Former Virginia governor challenges Spanberger to debate her redistricting flip-flop
A top Republican predecessor of Gov. Abigail Spanberger challenged her to publicly debate the merits of the redistricting referendum she and Virginia Democrats so fervently support, as an anti-gerrymandering group he works with also fired off a letter to her in his stead. Spanberger, along with Senate and House leadership in Richmond, is squarely in the “Vote YES” camp when it comes to the April 21 public referendum to redraw the Old Dominion’s congressional districts in a way that would likely remove all but one GOP congressman from office. Gov. George Allen, a Republican who served as governor from 1994 to 1998 between tenures in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, said in a statement that if the incumbent’s ideas are right, she should publicly defend them. “Virginia voters expect a robust and transparent discussion of the issues. So, I am inviting Governor Spanberger to join me in a series of public debates to look Virginians in the eye and explain each side of this referendum vote,” Allen said. BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE “I am prepared to discuss why I oppose gerrymandering in Virginia and anywhere else in our nation.” Allen, whose father was one of the then-Washington Redskins’ most successful coaches, said that people in Virginia are being “barraged” by political ads and that $28 million has been spent on commercials that “are at best misleading and designed to confused voters.” “Let’s give Virginians the honest and transparent discussion of gerrymandering that they deserve,” he said. In that regard, the group No Gerrymandering Virginia, which is being spearheaded by a bipartisan group of former Virginia lawmakers and officials including Allen, sent a letter requesting such to Spanberger’s office at the Capitol. “If you’re confident that your ideas and your candidates are so great, then you ought not fear the people,” Allen told Richmond’s NBC affiliate. He added that gerrymandering is a personal subject, as part of his impetus to run for governor came when Albemarle County — where he owned a “log house on a gravel road” — was split into several pieces during one such redrawing. No Gerrymandering Virginia’s letter called the April 21 vote a “consequential moment for Virginia.” GOP-LED COUNTIES PUSH BACK AGAINST DEMOCRAT’S REDISTRICTING CHARGE, TESTING VIRGINIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS “At its core, the referendum asks whether the commonwealth will maintain its commitment to fair representation or move toward a mid-decade gerrymandering approach that has already taken hold in other states,” the letter said. “Virginians deserve the opportunity to hear a clear and direct debate on this question before they vote.” “To that end, I would like to invite you to participate in a televised, live-streamed debate on the referendum. Former Governor George Allen has agreed to participate and would present the case against adopting the proposed maps. As you know, Governor Allen has long opposed gerrymandering, shaped in part by his experience being drawn out of his congressional district in the early 1990s, and he supported the 2020 constitutional amendment establishing Virginia’s current fair redistricting process.” In a prior statement in February, Allen said mid-decade “gerrymandering” is wrong, no matter who does it. “Texas was wrong. California was wrong. North Carolina was wrong. Virginians should stand up for principle like those in Indiana and South Carolina who said ‘No’ to this egregious gerrymandering their states,” he said, adding that the 2020 referendum that took power away from the assembly shows Virginia has “much better standards of fairness than this.” Allen is joined on No Gerrymandering Virginia’s advisory council by former Virginia House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, former State Sen. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax, and ex-Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke. Other recent Virginia officials have also lambasted the redistricting push, including ex-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and ex-Attorney General Jason Miyares. Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger for comment. In recent public statements defending the referendum, she said it is “temporary” and suggested she still supports the 2020 amendment otherwise.
