Trump says he’s ‘willing to live with’ final US report on deadly missile strike near Iranian girls’ school
A view of the debris of a school, where many students and teachers lost their lives on the first day of the wave of attacks launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on March 5, 2026. (Photo by Stringer/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump said on Monday he doesn’t “know enough” about the strike on an Iranian elementary school that Iran says killed at least 168 people, including dozens of children, but that he was “willing to live” with the findings of a U.S. investigation into the incident.
A newly surfaced video appears to show a U.S.-made missile, a Tomahawk, hitting a building in Iran adjacent to the girls’ school, experts told ABC News.
Trump suggested Monday it could have been a Tomahawk fired by Iran.
“I will say that the Tomahawk, which is one of the most powerful weapons around, is used by, you know, it’s sold and used by other countries, you know that,” Trump said. “And whether it’s Iran, who also has some Tomahawks, they wish they had more, but, whether it’s Iran or somebody else, the fact that a Tomahawk — a Tomahawk is very generic, it’s sold to other countries. But that’s being investigated right now.”
The U.S. makes and sells Tomahawks to its closest allies, including the U.K. and Australia. But it has never sold the technology to Iran or other adversaries. While other countries like Russia use cruise missiles, only the U.S. makes Tomahawks, as the missile experts say appears to be seen in the video of the school strike.
Israel has already said it wasn’t operating in the area of the school bombing.
The president faced questions Monday on the Feb. 28 incident during a news conference at Trump National Doral Miami, including his comment over the weekend that Iran was behind it.
“Based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Saturday. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing just behind the president on the plane, said the matter was under investigation and that “only side that targets civilians is Iran.”
But pressed on those remarks, Trump said on Monday, “I just don’t know enough about it.”
“I think it’s something that I was told is under investigation. But Tomahawks are –are used by others, as you know. Numerous other nations have Tomahawks. They buy them from us,” Trump said.
“But I will certainly, whatever the report shows, I’m willing to live with that report,” the president continued.
The U.S. military was striking targets in the country last Saturday in an area where an elementary school was hit and dozens of children were killed, two people familiar with the initial findings previously told ABC News.
An analysis of satellite imagery by ABC News suggests the Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab was near an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps compound but had been separated from it more than decade ago.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, rejected Trump’s claim that Iran was behind the hit on the girls’ elementary school.
President Donald Trump conducts a news conference in the White House briefing room about the war in Iran on Monday, April 6, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has set several deadlines for launching massive attacks on critical Iranian infrastructure if Tehran doesn’t make a peace deal includes reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz since U.S.-Israeli military operations against Iran began in February.
Here is a timeline of Trump’s deadlines so far:
March 2
Two days after the U.S. and Israel began attacking Iran, Trump told reporters at the White House, “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”
March 21
Trump gave a 48-hour ultimatum in a social media post calling on Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, which is a trading route off the country’s southern coast that facilitates the transport of a huge amount of the world’s petroleum supply.
“the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” he wrote.
March 23
Trump posted another message on social media, in all caps, announcing a five-day extension “SUBJECT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE ONGOING MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS.”
March 26
Trump said in a social media post that he was “pausing the period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 Days to Monday, April 6, 2026, at 8 P.M. Eastern Time.”
“Talks are ongoing and, despite erroneous statements to the contrary by the Fake News Media, and others, they are going very well,” he wrote.
The president later said he was inclined to provide a 10-day extension because Iran had allowed some oil-carrying ships to safely pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
Iranian officials did not comment publicly on the president’s threat. The next day, an Iranian missile struck Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
April 4
The president went on social media around 10 a.m., claiming “time was running out.”
“48 hours before all Hell will reign down on them,” he wrote.
April 5
Trump made several statements to the press and on social media on Easter Sunday that the U.S. was setting a deadline of Tuesday, April 7 at 8 p.m. ET, which would be Wednesday, April 8, at 3:30 a.m. in Tehran.
He also posted profanity laden statement on the holiest day in the Christian calendar on social media, demanding that Iran open the strait or “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran.”
