Trump gives prime-time address on war in Iran: Highlights
NBC News Clone summarizes the latest on: Rcrd106434 - Politics and Government | NBC News Clone. This article is rewritten and presented in a simplified tone for a better reader experience.
The president touted "overwhelming victories on the battlefield" and suggested there could be more strikes against Iran in the coming weeks.
What to know today
- TRUMP SPEECH: President Donald Trump addressed the nation this evening about the war in Iran, which is now in its second month. Trump touted what he described as "overwhelming victories on the battlefield" and suggested there could be more strikes in the coming weeks. And as he has done repeatedly in recent weeks, he predicted the operation would be completed "shortly."
- NATO CRITICISM: Trump has stepped up his criticism of NATO in recent days, telling Reuters in an interview today that he is “absolutely” considering withdrawing from it. He did not directly address NATO leaders in his remarks tonight.
- VOTER OPPOSITION: Polls have consistently found that majorities of Americans have opposed U.S. military action in Iran, with even larger majorities opposing any ground troops being sent. Republican voters, however, have remained broadly supportive of Trump's actions.
- SUBSCRIBE: For exclusive analysis of tonight’s speech from Hallie Jackson and Peter Nicholas, become an NBC News subscriber.
Coverage of this live blog has ended. For the latest new, click here.
Trump makes his case for Iran war, saying it will end ‘shortly’ but more strikes are ahead
Trump hailed the U.S. military’s “unstoppable” prowess in the war with Iran, telling Americans in a prime-time address tonight that the conflict, now entering its second month, will end “shortly” without offering a definite timeline.
Delivered on Day 32 and framed as an operational update, Trump’s speech offered the clearest public case yet for the conflict, arguing it is necessary for the security of the free world and laying out a framework that he said would measure American success.
“Thanks to the progress we’ve made, I can say tonight that we are on track and the country has been eviscerated and essentially is really no longer a threat,” Trump said. “This is a true investment in your children and your grandchildren’s future. The whole world is watching.”
Still, he said the conflict would continue until the military objectives were “fully achieved.”
Trump's strategy faces major test if Iranian regime stays in power, military and foreign policy experts say
Military and foreign policy experts told NBC News that the U.S. military has carried out tactical objectives in degrading Iran’s offensive and defensive capabilities but that there is a more open question about Trump’s strategy if the remnants of the Iranian regime remain in power, control the Strait of Hormuz, still possess highly enriched uranium and retain the capacity to threaten America’s allies in the region.
“You’d have to ask yourself exactly what was this all about,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a former State Department official.
Retired Army Col. Steve Warren, an NBC News military analyst and former Pentagon spokesperson, said: “This is clearly a tactical success. Strategic success is often in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? I think by sort of conventional standards, we would have to say it’s not a strategic success” if Iran keeps those cards, “but this president doesn’t appear to be adhering to the conventional standards.”
Miller said Trump failed to answer those key questions about Iran’s leverage following a U.S. exit and did not effectively address two other important aspects of the war: ground troops and diplomacy. Many lawmakers, including some Republicans, have expressed their discomfort with the prospect of American forces’ landing on Iranian soil.
“There was almost no mention of ongoing indirect negotiations, no mention of mediators — the Pakistanis, the Turks, the Egyptians — no sense that there was an opportunity in the two or three weeks that remain that there would be a diplomatic off-ramp,” he said. “The president did not say anything about ground troops. Nothing. Didn't rule it out, didn't rule it in.”
Defense expert breaks down Trump's speech
The message from Trump’s speech on the war appeared to be “good enough,” said Mark Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center of Strategic and International Studies think tank.
“You get the feeling over the last couple of days that he's building the case that we're done,” said Cancian, a retired Marine Corps officer.
Trump made no threat to send in ground forces into Iran and suggested the U.S. was close to achieving its goals, he said.
Trump can rightly point to an effective bombing campaign that has inflicted severe damage on Iran’s missile arsenal and the rest of its military, Cancian said.
But he said Trump glossed over a glaring shortcoming in the war effort — Iran’s de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a global chokepoint for the world’s oil and gas supply.
“It is a monumental failure,” Cancian said. “Iran has done to the United States what Ukraine has done to the Russians, and that is, without the attributes of a conventional navy, they have exercised control over a major waterway,” he said.
Trump said that other countries that are more dependent on the strait could reopen the passageway, but Cancian said that was not realistic and that allied governments lacked America’s military power.
If the U.S. halts the air campaign with Iran still able to hold commercial shipping at risk and sustain a global energy crisis, it would be a strategic failure, he said.
Republicans praise Trump's address while Democrats bash it
Lawmakers reacted to Trump’s speech along party lines, with Republicans largely praising it and Democrats criticizing it.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said the speech rehashed “grievances and lies,” adding that it “failed to meet the moment.”
