Expert flags ‘disappointing’ questions from justices in Trump birthright citizenship case
President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants appears to be in jeopardy following Supreme Court oral arguments on Wednesday. Supreme Court justices pursued what Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, described as a “disappointing” line of questioning. Liberal and conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of Trump’s order, which the president has argued is necessary to end a “magnet” for illegal immigration and “birth tourism,” in which foreign nationals travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children gain citizenship. Lawyers for the Trump administration argued that the 14th Amendment’s stipulation that individuals must be subject to U.S. jurisdiction to be American citizens means children of illegal immigrants are excluded from automatic citizenship. The administration pointed to “striking” numbers of illegal immigrants abusing current law through a type of birth tourism. Meanwhile, opposing lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Supreme Court precedent, particularly the Wong Kim Ark case, supports a broader interpretation that all those born on U.S. soil are automatic citizens. In an interview with Fox News Digital, Swearer said that while the oral arguments went “a little bit better than anticipated” for the administration in some regards, the day was a mixed bag for the government. SAUER CITES ‘STRIKING’ FIGURES ON SECRETIVE BIRTH TOURISM IN HIGH-STAKES SCOTUS CASE “Most people understood coming into this, and I suspect even the government understood coming into this, that this was probably going to be a bit of an uphill battle,” Swearer said. She said conservative and liberal justices seemed hesitant about how the government would apply Trump’s order. Swearer said, “We did see a lot of those types of questions,” adding, “I’m not sure they are actually that important to the overall doctrinal questions of, ‘What does the 14th Amendment citizenship clause actually mean?’” Meanwhile, she said it was “a bit disappointing” not to see more pushback from the justices on the ACLU’s broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. While there was much discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case, which revolved around the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants, Swearer said she “was disappointed” not to see discussion of other legal precedent she believes is crucial. ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION “The ACLU’s argument is essentially no one up until Donald Trump ever thought that this was a viable way of framing birthright citizenship. And the reality is when you look at decisions by other presidents during the 19th century, you actually did have executive branch decisions saying, ‘No, we’re not going to issue passports to this person, even though they were born in the United States because they weren’t born subject to our jurisdiction, because their parents weren’t lawfully or permanently present in the United States.’ And I think that’s important,” she said. “I think that was one of the missed opportunities to really push back on the ACLU’s position, and it just didn’t come up in the same way that Wong Kim Ark did,” she added. What does this mean for the future of Trump’s order? Swearer said that while the three liberal justices’ stances are obvious, she admitted, “It’s hard to know what to make of” the six other justices’ lack of questioning on what she believes are the more “foundational questions about the history and tradition” of the citizenship issue. Despite this, Swearer said, “I do think there’s a path forward” for a Trump victory, though it would likely be narrow and partial. INSIDE SUPREME COURT: HOW TRUMP HEARD BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ARGUMENTS “I would not quantify it, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see some sort of plurality of opinions splitting the baby somewhere,” she said. Swearer speculated that possible routes the court could take include differentiating between illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders, delivering a partial victory for the administration, or deciding the question based on existing statute rather than attempting to interpret the language of the 14th Amendment, which would cut against Trump’s order. “Maybe they split the baby that way,” she said, adding, “I think at the end of the day, there are just so many options for what this could look like.”
