
National Guard soldiers respond to a shooting near the White House on November 26, 2025 in Washington, DC. At least two National Guardsmen have been shot blocks from the White House. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The man accused of ambushing West Virginia National Guard members near the White House in November, killing one and severely wounding another, is set to be arraigned in court on Wednesday.
Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died of her injuries on Nov. 26, the day before Thanksgiving. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe suffered a gunshot wound to the head and remains in recovery.
Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national who previously worked with the CIA in Afghanistan, faces nine charges, including first-degree murder, assault with intent to kill and illegal possession of a firearm, and has pleaded not guilty.
Lakanwal was one of thousands of Afghans evacuated to the United States after the Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in 2021, his application for asylum was approved in 2025 under the Trump administration.
Court documents say Lakanwal shot Beckstrom and Wolfe in the back of the head with a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver. A National Guard major returned fire, and another Guard officer subdued Lakanwal. Wolfe is still recovering and will have cranioplasty, or skull reconstruction surgery, in March, according to Melody Wolfe, his mother.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said she is seeking the death penalty. Lakanwal’s attorney declined to comment.
In Afghanistan, Lakanwal was affiliated with a so-called Zero Unit, working closely with the CIA and special operations, ABC News reported in December. He was considered a trusted member of the unit, which carried out U.S. counterterrorism missions, officials with direct knowledge explained.
Investigators believe Lakanwal was under financial strain after his work permit expired and may have been experiencing a mental health crisis, sources told ABC News.
Investigators are also examining whether the recent death of an Afghan commander Lakanwal had worked with and might have admired may have worsened his mental and emotional state, according to sources.
The two guard members were a part of President Donald Trump’s surge of troops into Washington, D.C., for law enforcement. After the shooting, the president deployed an additional 500 guard members into D.C. where some 2,600 are currently deployed performing civic duties like cleaning garbage off the street and patrolling the city’s tourist spots and parks and Metro rail stations.
The guard deployment will last through 2026, two officials told ABC News in January.
The U.S. Capitol is seen on March 16, 2026, in Washington, DC. The U.S. House of Representatives postponed its votes for the day due to the chance of severe thunderstorms around the DC area. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democrats once again on Friday blocked a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security on Friday as they continue to insist on reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in exchange for funding the agency.
It marks the fifth time since the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security — which began in mid-February — that the funding bill has failed to be advanced in the Senate.
The bill that Republicans put forward on Friday to fund all of DHS would have needed 60 votes to advance. It fell short by a vote of 47-37.
Parts of DHS — from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the Transportation Security Administration — are shut down amid a funding fight over ICE.
Democrats have said they will fund the department only if changes are made to the agency in the wake of the shooting deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis earlier this year.
Democrats said that they will continue to block funding until their demands on body cameras, judicial warrants and unmasking officers are met.
“Democrats have been very clear what we are asking for here since late January, and our asks have not changed,” Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor Friday.
There are signs of potential progress though as Border Czar Tom Homan met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday to discuss DHS funding, and Majority Leader John Thune told ABC News that there will be another meeting between lawmakers and Homan later Friday.
These meetings follow repeated demands by Democrats for the White House to engage in the negotiations over ICE reform.
Thune said that Friday’s meeting with Homan would be critical in determining whether there could be movement on funding.
“We’re going to find out if Dems are serious. There were a couple of areas yesterday that they had identified, in additions to some of the, you know, reforms the administration had recommended that to me could find a path forward,” Thune said. “The question is, are Dems serious? Or do they see this as a political issue and something that benefits them.”
Murray, who was part of the negotiations with Homan Thursday, said that the conversations were “productive,” but that the “basic challenges remain.” She said that Democrats remain “very far apart” from Republicans and the White House on a path forward.
With long airport security lines plaguing travelers across the country, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are feeling the heat to hammer out a deal.
“This needs to be resolved,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner said. “I mean, there are genuine disputes about ICE reforms. I think no one wants to see a return of what we saw in Minneapolis. But that doesn’t mean we should be holding the rest of these federal employees hostage again.”
As negotiations continue there have been efforts by Democrats to fund other agencies in DHS other than ICE — like the Coast Guard, TSA, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. But Republicans have blocked those efforts, saying that Democrats need to negotiate a full funding package rather than taking a piecemeal approach.
“Democrats have tried again and again to get paychecks to TSA and CISA and the Coast Guard and FEMA — agencies that are doing really important work right now,” Murray said. “The only reason these workers are going without pay right now is because Republicans are holding their funding hostage so they can try to give ICE even more money without including any necessary reforms.”
While there is some FY2026 funding for ICE, the agency received a $75 billion infusion of funding over the next decade through the already-passed “Big Beautiful Bill.”
Democrats are expected to continue efforts to fund these agencies, including TSA, while negotiations proceed. But right now, it does not seem that Republicans are open to this approach.
