Rep. Turner says he doesn’t think ground troops necessary to reopen Strait of Hormuz
Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, appears on ABC News’ “This Week” on April 5, 2026. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Rep. Mike Turner defended the U.S. war with Iran on Sunday and said that he doesn’t believe an American ground force would be required to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
“I don’t think U.S. ground troops are going to be necessary in any direct conflict,” Turner told ABC News’ “This Week” anchor George Stephanopoulos after being pressed on whether troops on the ground would be needed to reopen the strait.
“The straits are going to be open,” Turner told Stephanopoulos, but said that the U.S. cannot allow Iran to continue developing missile technology or nuclear weapons that could threaten the American homeland and Europe.
“You have to be able to address this … great sponsor of terrorism, this … global power ambition that Iran has,” he said.
Turner’s comments come as President Donald Trump has repeatedly indicated that the Strait of Hormuz is not the U.S.’s problem.
“The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won’t be taking any in the future. We don’t need it. We haven’t needed it and we don’t need it,” Trump said Wednesday in a prime-time address to the nation, adding that it was the responsibility of other countries to secure the strait.
“We will be helpful, but they should take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on,” he said.
Turner said that despite the impact of the war on global oil markets, the consequences of inaction from the U.S. against Iran would have been greater.
“Certainly, you know, Iran is going to have some things that they’re going to be able to do during the conflict,” Turner said. “But if you don’t undertake the conflict, if you just step back and watch, as the Obama administration was going to do while Iran became a nuclear power and they became North Korea, we wouldn’t be looking at the Strait of Hormuz,” he added, claiming that if Iran had developed nuclear weapons the world would be “held hostage by a terrorist state.”
“They still are being significantly diminished,” Turner said, “and their ability to be able to be marching toward a nuclear state is being eliminated.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi delivers remarks on an arrest connected to the 2012 U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, at the Department of Justice on February 6, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi is facing a grilling Wednesday as she testifies before the House Judiciary Committee amid multiple controversies.
She will likely be questioned about her handling of the Epstein files, the Justice Department’s targeting of President Donald Trump’s political foes, and the FBI raid seizing 2020 ballots in Georgia amid the president’s baseless claims of election fraud.
Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have been sharply critical of the Department’s incomplete release of the Epstein files and extensive DOJ redactions after some viewed unredacted files at the agency beginning Monday.
Tensions are expected to be strong as a group of Epstein survivors are seated behind Bondi. The group spoke out about the federal investigation into the convicted sex offender earlier Wednesday.
She could also be grilled about her efforts to revive cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York’s Democratic Attorney General Tish James after indictments against them were tossed.
Bondi is also set to face questions about the raid to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro — something administration officials have said was a law enforcement operation. Given that, questions have been raised about why the attorney general was not present to discuss the matter at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago news conference announcing the raid.
The attorney general has testified on Capitol Hill only a handful of times.
In her most recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, she appeared to use prepared lines of attack against Democratic lawmakers who demanded she answer their tough questions.
Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-Texas, makes his way to House votes in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, June 5, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Embattled Rep. Tony Gonzales announced Thursday evening that he will no longer seek reelection in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, following calls from House Republican leadership to drop out of the race after the congressman admitted to having a relationship with a staffer.
“After deep reflection and with the support of my loving family, I have decided not to seek re-election while serving out the rest of this Congress with the same commitment I’ve always had to my district,” Gonzales wrote in a statement on X. “Through the rest of my term, I will continue fighting for my constituents, for whom I am eternally grateful.”
Gonzales’ statement touted various accomplishments from his three terms in Congress, with an emphasis on his “absolute dedication” to the U.S.
“My philosophy has never changed: do as much as you can, and always fight for the greater good,” he wrote.
Gonzales’ announcement came the same day House Republican leadership on Thursday asked Gonzales to drop out of the race.
“The Ethics Committee has announced an investigation into Congressman Tony Gonzales’s conduct, and we urge them to act expeditiously,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Republican Whip Tom Emmer and Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain said in a joint statement.