Swing-district Democrat faces backlash after vulgar late-night post targeting Trump, doubles down
Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., sparked an online frenzy after launching an expletive-filled, late-night rant against President Donald Trump in protest of his plans to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday. “So f—ing f—ed up. I’ll pray they f— him to his face,” Lee wrote shortly before 1 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday. “Sorry, I say f— a lot these days,” Lee, 59, added. Lee, a four-term House lawmaker, made the crude remarks in response to a story from The Associated Press reporting that Trump planned to visit the court to listen to Wednesday’s case about his birthright citizenship order. TRUMP BLASTS OMAR, TLAIB AS ‘LUNATICS,’ SAYS ‘SEND THEM BACK’ AFTER SOTU PROTESTS Democrats have widely opposed Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants or those taking advantage of the birth tourism industry. “Either Democrat Rep. Susie Lee was blackout drunk when she tweeted this or it was a staffer posting from her account,” conservative commentator Steve Guest wrote in response. “Mentally deranged psycho!” conservative personality Eric Daugherty said on social media. Amid the backlash, Lee deleted the tweet on Wednesday morning with little explanation. When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Lee referred Fox News Digital to a statement posted on Lee’s personal social media account. “Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers,” Lee wrote. “I took an oath to protect and defend it.” OMAR SHOUTS ‘YOU ARE A MURDERER’ AND ‘LIAR’ AT TRUMP DURING STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS Lee’s social media outburst comes as the Nevada Democrat has sought to brand herself as a bipartisan lawmaker. Trump notably won Lee’s suburban Las Vegas district by less than one point in 2024 and national Republicans view the battleground seat as a top flip opportunity. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Republicans’ campaign arm, slammed Lee’s expletive-filled post aimed at the president. “Democrat Susie Lee has become Nevada’s fool, more focused on vulgar outbursts than doing the job she was elected to do,” NRCC spokesman Christian Martinez said in a statement. “Hitting delete doesn’t clean up her mess, it just proves she knows how embarrassing it is. The Trump administration has argued that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to American slaves and their children, not the descendants of illegal immigrants or those living in the United States temporarily. “I have listened to this argument for so long, and this is not about Chinese billionaires, or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case, or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves,” Trump told Fox News’ Peter Doocy in the Oval Office on Tuesday regarding the case. “It had to do with the babies of slaves,” the president continued. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years.”
Trump, Bondi watch historic SCOTUS arguments as justices duel over birthright citizenship
The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed lawyers for the Trump administration and the ACLU on so-called “birthright citizenship” protections in the U.S., part of a landmark court challenge that could upend more than a century of legal precedent and executive branch policy. In Trump v. Barbara, justices are weighing the legality of the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. As oral arguments kicked off, justices appeared somewhat skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, including its view of the 14th Amendment, and pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on the administration’s reading of the citizenship clause. Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that he viewed one of the key arguments made by the Trump administration in its case as “quirky.” FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS “You obviously put a lot of weight on [the] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ issue,” Roberts told Sauer. He noted the administration cited “children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.” Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism during early questions and pressed Sauer on key issues of precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause itself. “We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, noting that “some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.” “It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response. As expected, arguments focused heavily on precedent set in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship protections for persons “domiciled,” or born on U.S. soil. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument. He noted that Congress adopted the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment. TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS Kavanaugh pointed to the INA and the precedent in Wong Kim Ark, noting: “One might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship, or the scope of citizenship, should be.” “I am not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretative matter,” he told Sauer, after a brief back-and-forth. Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, appeared the most open to Trump’s argument. He noted that the case brings to the forefront key questions on whether laws should be read as being limited only to situations lawmakers had in mind at the time of passage, or whether they should be applicable in future situations, even if unimaginable at the time. “Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation,” Alito said, referring to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven,” Alito said. “And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, ‘Well, I can’t be convicted under this, because the microwave oven didn’t exist at that time.’” “There’s a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications,” Alito said, to which Sauer emphatically agreed. SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE Trump’s executive order was immediately met with a flurry of federal lawsuits last year, and to date, no U.S. court has sided with the administration on the issue. Trump himself attended Supreme Court oral arguments, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. Other administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, were also in the audience. A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided. It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. A decision from the high court is expected by late June.