U.S. Supreme Court building on March 31, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Roberto Schmidt/Getty Images)
(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.
Justices of the US Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. (Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Nearly two years after the Supreme Court’s monumental 2024 decision granting President Donald Trump sweeping immunity from prosecution, the ruling’s broader impact on American government is beginning to come into focus as Trump and his lawyers repeatedly invoke the case in an effort to get the justices to endorse expansive presidential power.
“That’s not a coincidence, it’s a strategy,” said James Sample, a constitutional scholar at Hofstra Law and ABC News legal contributor. “They’re not just invoking a precedent, they’re building an architecture.”
An ABC News review of the unprecedented 29 Trump emergency applications to the Supreme Court in his second term found that nearly a third directly cited Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in the immunity case, Trump v. U.S.
Trump attorneys reference portions of the court’s immunity decision at least 21 times to argue for “unrestricted” presidential power to fire executive branch employees; unreviewable control over “matters related to terrorism, trade and immigration;” and absolute authority as commander-in-chief to deploy troops to aid domestic law enforcement.
The Constitution “creates an ‘energetic, independent executive,’ not a subservient executive,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote the court, quoting Roberts, in a September request to allow Trump to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook.
“These aren’t random citations,” Sample said. “The White House Counsel’s Office has read that opinion very carefully, and they are using it methodically.”
The court is still crafting a decision in the Cook case but has generally embraced the administration’s broad view of presidential authority to remove federal employees and supervise agencies.
Since January 2025, however, the justices have not referenced Trump v. U.S. to justify any of its decisions in favor of the Trump administration, leading some court analysts to question why the conservative majority has avoided explicitly invoking its own precedent.
“We just don’t know yet what this case means, and it will be up to a future Supreme Court to define it,” said Sarah Isgur, SCOTUS blog editor and ABC News legal contributor.
On several occasions, Trump appeals relying on the immunity decision have been rejected.
The court declined to embrace Trump administration claims in April 2025 that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was interwoven with the president’s “important foreign relations responsibilities,” which Roberts had indicated in the immunity decision were off limits for judicial review.
A majority of justices also rejected Trump’s argument that a lower court block on his National Guard deployment in Chicago infringed on core constitutional powers as commander-in-chief, which were detailed in Roberts’ opinion in the immunity case.
“They have been making a more powerful president — with more complete control over the executive branch and its employees,” said Isgur of the high court’s conservative majority, “but also a weaker presidency that has to go back to Congress if it wants to move the law in any meaningful way.”
Some legal scholars note the Trump v. U.S. decision also broke new ground by putting in writing the idea that the president has exclusive authority to enforce federal law and unchecked prosecutorial discretion — an endorsement that some say has had at the very least a psychological impact on the president and his team.
Roberts’ opinion enshrines the idea that “investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function” and that the president has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute.”
“The Justice Department will likely use [the ruling’s] discussion of the exclusive power over prosecution and investigation to push the bounds of this discretion,” wrote Harvard Law professor and former assistant attorney general during the George W. Bush administration Jack Goldsmith in a recent law review article.
Trump has asserted himself as the nation’s top law enforcer in his second term, personally directing the attorney general and other top officials on whom to investigate and whom to prosecute.
Trump has pushed indictments of many of his perceived opponents, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, California Sen. Adam Schiff, and former special counsel Jack Smith.
When six Democratic members of Congress posted a video telling military service members that they had the right not to carry out unlawful orders, Trump said the “traitors” should be “arrested and put on trial.” Efforts to secure an indictment subsequently failed.
The Supreme Court’s opinion in the Trump immunity case explicitly enshrines the president’s right to active involvement in the cases and others like them.
“The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with the Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'” Roberts wrote, quoting Article II of the Constitution. Later, Roberts adds on behalf of the court, a president has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials, and the president cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority.”
“Those quotes are also just true as a matter of the Constitution,” Isgur said. “That’s what a president is supposed to do. What’s new is using criminal prosecutors for partisan purposes — and there’s no quotes about that in the case.”
A majority of Americans, 55%, believe Trump is using the Justice Department to file unjustified criminal charges against his opponents, according to a November 2025 Marquette Law School poll; 45% think the charges have been justified.
At the same time, most Americans — 56% — disapprove of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, compared with 44% who approve, the Marquette poll found.
“The Court has traditionally proceeded cautiously and carefully when marking out exclusive presidential power because the president is known to run hard when the Court recognizes such power. But it did the opposite in Trump v U.S.,” Goldsmith argues.
“The Court issued an incautious and overly broad ruling on exclusive presidential powers that presidents will use to their advantage against the other branches,” Goldsmith wrote, “until the Court, in more considered reflection, acknowledges its imprudence and alters course.”
