Noem faces grilling on Capitol Hill over ICE operations and Iran threat

(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) — 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 vote comes as many federal workers continue to go unpaid and travelers face massive lines at airports as Transportation Security Administration employees working without pay call out.

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.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(MINNEAPOLIS)– Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey defended himself and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Sunday, insisting they’ve “done nothing wrong” amid what sources say is a new federal investigation targeting the two Democratic officials.

“If the rumors are true, this is deeply concerning, because this is way more important than just me. This is a very serious matter, and this whole investigation would ultimately be the product of one of the most basic foundational responsibilities that I have as mayor, which is to speak on behalf of my constituents,” Frey told “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl. “There are other countries where you get put away for the things that you say. There are other countries where you get investigated for saying something that runs counter to what the federal government states. But in this country, it’s not that way.”

Frey said his office has not received a subpoena from the Department of Justice. He said he intends to comply with the investigation.

“Look, we have done nothing wrong, so of course we will comply in it, but at the same time, we need to be understanding how wild this is. We are doing everything possible right now to keep people safe in our city. We have spoken out to make sure that our residents are protected and people’s constitutional rights are upheld. Speaking out in that way is not illegality,” Frey said.

ABC News reported Friday night that the Justice Department was investigating whether Frey and Walz have been obstructing federal law enforcement activities in the state, according to multiple U.S. officials.

In response, Walz accused the administration of “weaponizing the justice system and threatening political opponents.”

Without directly confirming the investigation, shortly after news broke Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law.”

In a separate interview on “This Week,” Rep. Michael McCaul — a Republican member and former chair of the House Homeland Security Committee — said that investigating political leaders like this is “uncommon.”

“It’s a federal offense to impede a federal investigation like we’re seeing in the streets right now. I think that is very uncommon to go after political figures like that. I think it may be more of a statement more than anything else. But you know, we’ll see,” the Texas lawmaker said.

Frey and Walz have clashed with the Trump administration in recent weeks. Up to 3,000 federal agents have been surged to Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement operations and investigate fraud allegations. Those agents have been met by protesters demanding they cease operations and leave the state.

On Jan. 7, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot Minneapolis resident Renee Good, a mother of three. The deadly altercation prompted outrage from residents, local officials and Democratic lawmakers, as well as continued protests, which have been mostly peaceful. The Trump administration has defended the officer, asserting he was acting in self defense because it says the shooting victim was attempting to run him over with her vehicle.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said there are no plans to pull federal agents from the city.

Walz put the Minnesota National Guard on standby over the weekend in case protests got out of hand. While there were some clashes between protesters and counterprotesters, the Guard has not been deployed to the streets.

On “This Week,” Frey said the federal agents’ presence is to blame for the inflamed tensions on the ground.

“The intensity is caused by the unwanted, uninvited people that are here in the form of ICE,” Frey said, adding that there around about five times as many federal agents in the city than there are city police officers. “The calm exists where you don’t have ICE agents. So, if you are looking to restore order and prevent chaos, there’s a very straightforward antidote, and that is for ICE to leave.”

Frey said he doesn’t regret telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis after the fatal shooting of Good.

“I don’t regret it at all,” Frey said. “If I seemed like I was angry and frustrated, I was. And part of my responsibility as mayor is to channel what in our city are feeling. And the people in our city were angry. They were upset.”

McCaul, the Texas Republican, called on everybody to tone down the rhetoric and try to deescalate tensions.

“I think we need to — on both sides — start calming down the rhetoric. I’m glad the president did not invoke the Insurrection Act. To throw our military in the middle of all of this just sort of escalated the violence,” he said.

The president has not ruled out invoking the 1807 law that would allow him to deploy the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. However, he said on Friday, “I don’t think there’s any reason right now to use it.”

While the administration has defended federal agents’ conduct, McCaul said he thinks “maybe some [officers] need to go maybe have some enhanced training.”

Asked about Vice President JD Vance and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller asserting ICE officers have “immunity” from federal prosecution, McCaul said, “That’s not accurate.”

“I mean, if there’s an unlawful use of force, that is something that can be prosecuted by — under federal law,” said McCaul, who previously worked for the DOJ. “They don’t have full immunity if, you know, if they violate the use of force laws. But at the same time, people who impede a federal investigation don’t have immunity from that either.”

However, McCaul agreed with the administration that immigration enforcement operations are necessary due to the surge in undocumented immigrants who entered the country under the Biden administration.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.