Trump admin moves Forest Service HQ to Utah in latest DC relocation push
The Trump administration is moving the Forest Service’s headquarters out of Washington and into Salt Lake City, Utah, as part of a broader push to shift federal agencies closer to the regions they oversee and reduce the footprint of government in the nation’s capital. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the move Tuesday and said it will begin a sweeping restructuring of the agency, relocating leadership and redistributing authority across the country in an effort officials say will improve decision-making, cut costs and strengthen hiring. The shift represents a significant structural change to how the Forest Service operates, moving top leadership and key functions closer to the western states where the majority of national forest land is located and where wildfire risk and land management demands are most concentrated. “President Trump has made it a priority to return common sense to the way our government works. Moving the Forest Service closer to the forests we manage is an essential action that will improve our core mission of managing our forests while saving taxpayer dollars and boosting employee recruitment,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a statement announcing the move. HUD BECOMES FIRST MAJOR CABINET AGENCY TO EXIT DC, CITING ‘FAILING’ HQ — WHICH DOGE WANTS TO SELL “Establishing a western headquarters in Salt Lake City and streamlining how the Forest Service is organized will position the Chief and operational leaders closer to the landscapes we manage and the people who depend on them.” Under the plan, the agency will adopt a state-based structure designed to push more authority out of Washington and into the field. Fifteen state directors will oversee operations nationwide, managing forest supervisors, setting priorities and coordinating with state, tribal and local partners. Each office will be supported by small teams handling communications, legislative affairs and intergovernmental work. ‘IT WON’T BE LONG’: HUD SECRETARY SHARES VIDEO OF DILAPIDATED ROOF TILES AT HQ AMID BID TO MOVE IT OUTSIDE DC The restructuring will eliminate the agency’s regional office system, with all regional offices set to close as part of the transition. Many administrative functions will shift to service centers across the country, while officials said frontline operations, including wildfire response, will remain unchanged. The changes are expected to roll out over the coming year. The relocation builds on a broader effort by the Trump administration to move parts of the federal government outside Washington, including the relocation of the Bureau of Land Management’s headquarters to Colorado during his first term and the transfer of key USDA research agencies to Kansas City. The administration has framed the moves as a cost-saving push to decentralize government, shift power out of Washington and bring decision-making closer to on-the-ground operations. The push comes despite some high-profile proposals that have not materialized, including earlier discussions about moving the FBI headquarters out of Washington. Utah Gov. Spencer Cox hailed the relocation as a “big win for Utah and the West.” “Nearly 90% of Forest Service lands are west of the Mississippi, so putting leadership closer to the lands they manage just makes sense,” Cox said. “This isn’t symbolic. It means better, faster decisions on the ground. Everyone who depends on our public lands, from hikers and campers to ranchers and timber producers, will benefit from this change. Moving away from a regional model to a more state-focused approach strengthens federalism and helps the Forest Service do its job more effectively.”
Trump makes historic SCOTUS appearance for birthright citizenship case
President Donald Trump is making a historic appearance at the Supreme Court on Wednesday to listen as justices weigh his executive order to curb birthright citizenship. No sitting president has attended oral arguments at the high court before, underscoring the weight Trump has placed on the landmark case, which could upend more than 100 years of precedent that has allowed most babies born in the U.S. to receive automatic citizenship. Attorney General Pam Bondi accompanied Trump at the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning. “I have listened to this argument for so long, and this is not about Chinese billionaires, or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case, or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves,” Trump told Fox News’ Peter Doocy in the Oval Office on Tuesday of the case. SUPREME COURT PREPARES TO REVIEW TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP At issue in the case is the language in the 14th Amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. Trump noted that the provision was a relic of the Civil War. “It had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years.” BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE Trump’s order would change the scope of birthright citizenship, which allows babies born to noncitizens in the United States to automatically receive U.S. citizenship, except in the cases of those born to foreign diplomats. Lower courts have uniformly rejected Trump’s policy and blocked it through injunctions in class-action lawsuits. Trump has argued that as part of his immigration crackdown, he wants to curtail abuses of the 14th Amendment, which can include foreigners traveling to the United States strictly to give birth with no intention of legally settling in the country. The amendment also incentivizes migrants to enter the country illegally to give birth and rewards pregnant women already living illegally in the country by imparting citizenship to their children, the administration has said. HOW TO MAKE PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION PAUSE STICK IN COURT Trump is expected to look on as John Sauer, his solicitor general, makes the case to the justices that they should side with the president. Traditionally, only the justices and the lawyers arguing the case speak during oral arguments. An American Civil Liberties Union lawyer will argue against Trump’s executive order before the high court on Wednesday. In a statement, an ACLU executive director said that Trump could “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution” and that the organization would “be glad to sit alongside of him.”
