Trump administration deports 8 migrants to South Sudan
(WASHINGTON) — The Trump administration deported eight migrants to South Sudan, according to a Department of Homeland Security official, after the administration had to halt their deportation to a base in Djibouti.
“A district judge cannot dictate the national security and foreign policy of the United States of America,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said to ABC News. “This Independence Day marks another victory for the safety and security of the American people.”
The plane landed in South Sudan just before midnight EST on Friday.
The eight migrants, who DHS has alleged have serious criminal convictions, were the subject of a lawsuit that had halted their deportation to South Sudan and diverted them to a U.S. military base in Djibouti.
The conditions at the base, according to court filings, were both challenging for the detainees and ICE officials who were tasked with watching them.
The lawsuit made it all the way up to the Supreme Court and the court ruled that the Trump administration was not bound by a lower court order to keep them at a military facility in Djibouti.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that the noncitizens the Trump administration moved to deport to South Sudan — and has since held temporarily in Djibouti in legal limbo — is not bound by a lower court order to keep them there as legal proceedings play out.
The decision is another win for the Trump administration and its unprecedented effort to deport immigrants to countries with which they have no ties and where they may face mistreatment.
In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court explained that when it lifted judge-imposed due process requirements for third-country removals last month the government can no longer be held to account for allegedly violating the requirements.
One of the lawyers representing the group of men called their deportation to South Sudan “punitive and unconstitutional.”
“Because of the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling, these men were denied an opportunity to contest their deportations to South Sudan based on their fear of torture or death,” said Trina Realmuto in a statement to ABC News. “The U.S. State Department warns Americans against all travel to South Sudan yet deported these men there without any due process. Make no mistake about it, these deportations were punitive and unconstitutional.”
-ABC News’ Laura Romero contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Friday morning accused China of violating a recent trade agreement with the United States.
The sharp criticism appeared to cast doubt over the staying power of the accord, setting up the possibility of a rekindled trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
“China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,” Trump said in a social media post Friday morning. “So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!”
Trump did not identify the action taken by China that had violated the agreement.
The remarks came hours after U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent voiced pessimism about U.S.-China trade talks in an interview with Fox News on Thursday night.
“I would say that they are a bit stalled,” Bessent said when asked about the status of the trade talks. “I believe that we will be having more talks with them in the next few weeks, and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and Party Chair Xi [Jinping].”
U.S. stocks fell slightly in early trading on Friday morning after the comments from Trump and Bessent.
A trade agreement between the U.S. and China earlier this month slashed tit-for-tat tariffs imposed by the two countries, triggering a surge in the stock market and softening recession forecasts on Wall Street.
The U.S. agreed to cut tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, while China committed to reduce tariffs on U.S. products from 125% to 10%. The lowered tariffs are set to remain in place for 90 days while the two sides negotiate a wider trade deal.
The remaining 30% tariffs imposed on Chinese goods faced a major setback this week, however, when a panel of federal judges struck down the legal justification for the levies.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of International Trade late Wednesday invalidated the China tariffs, along with a host of other levies on dozens of countries unveiled in a Rose Garden ceremony that Trump had dubbed “Liberation Day.”
A federal appeals court moved to temporarily reinstate the tariffs on Thursday, leaving the ultimate fate of the policy uncertain.
(WASHINGTON) — House Republicans are working to get their mega-bill encompassing Trump’s legislative agenda back on track Friday morning — a day after hard-liners in the party signaled that they would derail it over concerns that it adds to a bloated national debt.
The GOP holdouts could complicate advancing the package out of the House Budget Committee as it convenes Friday morning.
Republican Rep. Josh Brecheen, who appeared skeptical on Thursday, said on social media that “we have a duty to know the true cost of this legislation before advancing it. If we are to operate in truth, we must have true numbers — even if that means taking some more time to obtain that truth.”
They are also working to strike a consensus on the SALT caps — the amount of state and local taxes that can be written off on federal tax returns — as moderates draw a red line opposing the proposed $30,000 cap on those deductions.
The vote is yet another test of Speaker Mike Johnson’s speakership as he works to placate the hard-liners and unify the factions of his conference.
On Thursday, Johnson spoke with the holdouts and said budget negotiations are still ongoing.
“Keep this thing moving forward,” he said of the more than 1,000-page mega-bill.
Johnson said Friday that he is keeping President Donald Trump up to date with the latest developments with the massive package and that the president is excited about the House’s “forward progress.” Johnson said he has not asked Trump for help whipping hard-liners in support of the bill.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s strike against Iran will be met with pushback on Capitol Hill this week as some lawmakers argue the military action was unconstitutional.
There are several bipartisan resolutions that could receive a vote in coming days that may put some lawmakers in uncomfortable positions as they consider whether Trump ignored the role of Congress in striking Tehran.
It’s unlikely though, at this stage, that Trump’s rank-and-file Republican base will broadly abandon him by supporting these bills. If any were to make it to Trump’s desk, there likely wouldn’t be enough votes to override his veto.