Ex-counterterrorism chief says Trump must restrain Israel before he can declare victory in Iran
Former National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent — who quit his government role last month over his opposition to the Iran war — suggested in a Wednesday night post on X that President Donald Trump will only be able to declare victory in Iran if he “restrains” Israel. “The purpose of POTUS’s speech this evening was to show that we can declare victory when we choose. This is only possible if POTUS restrains the Israelis 1st. Israel needs us committed indefinitely, we are seeking a quick end to the war. We have drastically different goals than Israel & must act accordingly,” Kent asserted in the post. Kent made the comments after Trump — who launched the controversial U.S. war against Iran last month in conjunction with Israel — delivered an address to the nation about the ongoing conflict on Wednesday night. TRUMP SAYS IRAN ‘NO LONGER A THREAT’ AFTER 32 DAYS — OUTLINES NEXT PHASE OF US WAR “Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly. We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We are going to bring them back to the stone ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing,” he said. “Because of the actions we have taken, we are on the cusp of ending Iran’s sinister threat to America and the world. And I’ll tell you, the world is watching. And when we do… the United States will be safer, stronger, more prosperous and greater than it has ever been before,” Trump said during his remarks. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: 5 KEY TAKEAWAYS FRM TRUMP’S IRAN ADDRESS Kent indicated that the U.S. should exit the war immediately. “We do not honor our fallen by getting more of our best men & women killed in the Middle East. We honor our fallen by learning from our past & only shedding American blood in defense of our nation. The best time to get out of a war of choice is now, before we lose more lives,” he wrote in a post on X. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment on Thursday. FORMER REP MTG VENTS THAT SHE’S ‘SO BEYOND DONE,’ CHARACTERIZING TRUMP’S ADDRESS AS ‘WAR WAR WAR’ In a Thursday morning post on X, Kent wrote, “The purpose of a system is what it does: Israel is targeting the negotiators to ensure we can’t end the war & to ensure that the Iranian leaders who come next will be more extreme, thereby ensuring that the war goes on. The 1st step to end the war must be restraining Israel.”
Senate passes bill to fund most of DHS after House GOP caves
The 48-day Department of Homeland Security shutdown is one step closer to ending after the Senate moved to fund most of the department Thursday morning. The Senate agreed via voice vote to send a bipartisan deal funding the whole department except for President Donald Trump‘s immigration enforcement and border security efforts to the House for consideration. The chamber is not expected to vote on the legislation until House lawmakers return to Washington on April 13. The Senate vote follows GOP leaders endorsing a two-track approach to funding DHS on Wednesday, with President Trump giving lawmakers a hard deadline to end the record-breaking funding lapse. HOUSE CONSERVATIVES RAGE AGAINST SENATE DHS SHUTDOWN DEAL The Senate bill accomplishes the first phase of the plan by working with Democrats to fund as much of DHS as possible on a bipartisan basis. However, it would zero out funding for ICE and much of the Border Patrol, save for $11 billion in customs funding going to the agency. Additionally, $10 billion teed up for ICE won’t be funded under the measure. As for ICE and the Border Patrol, Republicans have said they will seek three full years of funding for both of these agencies in a party-line budget reconciliation package that will bypass Democrats’ opposition. Trump says he wants the forthcoming bill on his desk by June 1. “We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday. The Senate bill’s passage on Thursday was a déjà vu moment for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who helped steer the same measure through the upper chamber last week. But House GOP leadership sharply rejected it, calling the measure’s exclusion of ICE and CBP money a “crap sandwich” and warning about the risks of funding those entities using the budget reconciliation process. The chamber then put forward a rival proposal that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., made clear was “dead on arrival” in the Senate. Thune said shortly after the vote that he was hopeful the House would move onto the bill quickly, and that the next step would be budget reconciliation. Still, he blamed Senate Democrats, and not Republicans in-fighting at the finish line, for the current position Congress was in. “I think this whole where we are is just a regrettable place. We have the Democrats who are holding the appropriations process hostage and their anti-law enforcement, open borders, defund the police wing is the ascendant wing,” Thune said. “And there, I think everybody’s afraid of them, and so we’re stuck in a spot that’s just not good for the country, the future of the appropriations process, or, for that matter, the future of the Senate.” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., appeared to relent Wednesday after Trump issued a statement outlining an end to the shutdown that appeared to side with Thune’s two-part approach to funding the department. GOP INFIGHTING, DEMOCRATS’ UNMET DEMANDS AND A CLEAR WINDFALL: WHO’S WINNING AND LOSING THE DHS SHUTDOWN As the DHS shutdown drags on, Trump and congressional Republicans are gambling that budget reconciliation will be the way to fund immigration enforcement for several years to come. Some Republicans have floated funding ICE not just through Trump’s term, but for up to a decade. The GOP used the same process to fund ICE last year, teeing up $75 billion for enforcement operations for the next four fiscal years. But the party-line process comes with a host of challenges that could test Republican unity in an election year. GOP lawmakers will have to identify spending cuts to pay for it. When Republicans used the process to pass Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, lawmakers nearly stumbled at the finish line over disagreements on cuts to federal Medicaid spending and food assistance programs. Without a looming deadline like the expiration of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that Republicans extended in July 2025 through the “big, beautiful bill,” some GOP lawmakers have voiced concern that the party will stay unified. Republicans have proposed adding other issues into the reconciliation mix, including supplemental funding for the Iran war, affordability measures, the president’s tariff regime and pieces of the election integrity-focused SAVE America Act. The budget reconciliation process allows a party with control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to pass tax and spending priorities with a simple majority threshold, though the process is governed by stringent requirements for what is eligible to be included. Punting ICE and CBP money to a future spending bill could also negatively affect support staff employed by both agencies who have not been paid during the seven-week shutdown. Democrats have repeatedly blocked funding for ICE and the Border Patrol in the Senate since the beginning of the shutdown in mid-February. Though none of their proposals to reform immigration enforcement have been adopted, Democratic leaders claimed victory on Wednesday. “Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Wednesday. “We were clear from the start: fund critical security, protect Americans, and no blank check for reckless ICE and Border Patrol enforcement. “We were united, held the line, and refused to let Republican chaos win.” The Senate deal funding most of DHS could still face roadblocks in the House. A handful of conservatives have already said they will vote “no” while using the same messaging employed by House GOP leadership to oppose the bill last week. “Let’s make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again,” Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., wrote on social media Wednesday. “If that’s the vote, I’m a NO.”
Behind the scenes of Congress’ eleventh-hour rush to fund the DHS
What would you say if one body of Congress didn’t take a formal roll call vote on a major piece of legislation – yet passed it at 2:19 on a Friday morning? Would you try to outdo your colleagues across the Capitol Rotunda with some Congressional chicanery of your own? Perhaps by passing an equally important version of the same bill – while officially sidestepping a direct up/down vote on the measure – at 11:28 p.m. on that same Friday night. That’s what happened late last week. The Senate scored approval from all 100 senators to pass a bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security for the rest of the fiscal year – but did it on a voice vote at 2:19 a.m. Friday with only five senators in the chamber. House Republicans scoffed at this. So they passed their own bill – to fund all of DHS – just before the witching hour Friday. But technically, the House didn’t even vote directly on the legislation itself. The House voted to approve a “rule” (which manages debate for bills). With adoption of that rule, the House “deemed” the underlying DHS funding measure as passed. GOP LEADERS ENDORSE TRUMP’S SHUTDOWN-PROOF MOVE TO END DHS FUNDING LAPSE But despite all of this, the House and Senate weren’t aligned. They hadn’t approved the same bill. And despite the parliamentary antics, House Republicans then implored the Senate to pass the measure it approved Friday night on Monday morning – without a roll call vote and with just two senators in the chamber. If you followed all of that, that is exactly what’s unfolded on Capitol Hill the past few days as lawmakers struggled to end the six-week Department of Homeland Security shutdown. It was clear early Thursday evening that there wasn’t a path in the Sente to approve a partisan GOP bill to fund DHS after a lengthy roll call vote which started in the afternoon. But something was afoot. TRUMP ADMINISTRATION MAKES MAJOR MOVE TO RELIEVE ‘UNFAIR BURDEN’ ON DHS WORKERS AS SHUTDOWN DRAGS ON Congress was staring at a 15-day recess for Easter and Passover on Friday. Failure to address the crisis now meant that lawmakers would leave town until the middle of April – extending the shutdown until then as airport lines swelled. So Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., got to work on something which could pass the Senate – and potentially pass the House – before everyone abandoned Washington for the break. Thune suggested earlier in the week that the Senate usually has to get “to Thursday” before frozen positions may begin to thaw. He was right. There was a corridor for the Senate to approve