“Congressman Gonzales has said he will fully cooperate with the investigation. We have encouraged him to address these very serious allegations directly with his constituents and his colleagues. In the meantime, Leadership has asked Congressman Gonzales to withdraw from his race for re-election,” they added.
Johnson told reporters later that the GOP’s call for Gonzales to drop his reelection bid — rather than resign from Congress — amounts to “a death penalty” for Gonzales.
“Leadership put out a statement. It speaks for itself. We’ve encouraged him to drop out of the race for reelection,” Johnson said. “Politically, that’s a death penalty.”
Gonzales on Tuesday night advanced to a runoff primary election on May 26 against conservative activist Brandon Herrera.
The next day, Gonzales spoke with talk show host Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo who asked if he had a relationship with his district director, Regina Santos-Aviles, who later died by suicide.
“Was there a relationship with this young lady, um, who was working in your office?” Pagliarulo asked Gonzales at the outset of the interview on Wednesday.
“I made a mistake, and I had a lapse in judgment, and there was a lack of faith, and I take full responsibility for those actions,” Gonzales answered. “Since then, I’ve reconciled with my wife Angel. I’ve asked God to forgive me, which he has. And my faith is as strong as ever. When you make mistakes like this, you know, it’s never easy. It humbles you.”
Gonzales said he looks forward to the House Ethics Committee’s investigation into the allegations.
The panel said it has established an investigative subcommittee to examine allegations that Gonzales “may have: (1) engaged in sexual misconduct towards an individual employed in his congressional office; and/or (2) discriminated unfairly by dispensing special favors or privileges.”
“I appreciate the opportunity to be able to provide all the facts and all the details that lead to exactly what occurred in the entire situation,” said Gonzales, who has declined to withdraw from his reelection bid.
The congressman had previously denied the relationship with Santos-Aviles.
Despite now admitting his relationship with her, Gonzales distanced himself from her death, claiming that he had not spoken with her since June of 2024, before she ultimately died the following year.
“You know, the facts are, I hadn’t spoken with Ms. Santos since June of 2024. She passed September of 2025. That was over a year ago. So, this is what I think is important as well — is this whole notion that I had anything to do with her death. I had absolutely nothing to do with her tragic passing. And in fact, I was shocked just as much as everyone else,” Gonzales said.
Congressional payroll records show that Santos-Aviles was still employed in Gonzales’ office on the date of her death, Sept. 14, 2025.
Gonzales insisted that Santos-Aviles was treated well in his office and showed no signs of distress leading up to her death, claiming that she was “thriving at work.”
“I’ve always highlighted the great work that she had done for our office and the community,” Gonzales said, before pinning blame on the media coverage of the matter.
ABC News previously obtained explicit text messages from May of 2024 appearing to show Gonzales repeatedly request photos and ask Santos-Aviles about her sexual preferences.
Asked by Pagliarulo about the text messages, Gonzales insisted that there is “a lot more to the story that isn’t out there,” without commenting further on the content of any other communications with Santos-Aviles.
Asked if he understands the issues surrounding a boss having a relationship with his subordinate, Gonzales acknowledged that it’s an “important” and “serious issue that we have to talk about,” before again emphasizing the need for “all the facts.”
ABC News has obtained the Uvalde police report on Santos-Aviles death through a records request, but the report has not been posted publicly.
During Wednesday’s interview, Gonzales brushed off concerns from fellow House Republicans that have called for his resignation, saying, “you’re always going to have political enemies.”
“I don’t speak with those two on a regular basis, that we operate in different … groups, if you will,” Gonzales said, referring to Republican Reps. Nancy Mace and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have voiced concerns over the allegations against him. “But what I will say is you can never let those people slow you down in any form or fashion.”
Gonzales, who maintains President Donald Trump’s endorsement despite the allegations and ethics inquiry, said he has not spoken directly with Trump about the matter.
“I appreciate the president’s support,” Gonzales said.
“I was just actually in Corpus [Christi] when he came down to Texas. That was an incredible event. Everybody was energized,” Gonzales added, referring to the president’s trip last week where Trump gave the congressman a shoutout and congratulated him before the crowd.
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.
