Trump says ‘too late’ for talks with Iran, warns US has enough munitions to fight ‘forever’
US President Donald Trump arrives for a medal of honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Monday, March 2, 2026. President Trump is awarding the Medal of Honor to three US Army soldiers. (Photographer: Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump on Tuesday said it’s “too late” for talks with Iran and warned the U.S. has enough munitions to fight “forever.”
“Their air defense, Air Force, Navy, and Leadership is gone,” Trump wrote of Iran in a post to his social media platform. “They want to talk. I said ‘Too Late!'”
The comments come as the administration’s war with Iran enters its fourth day and as questions remain on why the urgent military action was necessary and how long it will last.
Trump could face those questions and others from reporters when he hosts German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office at 11:15 a.m. ET.
The president has not given a formal address to the nation on the attacks on Iran, instead posting video statements to social media or speaking to individual reporters at various news outlets.
Overnight, apparently responding to questions raised about stockpiles of U.S. weapons being used to intercept Iranian missiles and drones, Trump posted that the U.S. has a “virtually unlimited” supply.
“Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies,” Trump wrote in a social media post, despite having said on Monday that the U.S. would “easily prevail” in the conflict and campaigning in opposition to “forever wars.”
Trump, though, did acknowledge in the post that the stockpile of some of the country’s highest-grade munitions is “not where we want it to be” and blamed that on U.S. support for Ukraine in fighting Russia’s invasion.
Still, Trump concluded the post by stating: “The United States is stocked, and ready to WIN, BIG!!!”
Trump’s social media post on Tuesday that it’s “too late” for talks with Iran comes just days after he told The Atlantic: “They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them.”
Plus, mixed messages have come from the administration on Iran’s future. Trump over the weekend encouraged Iranians to rise up and topple the government, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday rebuffed the idea that regime change was the U.S. objective for striking Tehran.
Meanwhile, the war is widening in the Middle East as Iran seeks retaliation for the U.S. and Israeli attacks, which killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and several senior leaders. Tehran’s struck more nearly a dozen countries, and the State Department has warned U.S. citizens to leave the region and closed several embassies.
So far, six U.S. service members have died in the war and more have been wounded. Trump, in an interview with NewsNation, teased retaliation for the killing of American troops.
ABC News’ Fritz Farrow and Meghan Mistry contributed to this report.
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 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sign stands at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Senate Democrats on Thursday voted unanimously to block a package of six funding bills that would fund large portions of the government through the end of September — meaning a partial government shutdown could still happen in the coming days.
The bill failed to advance by a vote of 45-55. It would have needed at least 60 votes to proceed. Multiple Republicans also cast votes against the package.
The vote came amid news that talks are ongoing between Democrats and the White House over funding for the Department of Homeland Security ahead of the partial government shutdown that would begin at midnight Friday.
Those talks are intensifying in the final hours between the White House and Senate Democrats to reach an agreement over how to advance a package of bills necessary to fund the government — including Democrats’ request to separate the bill that funds DHS.
Democrats want DHS removed from a package that includes five other government funding bills so that changes to the DHS bill aimed at reining in Immigration and Customs Enforcement can be made without affecting the other agencies that still need to be funded.
There were Democratic calls to separate the DHS funding following the deaths of Renee Good, a mother of three who was fatally shot by an immigration enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this month, and became more urgent after the death of Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, who was killed in a shooting involving federal agents over the weekend.
If a deal is locked, Democrats would eventually need to vote yes on advancing this six-bill package. It is the first procedural step in allowing them to vote to modify it.
Although Democrats blocked this bill from moving forward, that doesn’t necessarily mean negotiations have fallen apart.
Majority Leader John Thune retained the right to call up this same vote later Thursday or Friday if he thinks a deal is locked in.
Negotiations are centered around that request from Democrats, sources told ABC News. This would allow the military and critical programs like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Head Start — a federal program run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that provides early childhood education, health, nutrition and family support services to low-income children and families — to be funded through September.
A deal would temporarily extend funding for DHS through a short-term bill, which would give Democrats and the White House more time to discuss any possible policy changes.
Coming into the negotiations, Senate Democrats laid out a list of demands including: ending roving patrols, ensuring federal agents are held to the same use of force policies that apply to state and local law enforcement, preventing agents from wearing masks and requiring body cameras.
Republicans need the support of at least seven Democrats in the Senate to avert a partial shutdown.
The White House has not yet commented on the ongoing negotiations.
While sources indicate Democratic leadership is optimistic that things are headed in their direction, that same level of optimism has not been shared from the White House, sources told ABC News.
It is likely that even if a deal is reached, there will still be a short partial shutdown. Any changes to the government funding bill passed in the Senate would have to go back to the House, which is currently in recess until Monday.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a bill signing in the Oval Office of the White House on February 03, 2026 in Washington, DC. Alex Wong/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump shared on his social media platform overnight a video that includes a racist animation of former President Barack Obama and former first lady Michelle Obama depicted with the bodies of apes, sparking condemnation from some lawmakers and demands that the post be taken down.
Trump reposted the roughly minutelong video, which focused on debunked claims about the 2020 election, to his social media platform.
At the end of the video, the Obamas’ faces appear abruptly and without explanation for seconds with the song “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” playing over it. The video then ends back on similar imagery of the conspiracy video footage.
The Obamas had no comment when ABC News reached out to their representatives for a response.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, when asked for comment, said, “This is from an internet meme video depicting President Trump as the King of the Jungle and Democrats as characters from the Lion King. Please stop the fake outrage and report on something today that actually matters to the American public.”
The video reposted by Trump overnight includes only imagery of the Obamas.
The meme video referenced by Leavitt was shared in October by the Hardin County Republican Party of Kentucky on Facebook, which led the chairman to issue an apology and deleted the post after swift backlash noting the long history of racist tropes depicting Black people as apes or monkeys — a tool of slave traders and segregationists to dehumanize them.
Trump’s overnight repost was condemned by some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the first Black leader of a party in Congress, wrote on X: “President Obama and Michelle Obama are brilliant, compassionate and patriotic Americans. They represent the best of this country. Donald Trump is a vile, unhinged and malignant bottom feeder.”
“Every single Republican must immediately denounce Donald Trump’s disgusting bigotry,” Jeffries wrote.
Republican Sen. Tim Scott, the only Black Republican in the Senate and also the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, posted on X: “Praying it was fake because it’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, wrote in a post: “Racist. Vile. Abhorrent. This is dangerous and degrades our country — where are Senate Republicans? The President must immediately delete the post and apologize to Barack and Michelle Obama, two great Americans who make Donald Trump look like a small, envious man.”