a bipartisan bill to tackle most of the funding crisis at DHS. So Thune’s charge late Thursday night and into the wee hours of Friday morning was not necessarily to persuade bipartisan senators to support the bill he was putting on the floor. But instead, Thune’s goal was to coax skeptical senators not to object and blow the whole thing up. There’s something called a “hotline” in the Senate. Any time the leadership wants to set up a series of votes, make particular amendments in order and perhaps allocate wedges of time to debate, it sends around a “hotline” to all 100 senators. If any senator objects, they let the leadership know. This streamlines the process ahead of time. It also ensures that senators aren’t blindsided by something called a “unanimous consent” request. Unanimous consent requests, or “UC’s,” happen all the time in the Senate. One of the most powerful tools in the Senate is “unanimous consent.” If you obtain the “unanimous consent” of all 100 senators, you can make the sun rise in the west. But all it takes is one objection to block a UC – even if all other 99 senators agree. The behind the scenes hotline takes care of this in advance. Any senator could object and block Thune’s proposal to fund most of DHS. But there shouldn’t be any problem if he cleared it with all 100 senators offstage in advance. That’s why Thune went to the floor at 2:19 a.m. Friday. Not a single senator flagged his proposal. And so the South Dakota Republican went to the floor with a team of five senators – and passed the bill. Not by UC. But by something called a “voice vote. Those in favor shout yea. Those who oppose holler nay. The louder side wins. The Senate passed the bill. There was no roll call vote. HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER So, this wasn’t something snuck by in the dead of night on the sly. If any senator had a reservation, they could have flagged it. Or better yet, come down to the floor at 2:19 a.m. and contested it. In short, there were 100 senators, 100 chiefs of staff, 100 legislative directors and 100 counsels who should have known about Thune’s plan. That’s a universe of at least 400 people – if not more. So, this wasn’t an episode of someone pulling a fast one. By morning, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he “opposed this bill.” Same with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. Well, that’s fine. But no one objected nor pushed back on the hotline. No one went down to the floor to demand a roll call vote – or even argued that the Senate couldn’t do anything because there wasn’t a quorum present to conduct business. So anything said by Republican senators upset about the bill were simply academic or rhetorical objections. If those senators truly opposed the bill, they missed their opportunity to do something about it. It was thought that the House might take up the bill – reluctantly – the next day to end most of the shutdown and pay TSA workers. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., signaled support. So did Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the Appropriations
Trump says Iran ‘no longer a threat’ after 32 days — outlines next phase of US war
President Donald Trump declared Iran is “essentially really no longer a threat” after a 32-day U.S. military campaign, telling Americans in a primetime address Wednesday that the country has been “eviscerated” following weeks of strikes. Even so, Trump said the United States is preparing additional attacks in the coming weeks even as diplomatic discussions continue. “I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly. Very shortly, we are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks,” Trump said. “We’re going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing.” Trump pointed to U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, saying sites hit by B-2 bombers were “obliterated” and warning the United States would launch additional strikes if Tehran attempts to recover nuclear material. INSIDE IRAN’S MILITARY: MISSILES, MILITIAS AND A FORCE BUILT FOR SURVIVAL “The nuclear sites that we obliterated with the B-2 bombers have been hit so hard that it would take months to get near the nuclear dust,” Trump said. “If we see them make a move, even a move for it, we’ll hit them with missiles very hard.” The remarks come as key questions remain about the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, including roughly 900 pounds to 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, according to international watchdog estimates. The conflict has driven volatility in global energy markets and rising fuel costs for Americans. WHY TRUMP, IRAN SEEM LIGHT-YEARS APART ON ANY POSSIBLE DEAL TO END THE WAR Addressing those concerns directly, Trump blamed recent increases in gasoline prices on Iranian attacks targeting commercial shipping and regional infrastructure. “Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home,” Trump said. “The short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries.” Trump also suggested Iran’s leadership structure has been fundamentally altered by the strikes, saying senior figures are dead and warning of additional attacks if Tehran does not reach an agreement with the United States. “We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They’re all dead,” Trump said. “If there is no deal, we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants very hard and probably simultaneously.” He further claimed Iran’s air defenses had been eliminated. “They have no anti-aircraft equipment,” Trump said. “Their radar is 100% annihilated. We are unstoppable.” This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Trump administration makes major move to relieve ‘unfair burden’ on DHS workers as shutdown drags on
