Supreme Court Lets Trump Get Closer to Ending Birthright Citizenship

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear arguments over the legality of Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, the 1868 constitutional detail that entitles any person born on U.S. soil to an American passport.

In doing so, the nation’s highest judiciary has set the stage for a decision, expected by the end of June, that could undermine the Fourteenth Amendment. That amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone born or naturalized on U.S. soil.

Trump attempted to end the constitutionally enshrined right mere hours after he was sworn into office in January by signing an executive order stating that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally should not be entitled to birthright status. That order was blocked by multiple judges in multiple court circuits over the last year.

In the case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear, which stems from qualms in New Hampshire, the Trump administration argues that language included in the amendment—specifically, “subject to the jurisdiction of”—requires applicable children to not only be present in the country at the time of the birth but also to confer their allegiance to the United States. Exactly how newborn babies would be expected to do so, however, is not clear.

“Long after the Clause’s adoption, the mistaken view that birth on U.S. territory confers citizenship on anyone subject to the regulatory reach of U.S. law became pervasive, with destructive consequences,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in legal arguments on behalf of the administration.

Sauer added that the intent of Trump’s executive order is to “restore the Clause’s original meaning.”

It’s not the first time this year that the Supreme Court has heard arguments on the topic.

In May, justices on both ideological sides of the court flamed the Trump administration’s efforts to rewrite birthright citizenship through America’s courts, questioning why the government’s attorneys would even bring the case to the judiciary’s doorstep when “every court has ruled against” the administration on birthright citizenship.

At the time, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer into a corner, forcing the solicitor general to admit that the Trump administration doesn’t even know how it would enforce its birthright citizenship order. Sauer managed to appall another Trump appointee—Justice Amy Coney Barrett—by arguing that Trump has the “right” to disregard legal opinions that he doesn’t personally agree with.

Donald Trump’s attempt to nab more Republican congressional seats and keep his party in control of Congress just got a boost Friday when Indiana’s House of Representatives passed a new legislative map.

The new map, which seeks to give Republicans control of all of the state’s nine congressional seats, passed the state House by a 57–41 vote. The new map will make it harder for the state’s only two Democrats, Representative André Carson and Frank Mrvan, to be reelected. But the map now faces hurdles in the state Senate, despite its being under Republican control, as Republican senators have warned there isn’t enough support.

The fight has turned nasty, with Trump threatening to support primary challengers to these senators, among other attacks on his Truth Social account. As a result, Indiana Republicans have faced violent threats, with at least 11 elected Indiana Republicans being targeted with threats like “swatting,” false police reports meant to cause a violent law enforcement response. One of them, state Senator Greg Goode, hadn’t even made any public comments about redistricting.

The Indiana state Senate won’t meet until January, creating a time crunch to have new maps approved in time for the 2026 midterm elections. If they were to actually pass early in the legislative session, they would likely face legal challenges that could prevent their implementation in time for primary elections.

While the Supreme Court approved Texas’s gerrymandered maps Thursday, there’s no telling if it would do the same for other Republican states, not to mention the fact that other challenges to Texas’s new maps on racial grounds are still possible. Democratic-led states like California and Virginia are also making their own efforts to combat a blatant Republican attempt to subvert the will of the people.

We’re about to get more Epstein documents.

Trump-appointed Judge Rodney Smith of the U.S. District Court of Southern Florida on Friday ordered the release of previously secret grand jury transcripts from 2005 and 2007 investigations into sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The move was spurred by the passing of Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna’s Epstein Files Transparency Act.

This comes after weeks of resistance from President Trump that culminated in him switching course and caving to demands to release the files.

“The United States seeks to unseal the grand jury materials in this case and publicly release them, as well as lift any preexisting protective orders that would prevent the Department of Justice from releasing the materials,” Smith’s order reads. “The Act applies to unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials that relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.”