Sanders-backed NJ Dem accused of hiding from voters as skipped forums pile up
A progressive House candidate backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., is under fire for dodging in-person debates with her GOP opponent ahead of an April special election, prompting accusations that she is reluctant to defend her far-left platform before voters. Republican candidate Joe Hathaway is ripping his Democratic opponent, Analilia Mejia, for agreeing to a virtual debate — after repeatedly declining a series of face-to-face opportunities. The candidates are scheduled to participate in a live virtual forum sponsored by the New Jersey Globe on Wednesday evening. “Unfortunately, when my opponent dodges and lies about debates, it limits the opportunity for a head-to-head matchup with two weeks left in the election,” Hathaway said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “For now, she can hide behind a screen, but she cannot hide from her record.” The special election winner will fill an open seat vacated by Gov. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., who resigned after winning the state’s 2025 governor’s race. The outcome will be closely watched for its potential impact on House Republicans’ razor-thin majority. WHERE SANDERS AND AOC BACKED PROGRESSIVE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE ANALILIA MEJIA STANDS ON KEY ISSUES Hathaway’s blistering criticism comes after Mejia repeatedly declined debate opportunities with Hathaway that he accepted, the Hathaway campaign told Fox News Digital. Proposed debates sponsored by Montclair High School, On New Jersey, Fairleigh Dickinson University and New Jersey Spotlight News ultimately fell through after Mejia did not accept the invites, according to the Hathaway campaign. Mejia, who narrowly upset a crowded field of challengers in February’s Democratic primary, has also faced backlash for appearing to misrepresent her rationale for backing out of a separate debate opportunity with local chapters of the left-leaning League of Women Voters. The New Jersey Democrat said she rejected the debate invite — co-sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Jersey — because the group was “unable to commit” to having a person of color as the moderator. The woman-led group fired back in a statement accusing Mejia of lying, saying their intended moderator would have been a person of color. Mejia’s primary objection was not being able to control the selection process herself, according to the group. BALLOT BOX SHOCKER: PROGRESSIVE BACKED BY SANDERS, AOC ON VERGE OF UPSET IN DEM CONGRESSIONAL PRIMARY “We were asked to provide a campaign with a list of potential moderators for approval,” Jennifer Howard, LWV president, said in a release. “This is a request that the League of Women Voters cannot accommodate. Our nonpartisan stance does not permit a candidate to influence the selection of the moderator.” Hathaway, a Randolph Township councilmember who faces an uphill battle to win the Democratic-leaning district, slammed Mejia for backing out of the planned debate. “If she is willing to lie about something as simple as a debate, what other lies can we expect to hear from her tomorrow?” Hathaway told Fox News Digital. “We will show a clear contrast between the practical common-sense leadership that I am running on, and the dangerous, radical, and socialist policies of my opponent,” he added. When asked to comment on Monday, a spokesperson for the Mejia campaign said, “All Joe Hathaway does is complain. We will see him tomorrow.” The Mejia campaign previously told Fox News Digital that she accepted the New Jersey Globe debate because the outlet met her diversity requirements and was closely following the race. Mejia, a staunch progressive who served in a senior role in Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign, has called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is a vocal critic of Israel. The winner of the special election will face voters again in November for a full two-year term.
Lawmaker says Iran targeted him in phishing attack disguised as TV interview
FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., said an alleged Iranian state actor recently targeted him with a phishing scheme disguised as a television interview request, in what he described as an apparent effort to access his personal email account. “A skilled impersonator created something appearing just like Newsmax to attempt to do an interview with me,” Fine told Fox News Digital in an interview, explaining that his staffer began interacting with the message in email, as the office normally does, before realizing “the links didn’t work.” The phishing scheme was allegedly designed to gain access to his personal Google account, Fine explained. TRUMP SAYS ‘WE’VE GOT OUR EYES ON’ IRANIAN SLEEPER CELLS IN US The incident comes after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on Iran in February, sparking an ongoing battle that the president has said will end in a matter of weeks as tensions continue flaring. The Trump administration argued Iran’s nuclear program and missile capabilities posed an urgent threat ahead of the U.S. and Israel launching joint strikes. Fine said he did not “think the timing was coincidental” and that the alleged cyberattack occurred “literally the day after combat operations began.” The episode underscores heightened concern among U.S. intelligence officials about potential cyber and physical threats tied to the U.S.