FIRST ON FOX: The Trump administration will extend tax filing deadlines for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel as the ongoing shutdown intensifies financial pressure on thousands of federal workers. The Treasury Department and IRS will announce a 30-day automatic tax filing extension for affected employees, shielding them from penalties and interest. The partial government shutdown is in its 46th day, intensifying pressure on federal workers. HOUSE GOP RAMS THROUGH NEW DHS FUNDING PLAN WITH SHUTDOWN FAR FROM OVER Such broad tax relief is highly unusual and typically reserved for major disasters and other extraordinary circumstances, underscoring the severity of the current shutdown. “The continued shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security has created unnecessary disruptions, placing an unfair burden on DHS personnel and their families,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said. “We are committed to supporting our hard-working DHS officers and employees so they can stay focused on their mission and keep the American people safe without being penalized for missing a tax filing deadline.” AVERAGE TAX REFUND TOPS $3,700 MIDWAY THROUGH FILING SEASON, TREASURY SAYS Under the measure, affected workers will now have until May 15, 2026, to file their taxes and pay what they owe without facing additional financial penalties. DHS personnel include Border Patrol agents, TSA officers, Secret Service agents and FEMA responders, frontline workers responsible for border security, aviation safety, disaster response and counterterrorism. Many have reported struggling to cover basic expenses such as rent, mortgages and childcare as missed paychecks pile up. The decision comes as pressure mounts over the real-world consequences of the shutdown, with DHS employees caught between their national security responsibilities and growing financial strain. While the administration says the relief is intended to ease the burden, for many workers it remains only a temporary lifeline as the broader standoff continues.
WATCH: Robert De Niro brushes off ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’ label hurled by critics
FIRST ON FOX: Actor Robert De Niro was in the nation’s capital Wednesday sitting in the same crowded courtroom as President Donald Trump and some of his closest advisors during oral arguments by the Supreme Court about birthright citizenship. Fox News Digital caught up with De Niro as he was exiting the courthouse, but De Niro said he did not have any perspective on how the arguments went. “I’m waiting to get a, getting a – I’m not sure because I could hear, but not hear. It’s complicated. So, I can’t say,” De Niro responded when asked about the oral arguments he had just witnessed before the high court. De Niro described the Trump administration’s argument on the matter — that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens — as a way for Republicans to “get rid of people they don’t want.” ALITO INVOKES SCALIA ANALOGY IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT OVER ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION “It’s that simple,” De Niro said. The actor and activist, who spoke at a “No Kings” protest in New York City over the weekend, has been criticized for his anti-Trump rhetoric. He has called the president “a piece of s—,” a “nasty little b—-,” a “petulant little punk,” has said he’d “like to punch him in the face” and declared Trump an “enemy” of the United States. When asked about claims he has “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” sometimes referred to by the acronym “TDS,” De Niro called it “nonsense.” “People don’t like him for a reason,” De Niro shot back. “All the terrible things he’s done. If he did nice things, then he could have, he had the chance — he became president — to do nice things, not hateful, retribution, not just, outright mean things. If he did nice things, people would love him. But he’s got a problem. He’s damaged.” SCOTUS SLATED TO WEIGH FUTURE BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PROTECTIONS FOR MILLIONS — HERE’S WHAT AT STAKE Asked what specifically bothered him about Trump, De Niro said “everything.” “Everything that we all know now,” De Niro added. Reporting from Wednesday indicated the Supreme Court appeared ready to reject Trump’s argument on birthright citizenship. The arguments reportedly lasted over two hours, and, in addition to Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi was present, as was Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. De Niro reportedly sat in seats reserved for the justices’ guests, according to The Associated Press. “When the crowds are chanting ‘No Kings,’ what I’m really hearing – as we all know – is ‘No Trump.’ There have been other presidents who have tested the constitutional limits of their power, but none have been such an existential threat to our freedoms and security — none — except Trump,” De Niro told supporters at the No Kings rally he attended over the weekend. “He must be stopped, and he must be stopped now,” De Niro added, calling members of Trump’s Cabinet “goons.”
