Secret Service urged Trump to depart Turkey on old Air Force One as a security precaution, sources say
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the press for the first time aboard the new Air Force One while in flight from RAF Mildenhall AFB to Joint Base Andrews July 8, 2026 after leaving the United Kingdom. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Secret Service urged President Donald Trump to fly out of Turkey on the old Air Force One instead of the newly retrofitted Qatari-gifted plane out of an abundance of caution amid the escalation with Iran, multiple sources familiar with the plans told ABC News.
The Qatari-gifted plane left the NATO summit in Turkey earlier in the day for Mildenhall Air Force Base in England, a move Trump claimed Wednesday morning was for members of the military to tour the aircraft.
While Trump has said the change in plane had nothing to do with security concerns, he also reiterated, when asked by reporters if security concerns caused the change in flight plans, that he’s “No. 1 on the kill list for Iran.”
The change in plans was not prompted by a specific threat, but influenced in part by differences in the plane security capabilities, two U.S. officials told ABC News.
Mike Centrella, the Secret Service’s former head of field operations, said the law enforcement agency “simply doesn’t take chances when it comes to the president’s safety, whether at home or abroad.”
“Presidential travel is incredibly complex, and every movement and potential risk is carefully considered,” Centrella told ABC News. “The mindset is always the same: plan for what you know, prepare for what you don’t and make sure you’re ready for the unexpected.”
Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, told ABC News on Thursday that “the new Air Force One is a state-of-the-art aircraft that has been fitted with high-level security protocols that ensure the safety of the president and his staff. As the president has said recently, there are many enemies of America who have their sights on him, and we use every tool at our disposal — including distraction and misdirection — to address those threats.”
The New York Times first reported on the Secret Service recommendation.
When the president ultimately left Turkey in the old Air Force One to link up with the new plane in England, passengers on the aircraft were instructed to keep their windows down during the flight. According to flight data, the plane carrying the president did not turn on its tracker until it was over the Black Sea near Istanbul.
Despite continuing to insist there was no security issue that prompted him to change planes for his Turkey departure, Trump suggested that the passengers may have been asked to keep their window shades down because they were “probably on a dangerous flight.”
“Well, yeah, because you’re, you know, probably on a dangerous flight, because of the sleaze bags that we have to deal with,” Trump said, referring to Iran.
While the administration insists that the newly acquired plane meets the safety and security requirements necessary to fly the president, the speed of the retrofitting, which took about one year, has raised questions about whether the Qatari-gifted plane boasts the same defensive security measures as the old plane.
Many of the details of the retrofitting on the new plane are considered classified. The Air Force has said the new plane is “safe, secure and equipped with the most advanced technologies necessary to meet the requirements of the presidential mission. Those requirements were carefully crafted to prioritize mission over aesthetics, leaving much of the previous head of state interior layout minimally changed.”
On Tuesday, a group of Senate Democrats sent a letter to Air Force Secretary Troy Meink demanding transparency into the project from the Air Force and L3Harris, claiming the administration is ignoring national security concerns so in service of delivering Trump a “fancy plane for his personal enjoyment.”
Trump took his first trip in the newly retrofitted plane last week on a trip to North Dakota.
Before the first trip, the U.S. Air Force had been modifying the jet in Texas since September to meet the security, communications and other needs to transport the president. The Air Force had estimated it would cost less than $400 million to retrofit the gift.
The plane is to be used as the new Air Force One until shortly before Trump leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Donald J. Trump Presidential Library Foundation, sources familiar with the proposed arrangement have told ABC News.
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.
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, April 20, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favor of a U.S. Army veteran wounded in a 2016 suicide bombing in Afghanistan, allowing him to sue a military contractor for damages after it allegedly failed to supervise the attacker who was an employee.
The 6-3 decision reverses lower court rulings which had said the contractor, Fluor Corporation, was immune from lawsuits because it was operating on behalf of the U.S. government and opens the door to other damages suits against war-zone contractors for activities outside the bounds of their responsibility.
The attacker, Ahmad Nayeb, was employed by Fluor to work in a nontactical vehicle yard on Bagram Air Base under an Army contract that required the company to ensure all personnel complied with base security policies, which included their confinement to works sites and “constant view of them.”
In November 2016, Nayeb roamed the base freely for nearly an hour and used U.S. government tools to make his bomb inside the secure base, according to an Army investigation cited in court documents.
The explosion killed five and wounded 17, including then-Army Spc. Winston Hencely, who confronted the attacker just as he detonated his suicide vest. Nayeb was killed; the explosion fractured Hencely’s skull and resulted in permanent disability.