Other judges from Florida and New York have noted that the grand jury transcripts are unlikely to reveal any new information. The order doesn’t set a deadline for the release of the documents, which will be redacted before being released to the public.

This story has been updated.

The Department of Homeland Security has innovated a cringey new way to spread its blatantly made-up statistics documenting its ethnic cleansing campaign: introducing DHS Wrapped!

In the latest installment of the Trump administration’s weird attempts to appeal to Gen Z, the official DHS X account shared a graphic Thursday channeling Spotify’s Wrapped year-end recaps of its users’ listening habits—but instead of Sabrina Carpenter songs, the DHS version listed the stupidly named immigration operations and some statistics that didn’t quite add up.

“A year full of high stakes operations, deportations, and historic firsts. Here’s what America witnessed in 2025,” the post read.

According to the graphic, the Trump administration had deported more than 586,000 immigrants, while another 1.9 million had self-deported—but those two numbers don’t really make sense.

For the government to have deported 586,000 people, they would have needed to remove about 13,022 people every week since Donald Trump entered office roughly 45 weeks ago. DHS is reportedly removing fewer than 7,500 people every week. That’s still a terrifying number, but nowhere near the level of removals they are claiming.

It’s also unclear how many people have self-deported, and the DHS has given conflicting accounts.

Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that 1.6 million people had self-deported. In just a few weeks, that number has ballooned by 300,000. So, in the past month roughly the population of Jersey City just packed their bags and left?

Meanwhile, only 35,000 people have used CBP Home to leave the country, costing roughly $7,500 per self-deportation, The Atlantic reported last week. (The agency previously told The New Republic that “tens of thousands” of undocumented immigrants had used the CBP Home app to relocate to their home countries.)

The Trump administration is invoking racist tropes in a policy document, claiming that Europe is facing “civilizational erasure.” 

The White House’s new National Security Strategy, posted Thursday night, called the European Union antidemocratic and seemed to make an openly bigoted jab at the demographics of European NATO states, saying, “Over the long term, it is more than plausible that within a few decades at the latest, certain NATO members will become majority non-European.” 

“As such, it is an open question whether they will view their place in the world, or their alliance with the United States, in the same way as those who signed the NATO charter,” the document states. 

The paper went on to say the U.S. should “help Europe correct its current trajectory,” including by supporting “patriotic” parties. “We want Europe to remain European, to regain its civilizational self-confidence and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory suffocation,” the document reads.

The administration also accused governments of “the subversion of democratic processes” to thwart public opinion to end the war in Ukraine. The document praises Europe’s far-right political parties, saying that “the growing influence of patriotic European parties” gives “cause for great optimism.” 

While sitting European leaders haven’t commented, former leaders have reacted with alarm, comparing the document to rhetoric from Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government. 

“It’s language that one otherwise only finds coming out of some bizarre minds of the Kremlin,” said Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, on X. He pointed out the only part of the world where the document saw a threat to democracy was Europe. Bildt also described the document as “to the right of the extreme right in Europe” and “JD Vance on steroids.” 

An anonymous European diplomat also mentioned the vice president, saying the document’s “tone was not promising. Even worse than Vance’s speech in February,” referring to Vance’s speech at the Munich Security Conference where he extolled nativism and far-right politics while downplaying the threat from Russia. 

Latvia’s former Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins told Reuters that “the happiest country reading this is Russia,” adding that “Moscow has been trying to break the transatlantic bond for years, and now it seems the greatest disruptor of this bond is the U.S. itself, which is unfortunate.”

Much of the document seems to echo the racist rhetoric coming from other parts of the Trump administration, whether it’s the dog whistles coming out of the Department of Homeland Security or the underpinnings of the administration’s immigration policies. It appears that the White House is more concerned about racial and cultural homogeneity than the real external threats.   

The Trump administration removed free national park access on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Juneteenth, while adding it for President Trump’s birthday. 

Now two federal holidays that celebrate Black American history will be ticketed—from around $3 to $30—while Trump’s birthday on June 14 is free entry. 

