Trump, in historic first, attends Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship
US President Donald Trump departs the North Portico of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump attended oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, a historic first for a sitting president, as the justices consider his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.
No cameras are allowed inside the courtroom. Trump’s motorcade arrived outside the building on Wednesday morning shortly before arguments began. His motorcade later departed the court after Solicitor General John Sauer’s presentation on behalf of the government.
Trump previously floated attending arguments last year when the court took up his global tariff policy, but ultimately he did not attend.
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Supreme Court in the wake of the ruling invalidating most of his tariffs, including two justices he appointed, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
“I love a few of them, I don’t like some others,” Trump said on Tuesday when asked which justices he would be listening for most closely.
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.
Lower courts have struck down Trump’s executive order.
American Civil Liberties Union Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued on behalf of the class of plaintiffs. Wang herself is a birthright citizen, born in Oregon to Taiwanese parents.
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance, saying he will “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.
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat from Michigan, said on Wednesday that she is under federal investigation for a video that she and other Democratic lawmakers posted on social media last year that told military service members that they could refuse illegal orders.
“Last week, U.S. Attorney from the District of Columbia, former Fox host Jeannine Pirro, reached out asking to interview me because of a 90-second video that I filmed in November,” Slotkin said in a video posted to X this morning. “This is on top of an FBI inquiry that came in from the counter terrorism division late last year.”
Slotkin, a former CIA officer, first learned that she was being investigated when she was contacted by federal prosecutors — a detail first reported by The New York Times, and confirmed to ABC News by her office.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office says they neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation. It’s not clear what the basis of the investigation may be.
In the November video under investigation, Slotkin appeared alongside other Democrats who previously served in the military or in the intelligence community telling U.S. service members that they have a right to refuse unlawful orders.
In November, a CIA spokeswoman attacked Slotkin for her participation in the video, saying in a social media post that the senator joins “the ranks of disgraced former intelligence officers” who have abused their “credentials to advance a malicious and disingenuous political agenda.”
The video has been a subject of focus because of separate actions taken by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, who was also featured in the original post on social media. Hegseth last week moved to censure Kelly, which led Kelly to file a lawsuit against Hegseth arguing the censure violated his constitutional rights.
The censure will result in a reduction in rank and Kelly’s retirement pay, a process Hegseth said would take 45 days.
Democrats involved in the video have defended their message as being in line with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Constitution.
Much like Kelly, Slotkin vowed that she won’t be silenced by the investigation.
“This president does not represent the views of the majority of Americans. Even if you voted for him, I do not believe that his vision of America is shared by a majority of Americans because this country is worth fighting for,” Slotkin said in her post on Wednesday. “Our freedom of speech is worth fighting for. Our values, our core values are worth fighting for and right now speaking out against the abuse of power is the most patriotic thing we can do.”
President Donald Trump has criticized the Democrats featured in the video, saying in social media posts in November that they are “traitors” whose actions are “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”
Asked in November if Trump wants to execute members of Congress, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the president did not — adding that the Democrats in the video are “encouraging [service members] to defy the president’s lawful orders.”
Hegseth said in his censure letter that the video “Undermines the Chain of Command; Creates Confusion About Duty; Brings Discredit Upon the Armed Forces; and Is Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.”
In her video on Wednesday, Slotkin said that following Trump’s posts, threats against her and her family have gone “through the roof.”
“I went on 24/7 security from Capitol Police, I had a bomb threat at my house. My parents were swatted in the middle of the night and my siblings had cop cars placed in their driveways,” Slotkin said.
She said this investigatory move comes from “the president’s playbook.”
“Truth doesn’t matter, facts don’t matter, and anyone who disagrees with him becomes an enemy, and he then weaponizes the federal government against them. It is legal intimidation and physical intimidation meant to get you to shut up.”
A view of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts which was recently renamed The Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the performing arts in Washington, DC on December 29, 2025. (Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s plan for a “Complete Rebuilding” of the Kennedy Center in Washington has sparked a legal debate over whether he — or Congress — has the power to control the high-profile cultural institution.
The battle began in December, when Trump’s name was added to the building’s facade — above the existing signage that reads “The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts” — following a unanimous vote by Trump’s hand-picked board of center trustees.
It escalated recently, when Trump announced it would close in July for two years — to make major renovations he said were necessary.
Some members of Congress are pushing back, including in court, alleging Trump’s actions are unlawful and should be reversed.
What does the law say? Here’s a closer look at what the law and history say on the question:
Since Congress created the cultural institution in a federal statute, designating it as a living memorial in 1964 shortly after President John F. Kennedy’s death and then through its expansion in the 2010s, it has been operated by both the executive and legislative branches — contributing to the legal debate.
While the executive branch oversees the appointments of the center’s board of trustees, Congress has the ultimate say on what money gets appropriated and what projects get approved.
The House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies grants the center’s board the power to act on any proposed and approved changes.
According to the top Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Chellie Pingree, the panel has historically controlled all funding, project management and security, separate from the executive branch or what is voted on by the center’s trustees.
Congress has proposed and authorized expansive construction projects, such as the REACH expansion adjacent to the Kennedy Center, designed for artist collaboration, to smaller standard year-to-year maintenance costs.
When Trump’s signature legislation passed in July, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” it circumvented the subcommittee, instead directly appropriating $256,657,000 for “necessary expenses for capital repair, restoration, maintenance backlog, and security structures of the building.”
In a statement, the Kennedy Center’s new president, Richard Grenell, a Trump appointee, said, “I am grateful for President Trump’s visionary leadership. I am also grateful to Congress for appropriating an historic $257M to finally address decades of deferred maintenance and repairs at the Trump Kennedy Center.”