While damages claims against the U.S. government and its military contractors arising out of combatant activities are generally prohibited by federal law, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court’s majority, concluded immunity does not apply to cases when “the contractor was not required or authorized to take the action at issue.”
“The government required Fluor to hire Afghan employees and to provide logistics for Bagram Airfield. But, it did not, Hencely contends, require Fluor to leave Nayeb unsupervised, allow him to walk alone for an hour after his shift, or permit him to obtain unauthorized tools with which he could build a bomb,” Thomas wrote.
The decision clears the way for Hencely to pursue a damages case against the company in federal court.
In dissent, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts said while they believe Hencely deserves “a full measure of support from the American people,” a damages lawsuit is “not the way to give the petitioner what he is due.”
Alito wrote, “War is the exclusive domain of the Federal Government, but the Court [today] allows state (or foreign law) to encroach on that domain. The Constitution precludes that encroachment.”
Fluor Corp, which disputes liability for the bombing, did not immediately respond to ABC News’ request for comment on the court’s decision.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House on April 06, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — As his self-imposed Tuesday night deadline for Iran to make a deal or face massive U.S. attacks draws closer, President Donald Trump’s threatening rhetoric is becoming increasingly ominous, with a seemingly apocalyptic warning that a “whole civilization will die tonight” if Tehran doesn’t agree to his demands.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will,” Trump wrote on his social media platform.
At the same time, continuing a series of mixed messages, Trump said “maybe something revolutionarily wonderful can happen” now that the U.S. is dealing with “different, smarter, and less radicalized” leaders in Iran.
“We will find out tonight, one of the most important moments in the long and complex history of the World,” the president wrote.
Trump’s issued an ultimatum to Iran to make a peace deal that includes reopening the critical Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET, or face bombardment of its critical infrastructure — including all its bridges, power plants and desalination facilities.
Trump first threatened to target Iran’s civilian infrastructure on March 21, saying the sites would be hit in 48 hours if no deal was made. He’s backed away and extended the deadline several times, citing what he described as successful talks.
But the past few days, he’s ratcheted up his threats. On Sunday, he told ABC News Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott that “we’re blowing up the entire country” if no agreement was reached.
On Monday, he told reporters in the White House briefing room that “the entire country could be taken out in one night” and the U.S. had plans that could wipe out Iran’s power plants and bridges, sending it back to the “stone ages,” within four hours.
In the background, negotiations were taking place between the U.S. and Iran via mediators like Pakistan.
According to a U.S. official and another person close to the ongoing talks, mediators are attempting broker a 45-day ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran ahead of Trump’s Tuesday deadline. Iran signaled it would not accept the mediators’ proposal on Monday, responding instead with its own 10-point plan, which a U.S. official described as maximalist.
“We are dealing with them. I think it’s going well,” Trump said on Monday, adding that Vice President JD Vance and White House special envoy Steve Witkoff was involved in the negotiations.
“I think it’s going fine but we’ll have to see,” the president said.
Oscillating between threats of major attacks and talks of diplomacy, Trump was asked on Monday if the war was winding down or escalating.
“I don’t know. I can’t tell you,” he told reporters. “It depends what they do. This is a critical period.”
The New York Times and others reported on Tuesday that Iran told Pakistan it was no longer engaging in ceasefire talks. ABC News has not confirmed the report.
The White House, responding to the reports, told ABC News that the “only the president knows where things stand.”
“The Iranian regime has until 8 p.m. Eastern Time to meet the moment and make a deal with the United States. Only the President knows where things stand and what he will do,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.
Tehran has vowed a “regret-inducing” response should the U.S. wipe out its energy infrastructure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Tuesday told neighboring Gulf countries it will no longer show “restraint” in selecting regional targets for retaliation.
Iran’s deputy minister of sports and youth, Alireza Rahimi, invited people to form human chains around the country’s electricity power plants in a video message published on Monday, according to the government’s Telegram channel.
In the U.S., Trump’s increasingly grave threats have prompted some rare Republican pushback.
Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin, said he hopes Trump’s latest comments are “bluster.”
“I do not want to see us start blowing up civilian infrastructure … We are not at war with the Iranian people. We are trying to liberate them,” Johnson said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast.
Some experts have warned that possible attacks on civilian infrastructure could constitute a war crime and violate international law.
“I’m not worried about it,” Trump said on Monday. “You know what’s a war crime? Having a nuclear weapon. Allowing a sick country with demented leadership have a nuclear weapon, that’s a war crime.”
ABC News’ Somayeh Malekian, Shannon Kingston and Justin Gomez contributed to this report.