This change, first reported by SFGATE, is emblematic of the small-scale, antagonistic ways in which Trump wages his MAGA culture war on any federal mention of Black history in America, or any minority group, for that matter. 

The NPS has been a battleground for much of that war. Since taking office for the second time, Trump has ordered the removal of signs and exhibits documenting American slavery, including an iconic 1863 portrait of an ex-slave, often referred to as either Peter or Gordon, and the brutal whipping scars on his “scourged back.” 

He signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to erase any information that could be misconstrued as a “corrosive ideology,” which of course included anything relating to race relations, LGBTQ rights, and sexism. He also removed a picture of Harriet Tubman from the National Park Service page on the Underground Railroad, and changed the words “enslaved African Americans” to “enslaved workers” while removing a section that discussed Benjamin Franklin being a slave owner.

This move is spiteful and self-centered, and a perfect opportunity for the president to center himself while punching down on MLK Day and Juneteenth in the name of MAGA.  

The U.S. president on Friday became the inaugural recipient of FIFA’s newly minted peace prize.

The prize was the invention of Gianni Infantino, the boss of the international soccer league, who shocked his own top officials by cooking up the concept after Donald Trump begged, pleaded, and failed to win the Nobel Peace Prize in October.

“This is truly one of the great honors of my life, and beyond awards, Gianni and I were discussing this, we’ve saved millions and millions of lives,” Trump said after the medal—a sculpture of hands holding a soccer ball—had been draped around his neck. “So many different wars that we were able to end.”

But whether a soccer prize will scratch Trump’s itch for global recognition remains to be seen. Trump has coveted the Nobel Peace Prize for years, going so far as to lie about solving nonexistent international conflicts and phoning Norwegian officials this past summer in lame efforts to snag the title (Norway’s government has no influence on decisions made by the committee).

Part of the president’s obsession could stem from the fact that four other U.S. presidents have received the award, perhaps most notably Trump’s political nemesis, former President Barack Obama.

Infantino had publicly lobbied for Trump to win the award. But his failure to launch that process offered Infantino a new opening to flatter the president: inventing an entirely new award to satisfy Trump’s ego.

Trump was announced as the winner during the 2026 FIFA World Cup final draw.

This story has been updated.

A federal vaccine advisory panel handpicked by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voted Friday to recommend delaying the hepatitis B vaccine for most newborns.

The 8–3 vote by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices reverses the government’s longtime stance that all babies be vaccinated at birth against the liver infection. Now the panel is recommending the vaccine—which has been credited with preventing thousands of illnesses—be given only to those infants whose mothers test positive or haven’t been tested.

If parents or guardians decide not to get the vaccination at the time of birth, the committee’s vote recommends that the baby should get the dose at two months. One committee member, Dr. Cody Meissner, expressed misgivings, saying, “We are doing harm by changing this wording, and I vote no.”

When asked Thursday by the Associated Press why the committee chose to reexamine this vaccine, committee member Vicky Pebsworth said it was because of “pressure from stakeholder groups wanting the policy to be revisited,” but did not elaborate. A spokesperson for Kennedy did not respond to a question on the subject. Senator Bill Cassidy, a doctor and liver specialist, called the committee “totally discredited” on Thursday.

In 2022, longtime vaccine skeptic Kennedy said the hepatitis B vaccine “was made for prostitutes and for promiscuous gay men.” The virus isn’t just spread through sexual contact, though: Even contact with small amounts of infected blood can put someone at risk.

Now the decision on whether to accept the recommendation goes to the acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Jim O’Neill. But the American Academy of Pediatrics plans to keep promoting the existing CDC guidance for babies to get the first dose of the vaccine at birth, followed by a second at one or two months with the third dose coming between six and 18 months.

At least one state will also continue recommending the hepatitis B vaccine at birth: Governor Maura Healey of Massachusetts said on CNN Thursday that “D.C., the Trump administration, RFK, that panel, they are not doing their jobs. And in the face of that, as governor, I’m going to do mine.”