-Iran conflict, particularly against high-profile political figures. The FBI confirmed earlier in March that an Iran-linked hacker group known as the “Handala Hack Team” breached Director Kash Patel’s personal email account. A bureau spokesperson said in a statement at the time that while the compromised information was “historical in nature” and contained no government data, the FBI had taken all “necessary steps to mitigate potential risks.” According to Fine, he learned about the alleged cyberattack aimed at him when U.S. Capitol Police contacted him and said the outreach likely originated from an Iranian state actor. Fox News Digital reviewed a copy of the correspondence, showing its email was spelled “news-max.org.” Correspondence to Fine, also reviewed by Fox News Digital, confirmed that USCP said they had information that the outreach to Fine’s office could have originated from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and that the police wanted to set up a call with the FBI Cyber Task Force to further examine the matter. DHS REMAINS UNFUNDED AS IRAN SLEEPER CELL FEARS SPIKE NATIONWIDE AMID SECURITY WARNINGS “They proactively reached out to us,” Fine said, adding that he then reported the incident to the FBI and was told by the bureau that agents were “familiar with these actors in Iran.” The FBI declined to comment. A source familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that when the incident happened, the FBI was able to connect with Fine and opened an investigation into the matter. The status of the probe is publicly unknown. Fine emphasized that he felt targeted by Iran and noted a broader surge in threats against him, including verbal threats and what he said was a recent separate incident of an impersonator approaching his home. “I was clearly targeted. It wasn’t random,” Fine said, asserting that he was “the most visible Jewish Republican politician in America.” MYSTERY DRONES FLY NEAR DC-AREA MILITARY BASE AS IRAN TENSIONS ESCALATE Fine said that while he does not believe the alleged attackers could have gathered much information from his Google account based on his limited use of it, “the worst-case scenario is … they might be able to track my actual location,” which he said made him fear for his life. Fine described the incident as “very stressful.” Fine, a self-described “Hebrew Hammer” known for his staunchly pro-Israel positions, has advocated aggressive military action in Gaza and praised Trump’s joint offensives with Israel in Iran. Fine, in a statement shortly after the U.S. launched strikes on Iran, characterized the mission as one rooted in saving western civilization. “We are with you, Mr. President. We will cut off the head of the snake of Muslim terror, Bring lasting peace to the Middle East, And save the Iranian People. Bombs away,” Fine said. “The Muslim terrorists that run Iran have just indiscriminately fired rockets not just at the Jews of Israel, but 700,000 Americans who live there, 180,000 Christians who live there, at the ‘Dome of the Rock,’ the third holiest site in Islam, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, site of Jesus’s crucification. We are fighting back against this evil.” Fox News Digital reached out to Newsmax, Google and USCP on Tuesday for any additional comment.
Trump says he’s considering pulling US out of NATO over Iran war stance
President Donald Trump said he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of NATO over the alliance’s refusal to join his administration’s efforts in the Iran conflict, according to a report. “I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump told The Daily Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday. The president, long a critic of the military alliance, which has been pivotal in maintaining global order since World War II, said reconsidering the matter was “beyond consideration.” “I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” Trump told the British outlet. MORE KEY US ALLIES BLOCK MILITARY FLIGHTS AS IRAN WAR RIFT WIDENS WITH TRUMP The comments come after European nations reportedly rejected Trump’s request that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply travels. Iran has threatened or moved to restrict access to the strait in reaction to the U.S. offensive against Iranian targets, raising concerns about global energy markets and economic stability. “Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey,’ you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic,” Trump said. “We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.” TRUMP WARNS NATO OF ‘VERY BAD’ FUTURE IF ALLIES DON’T HELP SECURE STRAIT OF HORMUZ The president also criticized the United Kingdom and Prime Minister Keir Starmer for not participating in the conflict. “You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work,” Trump said. Responding to the president’s comments, Starmer said Britain is “fully committed to NATO,” calling it “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.” Starmer told reporters that “whatever the pressure on me and others, whatever the noise, I am going to act in the British national interest in all the decisions I make.”
White House marks Holy Week, Easter with days of prayer centered on religious liberty
FIRST ON FOX: The White House is marking Holy Week with days of prayer and worship, including President Donald Trump participating in a number of events to honor Easter and celebrate the “right to religious liberty.” “President Trump will never waver in safeguarding the right to religious liberty, upholding the dignity of life and protecting faith in our public square,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told Fox News Digital of the White House’s Holy Week events. “Millions of Christians across the country will celebrate Jesus Christ conquering death, freeing us from sin, and unlocking the gates of Heaven for all of humanity, and the President is proud to join Americans during this blessed holiday.” A White House official told Fox News Digital that the president on Wednesday will attend the White House Easter Lunch in the East Room. TRUMP GATHERS CEOS FOR UNPRECEDENTED FAITH, ECONOMY MEETING TO RENEW US ‘SPIRITUALLY AND FINANCIALLY’ The event will feature worship and prayer, and choral performances from the Free Chapel Choir, led by Pastor Jentezen Franklin on the saxophone. The event will also include prayers from Reverend Franklin Graham, Bishop Robert Barron, Pastor Paula White and others. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner, Small Business Administrator Kelly Loeffler, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, and White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt will attend the White House Easter lunch. Erika Kirk is also expected to attend the White House Easter lunch, a White House official told Fox News Digital. Next, on Wednesday evening, at 5:00 p.m., White House staff are invited to attend a Catholic Mass in the Indian Treaty Room. The mass will be celebrated by Father Frank Mann. FLASHBACK: WHITE HOUSE PLANS ‘EXTRAORDINARY’ HOLY WEEK AS TRUMP HONORS EASTER WITH ‘THE OBSERVANCE IT DESERVES’ On Thursday, Holy Thursday, a White House official told Fox News Digital that all White House staff are invited to attend a worship service in the same room. That service will feature Rev. Franklin Graham, Pastor Jentzen Franklin, Pastor Paula White and White House Faith Office Director Jenny Korn. A White House official also told Fox News Digital that President Trump is expected to issue a presidential proclamation honoring Holy Week. “President Trump wishes Christians across America and around the world a very happy Easter. He is risen, indeed!” Rogers added in a comment to Fox News Digital. The president is also expected to post video messages on his Truth Social account to celebrate Easter and Passover. A White House official told Fox News Digital that Passover events will take place next week. Passover begins at sundown on Wednesday, April 1 and ends at sundown on Thursday, April 9. The White House Passover event will take place April 6 in the Indian Treaty Room. Edan Alexander, who was held hostage by Hamas in Gaza for more than 500 days following the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, and his family will be in attendance. Alexander was the last living American hostage released last year. Faith has been a focal point of Trump’s second term, including signing an executive order in February 2025 establishing a White House Faith Office. The office empowers faith-based entities, community organizations and houses of worship “to better serve families and communities,” according to the White House. The office is housed under the Domestic Policy Council and consults with experts in the faith community on policy changes to “better align with American values.”
Trump to attend Supreme Court as justices weigh birthright citizenship order in high-stakes test
The Supreme Court on Wednesday will weigh the legality of President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship in the U.S. — a landmark court fight that could profoundly impact the lives of millions of Americans and lawful U.S. residents. Trump himself will also be attending the Supreme Court oral arguments in a sign of his interest in the case. His attendance marks the first time in U.S. history that a sitting president has attended oral arguments. At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. The stakes in the case are high, putting on a collision course more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Trump administration officials view the order, and the high court’s consideration of the case, as a key component of his hard-line immigration agenda — an issue that has become a defining feature of his second White House term. FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS Opponents argue the effort is unconstitutional and unprecedented, and could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to noncitizens. A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided. It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. Here’s what to expect ahead of today’s oral arguments: Justices will weigh Trump’s executive order 14160, or “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs all U.S. government agencies to refuse to issue citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, or children born to parents who are in the U.S. legally but with temporary, non-immigrant visas. The order would apply retroactively to all newborns born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025. Trump’s executive order prompted a flurry of lawsuits in the days after its signing. Critics argued that, among other things, the order violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, centered their case on the “subject to jurisdiction thereof” phrase, which they argue was intended at the time of its passage to narrowly “grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children” after the Civil War, and has been misinterpreted in the many years since. U.S. Solicitor General D. Sauer urged the high court to take up the case last October, arguing that a pair of lower court rulings were overly broad and relied on 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.” “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people,” he said. TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS He also argued that the lower court rulings overstepped, and “invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security.” Justices on the high court will have no shortage of strings to pull on in considering the executive order or questioning lawyers during oral arguments. The Supreme Court will use Wednesday’s arguments to weigh — to varying degrees — the text of the 14th Amendment, legal precedent, and text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, among other issues cited by Sauer, the ACLU, and authors of the dozens of amicus briefs filed to the court since it agreed to review the case last fall. Legal experts told Fox News Digital that they expect Sauer could be in for an uphill battle in convincing a five-justice majority to unwind more than 125 years of precedent and text at issue in the case. Despite their consensus, however, the court’s conservative bloc will still face thorny issues in reconciling more than a century of court precedent with the narrower reading of the 14th Amendment embraced by the Trump administration. Justices are likely to focus closely on precedent in the Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark — a 1898 ruling in which the Supreme Court ruled that the son of two Chinese immigrants born in the U.S. was indeed a U.S. citizen. The case is widely considered to be the modern precedent for birthright citizenship, including related cases heard by the high court in the decades since. Others cited the text of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act statute passed by Congress, which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment in conferring legal status to persons born in the U.S., as yet another argument that could tip the scales in the migrants’ favor. “I can think of at least five reasons off the top of my head why the Supreme Court should say that the citizenship clause means today what it has always meant,” Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who specializes in immigration and citizenship issues, told Fox News Digital. SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE “There is text. There is original public understanding, which certainly includes Wong Kim Ark, but also five or six Supreme Court cases after that,” Frost said. “There is executive branch practice for the last century,” she added, “which is relevant as well when you’re interpreting the Constitution, and