Trump told ABC News’ Rachel Scott that, if there was no deal in the next 48 hours, “We’re blowing up the whole country.”
April 6
The president held a news conference where he repeatedly made his threats against Iran’s leadership if they don’t come to an agreement with the U.S.
“The entire country can be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night,” he said.
April 7
The president made another threat on social media, indicating he could attack Iran in the night.
“A whole civilization will die tonight, never be brought back again. I don’t want it to happen, but it probably will,” he wrote.
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.
A security contractor hired by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), checks the mouth of a Honduran immigration detainee from Honduras before a deportation flight to San Pedro Sula, Honduras on February 28, 2013 in Mesa, Arizona. (John Moore/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration’s deportations to third countries last year are estimated to have cost taxpayers “upward of $40 million,” with some third-country migrants costing more than $1 million each, according to a Democratic congressional report released Friday.
The 30-page report is the result of a ten-month review by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who examined third-country deportations undertaken by the administration.
In particular, the report found that over $32 million was sent directly to Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau — with some funds sent before any third-country national arrived.
“The total costs of the Trump Administration’s third country deportations through January 2026 are unknown but are likely upward of $40 million,” the report said.
Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, did not comment directly on the figures used in the report.
“Contrary to what they might have hoped, this report only underlines much of the unprecedented work that the Trump administration has done to enforce our immigration laws. Astonishingly, some in Congress still want to go back to a time just 14 months ago when cartels had free rein to poison Americans and our border was open,” he said in a statement.
The report analyzed the sums in comparison to the number of third country nationals actually received, and concluded that the administration “paid at least one country more than $1 million per third country national received.”
For example, the report found that the administration paid the Rwandan government $7.5 million “in exchange for agreeing to accept third-country nationals.” As of Jan. 2026, Rwanda received seven third-country nationals, with each migrant costing approximately $1.1 million, the report said.
El Salvador was found to have received the most migrants, with approximately 250 third country nationals costing $20,755 per migrant. The majority of those people deported to El Salvador were Venezuelan nationals who were then sent onward to Venezuela several months later, according to administration officials.
The findings also show that Palau had not received any third-country nationals as of January, yet they have already received $7.5 million from the U.S.
According to a U.S. official quoted in the report, deportation deals with some countries were intended to communicate a “threat” to migrants.
“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” the U.S. official allegedly said.
“The point is to scare people,” he allegedly added.
The Democrats’ report also homes in on the high sums of money dedicated to transporting migrants from the U.S. to third countries, with the administration “frequently using military aircraft that can cost more than $32,000 per hour.”
At times, the administration paid “twice” for migrants’ travel — “once to remove them to a third country and then again to fly them to their home country,” the report said.
This occurred due to a lack of sufficient notice provided to migrants’ home countries, the report said, arguing that this is “needlessly wasting taxpayer funds.”
Despite these significant costs, the report found that a “relatively small number of migrants” were ultimately removed to third countries, therefore leaving “little measurable impact on [the administration’s] deportation agenda.”
The report also highlights an apparent lack of oversight in terms of monitoring foreign governments’ compliance, especially with countries that have historically high records of human rights violations and corrupt governments.
“Without oversight, it is unknown whether U.S. funds are facilitating corruption or other abuses,” the report said.
It is also “challenging” for the State Department to track such funds, the report said, alleging that the administration sends such money directly to foreign governments rather than utilizing “trusted third-party implementing partners.”
“In at least one country, U.S. officials told [Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that Trump Administration officials instructed them not to follow up on how deportees were being treated,” the report alleged, adding that many of the agreements rely on “blanket language” for assurances.
The report criticizes the administration for making “secret deals” with foreign countries in order to establish agreements about accepting third-country nationals.
“Dozens” of other countries are currently being pursued to agree to deals, the report said.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the administration for engaging in policy that she calls the “epitome” of “fraud, waste and abuse.”
“This report outlines the troubling practice by the Trump Administration of deporting individuals to third countries — places where these people have no connection — at great expense to the American taxpayer and raises serious questions,” she said in a statement.