Fox News Poll: Broad anxiety about AI doesn’t extend to jobs
As artificial intelligence continues to expand into homes and the workplace, voters are less concerned about it taking their jobs and more worried about its overall influence. The latest Fox News Poll finds 66% of registered voters are concerned about artificial intelligence, up from 63% in December and 56% in 2023 (the first time the question was asked). The increase in concern is across the board, with the biggest jumps happening among women, voters without a college degree, Democrats and liberal voters. FOX NEWS POLL: SOUR VOTERS SAY WASHINGTON IS OUT OF TOUCH Yet when it comes to how AI will affect the workforce, voters aren’t concerned about their own jobs even though most think it will eliminate more positions (59%) than it will create (7%) over the next 5 years. FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS OPPOSE ACTION IN IRAN BUT GIVE US MILITARY POSITIVE MARKS Seven in 10 (69%) employed voters are unconcerned their job will be cut in the next five years, while three in 10 are worried (31%). This matches where sentiment was in November. The lack of concern may reflect broader attitudes toward AI in the workplace: Seven in 10 say it is not important to their career that they learn how to use AI, including six in 10 employed voters. Another three in 10 say it is important, and that jumps to roughly in 10 among workers, voters with graduate degrees, and those living in households with an annual income of $100,000 or higher. Those most likely to feel learning AI is a career priority are men under age 45 (48%). But if they must tech up, a majority of voters feel comfortable adopting and using new technology (60% comfortable vs. 40% not comfortable). The highest numbers saying they’re comfortable are voters under age 45, particularly younger men (81%) and younger Republicans (82%). Artificial intelligence and the military… As the Iran conflict enters its fifth week, nearly two-thirds of voters are uncomfortable with the military using autonomous weapons systems (AWS). About four in 10 feel comfortable. The partisan divide on this issue is wide: 52% of Republicans are comfortable with AWS vs. 27% of Democrats. Fifty-eight percent of MAGA Republicans are comfortable vs. 40% of non-MAGA Republicans. There is also a prominent gender gap with men (43%) more comfortable than women (31%). Still, nearly all voters say that when the military is considering a strike that could kill people, a human should be required to make the final decision: 93% feel that way vs. 7% saying AI systems alone should have the final say. This is a bipartisan belief, with at least nine in 10 Democrats, Republicans and independents agreeing a human needs to make the decision. More than half of voters who have served in the military are uncomfortable with the use of AWS systems (54% not comfortable vs. 45% comfortable), and an overwhelming majority thinks a human should be making the choice between life and death (90%). One more thing… While concern about AI is up among voters, it’s far from the top worry with inflation (86% extremely/very concerned), healthcare (81%), gas prices (80%), political divisions (80%), unemployment (73%), attacks by Islamic (73%) and non-Islamic terrorists (70%), ability to pay bills (70%) and gun violence (69%) ranking higher. Concern about Iran getting a nuclear bomb ties with concern over AI (66% extremely/very) while antisemitism (63%) and detentions by ICE (62%) rank lower. CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE Conducted March 20-23, 2026, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,001 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (104) and cellphones (641) or completed the survey online after receiving a text (256). Results based on the full sample have a margin of sampling error of ±3 percentage points. Sampling error for results among subgroups is higher. In addition to sampling error, question wording and order can influence results. Weights are generally applied to age, race, education and area variables to ensure the demographics are representative of the registered voter population. Sources for developing weight targets include the most recent American Community Survey, Fox News Voter Analysis and voter file data.