“I don’t think this is an appropriate time for a war powers resolution, and I don’t think it’s necessary,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Monday afternoon at the Capitol.
Fears of escalation ramped up on Monday as Iran retaliated against the U.S. with a missile attack on a U.S. military base in Qatar. The missiles were intercepted and there were no immediate reports of casualties at the base, according to U.S. officials.
Johnson said it’s up to Trump whether the United States responds to Iran’s attempt to retaliate on Monday.
“The president warned them not to retaliate, but he was also very clear that the threat of Iran obtaining nuclear capability is a threat not just to Israel and the Middle East, but to the United States as well. They’ve been very clear about their intentions and how much they hate us,” Johnson said. “The president made an evaluation that the danger was imminent enough to take his authority as commander in chief.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed skepticism about Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend.
“We’ve seen no evidence to date that an offensive strike of this nature was justified under the War Powers Act or the Constitution,” Jeffries said at a news conference in the Capitol on Monday. “And what I can say is not a scintilla of evidence to date has been presented that I have seen to justify the notion that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America.”
Trump’s decision to hit Iran in the stated aim of wiping out its nuclear capabilities follows a decades-long pattern of presidents taking military action and not waiting for Congress to sign off. Other examples include Joe Biden’s airstrikes in Syria in 2021, Barack Obama’s military campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq as well as George H.W. Bush’s invasion of Panama.
House and Senate lawmakers are expected to receive briefings on the Iran strike on Tuesday.
Trump faces bipartisan blowback
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a War Powers Resolution last week to prohibit “United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine is leading a similar Senate resolution, which could come up sometime this week as the chamber tries to move forward with a megabill to fund much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda.
All three appeared on “Face the Nation” on CBS News on Sunday to make their case.
Massie contended there was “no imminent threat to the United States” that would authorize the president to strike Iran without congressional approval.
Kaine similarly said: “This is the U.S. jumping into a war of choice at Donald Trump’s urging without any compelling national security interests for the United States to act in this way, particularly without a debate and vote in Congress. We should not be sending troops and risking troops’ lives in an offensive war without a debate in Congress.”
Kaine added that he hopes Republicans push back.
“I know many Republicans will fall in line and say a president can do whatever he wants. But I hope members of the Senate and the House will take their Article I responsibilities seriously,” the Virginia Democrat said.
Khanna warned there is a possibility the strike is not a one-time occurrence.
“There are people who want regime change in Iran. And they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail,” Khanna said on CBS. “We need to pass Thomas Massie and my War Powers Resolution to make it clear that we’re not going to get further entrenched into the Middle East.”
Trump lashed out at Massie in a lengthy social media post on Sunday, writing the Republican congressman is “not MAGA” and that “MAGA doesn’t want him” and “doesn’t respect him.” Trump said he’ll campaign for Massie’s Republican primary opponent in the next election.
Congress has twice before called out Trump on his use of military force without congressional approval.
In 2019, Congress approved a bill to end U.S. support for the war in Yemen, which Trump vetoed. In 2020, Trump ordered the drone strike that killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. In response, Congress passed legislation seeking to limit a president’s ability to wage war against Iran, which was again quickly rejected by Trump.
What is the 1973 War Powers Resolution?
The legislation introduced by Massie and Khanna seeking to limit Trump’s ability to take U.S. military action against Iran cites the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states that the president “in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
It also states that in the absence of a declaration of war but when armed forces are introduced, the president must report to Congress within 48 hours the circumstances necessitating their introduction and must terminate the use of U.S. armed forces within 60 days unless Congress permits otherwise. If approval is not granted and the president deems it an emergency, then an additional 30 days are granted for ending operations.
Trump admin says strike was legally justified
Top officials defended the military action over the weekend. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the administration “complied with the notification requirements” of the War Powers Resolution, saying members of Congress were notified “after the planes were safely out.”
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio also sought to emphasize the U.S. is not at war with Iran.
Trump, though, warned that more strikes could come if Iran doesn’t negotiate a deal.
“If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill,” he said in his address to the nation on Saturday night.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a vocal supporter of military action against Iran leading up to Trump’s decision, argued on NBC News that Trump has all the authority he needs under Article II of the Constitution.
“Congress can declare war or cut off funding,” Graham said. “We can’t be the commander in chief. You can’t have 535 commanders-in-chief.”
The administration could also cite an existing military authorization as grounds for legal justification for striking against Iran.
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) is a joint resolution passed by Congress that authorized counterterrorism operations by U.S. military forces against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Congress passed another AUMF targeting Iraq in 2002. Both have since been cited to authorize military force in more than 20 countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Somalia due to the broad language in the resolutions.
Critics have often said the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs grant the president powers to unilaterally wage “perpetual worldwide wars” and some lawmakers have been keen to repeal it — but those efforts have all been unsuccessful.
ABC News’ John Parkinson and Lauren Peller contributed to this report.