The Trump administration has suggested these already appropriated funds will cover any costs of his proposed major renovation.
“It desperately needs this renovation and temporarily closing the center just makes sense — it will enable us to better invest our resources, think bigger and make the historic renovations more comprehensive,” Grenell said. “It also means we will be finished faster.”
Limits on the president’s power? Georgetown University law professor David Super told ABC News that even though the money for those changes is already appropriated by Congress, Trump and his administration do not have total freedom to make decisions.
“The Constitution says that no money shall be drawn for the Treasury except in accordance with an appropriation passed by Congress,” Super said. “He can spend that money for any of the purposes Congress provided it for, and that includes deferred maintenance, repair, restoration, renovation. It does not allow him to rebuild it.”
While Trump has suggested major renovations, no plans have been officially released or shared with the congressional subcommittee overseeing the center. During an Oval Office photo, Trump said the steel would be “fully exposed” but not removed.
“I’m not ripping it down. I’ll be using the steel,” he said. “So, we’re using the structure. We’re using some of the marble and some of the marble comes down, but when it’s opened, it’ll be brand new and really beautiful. It’ll be at the highest level.”
Super said if those renovations align with the language of the law Congress has passed, it is within Trump’s legal right both as president — and chair of the Kennedy Center’s board — to go forward. If the renovations go beyond what the law spells out and allows, Super said, his moves would be unconstitutional.
“Some of his remarks about ‘maybe, they will use the marble, maybe they won’t’, imply that he’s planning something much more than renovation or repair,” Super said. “If so, then he would be violating the language of the appropriation, and therefore the Constitution.”
When asked whether the president would keep his plan within the constraints laid out by Congress, White House spokeswoman Liz Hudston told ABC News: “While the Democrats neglected the Trump-Kennedy Center for years, President Trump immediately stepped up to rescue and revitalize the institution.”
Hudston also included some intended uses of the funds for maintenance, including “repairing and, where necessary, replacing elements on the exterior of the building,” and “work to bring the Trump-Kennedy Center into compliance with current life safety codes and security standard.”
So far, there are no lawsuits alleging Trump’s proposed renovations to the center are illegal.
The renaming The center’s controversial renaming presents another legal question.
When the building was designated a living memorial in 1964, Congress wrote in explicit language on how the center should be named and operated.
U.S. Public Law 88-260 dictates the U.S. must “be held to designate or refer to such Center as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“They really left very little to the imagination, and detailed what they wanted the Kennedy Center to be,” Super said, adding, “there are many things Congress creates that it doesn’t name, and that’s left to the president to name, but here is a law saying it shall be known as the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
Super said that regardless of what the board of trustees decides, the name will legally remain as written in the statute.
“And as a duly passed law of Congress, this binds you, it binds me, and it binds the president,” Super said. “The money that the president says he wants to spend on renovating the Kennedy Center is money that was appropriated for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, not for the Trump-Kennedy Center. So, if he in fact uses that money, he is acknowledging that its name did not change.”
A former Kennedy Center trustee, Democratic Rep. Joyce Beatty, has filed a lawsuit to stop Trump and the board of trustees from changing the Kennedy Center’s name and wants Trump’s name removed.
U.S. Code § 76j states that “the Board shall assure that after December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”
“Because Congress named the center by statute, changing the Kennedy Center’s name requires an act of Congress,” Beatty’s lawsuit said. “But on December 18 and 19, 2025 — in scenes more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than the American republic — the sitting President and his handpicked loyalists renamed this storied center after President Trump.”
Pingree said her subcommittee has been told little about Trump’s plans and that she had instead learned about his proposed changes through social media.
“What’s going to happen now?” Pingree told ABC News, adding,” he tore down the East Wing. Does this mean he thinks he’s going to tear down the Kennedy Center and just rebuild it as a monument to himself?”
With lawmakers beginning discussions on funding for 2027, Pingree said she is working with her Republican counterpart to demand information.
“We will certainly say to them, we’re not going to allocate any money in this cycle until you give us more information about what you’re doing,” Pingree said.
“If that money is currently being used just to keep the place afloat because ticket sales are off and performers won’t perform, then it’s not going to go to the desperately needed. I believe there are some really important things that need to be done to that building,” she said.
U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) arrives to testify during a confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on March 18, 2026 in Washington, DC.(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s nomination to be the secretary of Homeland Security narrowly cleared a committee vote Thursday morning with the help of Democratic Sen. John Fetterman, teeing up the Oklahoma Republican’s nomination for a final vote on the Senate floor as soon as next week.
Mullin’s nomination advanced out of Senate Homeland Security Committee by a vote of 8-7. He needed a simple majority of votes to clear the committee.
After a series of contentious exchanges during Wednesday’s confirmation hearing, Sen. Rand Paul, the committee’s chairman, ultimately cast a vote against Mullin in committee on Thursday. Fetterman was the only Democrat to cast a vote in his favor.
Fetterman’s vote proved to be critical for Mullin as Republicans only hold a one seat majority on the committee. Paul’s objection meant that at least one Democrat would be necessary to push Mullin over the line.
After the vote, Fetterman said he approached the Mullin vote with an “open mind.”
“We need a leader at DHS. We must reopen DHS. My AYE is rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security,” Fetterman wrote in a post on X.
Mullin’s hearing came weeks after President Donald Trump fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, following her handling of the Minneapolis immigration enforcement and criticism that she used $220 million in taxpayer money for an ad campaign.
Mullin’s nomination will head to the Senate floor where he’ll need a simple majority of votes to be confirmed. He is expected to be approved by the chamber when he comes up for a final vote.
-ABC News’ Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