Sauer cites ‘striking’ figures on secretive birth tourism in high-stakes SCOTUS case
Birth tourism in the U.S. remains notoriously difficult to measure, but Solicitor General John Sauer on Wednesday pointed the Supreme Court to what he called “striking” figures as the justices weighed President Donald Trump’s effort to curb birthright citizenship. “Here’s a fact about it that I think is striking,” Sauer said. “Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 — 500 — birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.” Sauer’s response came after Chief Justice John Roberts asked him about the prevalence of birth tourism, which is the practice of traveling to the United States for the purpose of giving birth, so the child can automatically receive U.S. citizenship. Sauer acknowledged that “no one knows for sure” about firm data in the industry before citing media figures estimating more than 1 million cases from China alone. NEARLY ALL REPUBLICAN AGS ADD FIREPOWER TO TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PUSH Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause so that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship. The administration has argued the amendment’s birthright citizenship provision incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration. Conservatives have long raised concerns about birth tourism. Senate Republicans wrote in a 2022 report that it was a lucrative industry that “short circuits and demeans the U.S. naturalization process.” But the scale of birth tourism remains elusive, and proponents of birthright citizenship have downplayed it, contending it occurs infrequently. The GOP senators noted in the report that they could not calculate birth tourism numbers because the U.S. government does not have a way to track them. Existing visa data cannot distinguish between birth tourism and other categories of traveling to the United States, such as medical travel, they said. Sauer, however, rattled off a string of statistics in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the issue. “There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to [the Department of Homeland Security] saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over a million, or 1.5 million, from the People’s Republic of China alone,” Sauer said. “The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hot spots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies.” BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE Although the numbers remain unclear, prosecutors have secured convictions for birth tourism businesses. In 2024, Michael Liu and Phoebe Dong were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy and money laundering for running a birth tourism operation that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. Prosecutors said the couple coached clients to deceive immigration officials. Sauer noted in his opening remarks to the Supreme Court that the United States’ nearly unconditional birthright citizenship policy has “spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism, as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.” HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is the language in the amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. Trump said the provision was a relic of the Civil War. “It had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said Tuesday as he announced he planned to attend the oral arguments, making him the first sitting president to do so. “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.” Sauer argued that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors lacked the ability to establish a “domicile” in the United States, meaning they were subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Roberts questioned the relevance of Sauer’s birth tourism claims, asking him to confirm that it had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.” Modern-day implications of the amendment, including birth tourism, “could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers,” Sauer replied. “We’re in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen,” Sauer added. Roberts made his skepticism of Sauer’s argument apparent. “Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Roberts said.
Trump to address nation about Iran as he signals war could end within weeks
President Donald Trump is expected to address the nation at 9 p.m. Eastern Time Wednesday about U.S. operations in Iran after one month of combat. The message will be an “important update” about the war, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X. The president will give an operational update on the mission known as Operation Epic Fury and is expected to reiterate the two-to-three week timeline for a drawdown of the operation that he gave in comments to reporters Tuesday, a White House official told Fox News Digital Wednesday. “He will highlight the United States Military’s success in achieving all of its stated goals prior to the operation: destroy Iran’s deadly ballistic missiles and production facilities, annihilate their Navy, ensure their terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region and guarantee that Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon,” the official added. US EYES SEIZING IRAN’S OIL LIFELINE — BUT IT MAY NOT CRIPPLE TEHRAN Trump told reporters Tuesday he expected the mission to end in two to three weeks. He posted on Truth Social Wednesday that Iran had asked for a ceasefire, but the U.S. was not open to negotiation until the Strait of Hormuz is open for shipping. “We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear,” Trump said. “Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, said the claim that Iran had asked for a ceasefire was “false and baseless,” according to Iranian state TV. Trump has sent mixed signals in recent days, at times suggesting the conflict could end soon while also threatening intensified strikes if Iran does not meet U.S. demands. The president told multiple news outlets Wednesday that he is strongly considering pulling the U.S. out of NATO over frustrations at what he sees as insufficient military support from allied countries in the Middle East. “I was never swayed by NATO,” Trump told The Telegraph in an interview published Wednesday. European nations so far have resisted pressure to offer warships to reopen commerce in the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply typically passes. The average price of a gallon of gas surpassed $4 on Tuesday, a first since 2022. Several key European allies have moved to restrict U.S. military access as the Trump administration presses forward with operations against Iran, with Spain closing its airspace to U.S. aircraft tied to strikes and France imposing limits on certain overflights carrying military supplies. PRESIDENT TRUMP SAYS US COULD FINISH IRAN OPERATION WITHIN TWO TO THREE WEEKS “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.” Administration officials have suggested U.S. objectives in the conflict are nearing completion, raising the possibility that Trump could outline a path toward winding down operations. But at the same time, thousands of paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne division along with a task force of 2,500 Marines from the USS Tripoli have reached the Central Command theater in recent days, raising speculation of a potential ground invasion. Meanwhile the USS George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier with 6,000 sailors deployed Tuesday to join the USS Abraham Lincoln already in theater. Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28. Since then, U.S. forces have struck more than 12,000 targets inside Iran and damaged or destroyed 155 naval ships, according the Central Command. Thirteen U.S. service members have died in the operations and 350 have been injured.