An appeals court judge tore into her colleagues’ decision Friday to “pave the way for autocracy” by allowing President Donald Trump to summarily fire the Democratic members of independent federal agencies.

In a 2–1 ruling, Trump-appointed D.C. Circuit Court Judges Gregory Katsas and Justin Walker greenlit the president’s efforts to remove Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Congress may not restrict the President’s ability to remove principal officers who wield substantial executive power,” Katsas wrote in the majority opinion. “As explained below, the NLRB and MSPB wield substantial powers that are both executive in nature and different from the powers that Humphrey’s Executor deemed to be merely quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial. So, Congress cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB or MSPB members.”

Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is a 1935 Supreme Court case that established Congress can pass laws limiting the president’s ability to fire executive officials of independent federal agencies.

In a scathing dissenting opinion, Judge Florence Pan warned that the decision was a disastrous consolidation of executive power behind the president. “Adoption of the government’s maximalist theory of executive power (implicitly or explicitly) threatens to fundamentally change the character of our government,” she wrote.

“Taken to its logical end, the government’s theory will eliminate removal protections for all employees of the Executive Branch and place every hiring decision and agency action under the political direction of the President. But such a radical upending of the constitutional order is not supported by the text or structure of the Constitution and is inconsistent with the intent of the Framers. And while the government claims to uphold the separation of powers, its theory instead concentrates excessive power in the President and thus paves the way to autocracy.”

The Supreme Court previously allowed Trump to oust Gwynne Wilcox at the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris at the Merit Systems Protection Board—whose terms weren’t due to expire until 2029—as well as three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission and Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission.

Republicans are slowly but steadily peeling away from House Speaker Mike Johnson.

The Louisiana lawmaker is facing mounting scrutiny from his caucus, who are reportedly concerned about his leadership ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Democrats’ surprise performance in the Tennessee special election earlier this week put Johnson’s capabilities into laser focus, stressing already fraught tensions between House Republicans and their leader.

“The confluence is weakened political power by Trump, the result from the elections in New Jersey, New York, and Virginia, and people getting anxious about the election,” a senior House GOP lawmaker told NBC News Thursday. “There’s a lot of anxiety and stress about the election, and people looking at their own districts, saying, ‘I thought things were going to be different.’”

The government shutdown only exacerbated the effect, leaving Republicans in vulnerable districts without the support that they thought they could rely on.

“I just think being off for 50 days, there was no continuity. Nobody was here. There was nobody like, ‘Hey, you’re doing great. Keep it up,’” the lawmaker continued. “Everyone being back in their district, there was a loneliness. A lot of members may have felt like we’re on our own.”

Johnson shocked the halls of Congress when he catapulted into the House leadership position in late 2023, replacing former Speaker Kevin McCarthy amid a historically divided caucus. That was possible, in part, because Johnson was a relative unknown with practically zero enemies. But that’s no longer the case.

In recent weeks, Johnson has made enemies out of Representatives Elise Stefanik, Anna Paulina Luna, and Marjorie Taylor Greene on issues ranging from his reluctant release of the Epstein files to his resistance to bipartisan legislation on insider trading.

Speaking with reporters Thursday, Johnson claimed that “friction” and “vigorous debate” were “all part of the process.”

“They’re going to get upset about things. That’s part of the process. It doesn’t deter me in any way. It doesn’t bother me,” he said.

Just nine representatives of the majority party are needed to trigger a vote of no confidence against a House speaker. But for all the malcontent, exactly who could unite the conference to replace Johnson is still not clear.

“I support Mike Johnson and what he’s been doing. I think he’s in line with the president. I think he has the ear of the president,” Representative Troy Nehls, who is retiring when his term ends in January 2027, told NBC. “If it’s not Mike Johnson, well, then who?… Who could get enough votes to even replace him? And quite honestly, it’s probably nobody.”