“Trump offered magical thinking—but no real plan—for how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, ignoring the devastating impact of rising energy prices on American consumers,” Blumenthal wrote on X.
Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Ariz., who is Iranian American, criticized Trump for saying the U.S. would send Iran back to the Stone Age. “He’s talking about a country of 90 million people. Vile, horrifying, evil,” she wrote on social media.
Republicans, meanwhile, praised the speech. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on Fox News that Trump had his “blessing” to continue military operations as he sees fit.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, called Trump’s speech “exactly right.”
“Operation Epic Fury is an investment in the future of our children and our grandchildren,” Cruz wrote on X.
Fact check: Trump says all loved ones of soldiers killed in Iran war told him to 'finish the job'
Statement
"I was with them and their families, their parents, their wives, husbands. We salute them, and now we must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives. And every single one of the people, their loved one, said, 'Please, sir, please finish the job.' Every one of them."
Verdict
This is false.
Analysis
One parent, Charles Simmons, whose 28-year-old son, Tech. Sgt. Tyler H. Simmons, was among those killed, spoke to NBC News about meeting Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has also said parents told him to finish the job. Asked whether he said anything to Hegseth or Trump about the need to keep fighting the war, Simmons said, “No, I didn’t say anything along those lines.”
Members of Trump's Cabinet watched his speech in person at the White House
Several members of Trump's Cabinet watched his speech in person in the Cross Hall of the White House.
Vice President JD Vance was seated in the front row, joined by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., press secretary Karoline Leavitt and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer were also seen in Cross Hall, alongside White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard were also in attendance.
Several members of the military were present for Trump's remarks, as well.
Fact check: Trump says America has 'no inflation'
Statement
"We've taken a dead and crippled country. I hate to say that, but we were a dead and crippled country after the last administration and made it the hottest country anywhere in the world, by far, with no inflation."
Verdict
This is false.
Analysis
According to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released March 11, the Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation, rose 0.3% month over month in February, or 2.4% from one year ago. That was before the Iran war and the oil blockade drove gas prices up in March. The next CPI report will be released April 10, and a Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland forecast shows March inflation year over year is expected to be 3.25%.
Fact check: Trump says Iran's navy and air force are gone and missiles are depleted
Statement
"Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their missiles are just about used up or beaten. Taken together these actions will cripple Iran's military."
Verdict
Mostly true.
Analysis
A report last month by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that Iran had “lost the majority of its naval capability in less than 10 days.” NBC News has reported that former military officers and experts say Iran’s missile program is likely to be crushed if the U.S.-Israeli air assault continues. But the rate of strikes by Iran also raises questions about how effective the U.S. campaign has been, in part because Iran has been able to continue its attacks even as its stockpile has been depleted.
Fact check: Trump claims regime change 'has occurred'
Statement
“Regime change was not our goal. We never said ‘regime change,’ but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leaders’ death. They're all dead.”
Verdict
This is false.
Analysis
There is no indication that the authoritarian government in Iran has lost its grip on power or that successors to assassinated leaders have made a break with the Islamic Republic’s ideology or policies, according to multiple Western officials, U.S. intelligence assessments and regional analysts. The U.S. and Israel say they have killed numerous senior figures in the clerical regime since they launched their campaign against Iran on Feb. 28, including the former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, and commanders in the Revolutionary Guard Corps.
But the regime shows no sign of collapsing, and the people who have replaced senior leaders are known as equally hard-line or arguably even more militant than their predecessors, according to Western officials and experts on Iran. U.S. intelligence agencies assessed that the Iranian regime remains “intact but largely degraded due to attacks on its leadership and military capabilities,” National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard told lawmakers on March 18.
Trump hints at timeline for war with Iran in address to nation
Trump threatened to send Iran “back to the Stone Ages” and spoke about the possibility of negotiations. NBC News’ Monica Alba recaps the highlights from his address.
Fact check: Trump says the U.S. imports 'almost no oil' through the Strait of Hormuz
Statement
"The United States imports almost no oil through the Hormuz Strait and won't be taking any in the future."
Verdict
This is mostly false.
Analysis
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. imported 0.5 million barrels per day of crude oil and condensate through the Strait of Hormuz in 2024. That accounted for 7% of U.S. crude oil and condensate imports and 2% of petroleum liquids consumption. Essentially, the U.S. does get oil through the Strait of Hormuz as of 2024.
Trump's suggestion that the Strait of Hormuz will open up naturally will be a major concern for the Middle East
The phrase that I think is going to be jumping out at our allies here in the region is that the Strait of Hormuz is going to open up naturally at the end of this war. That is just not the understanding of anyone here in the Gulf region.
Before the war, 110 ships were passing through every day; Iranian oil was coming out, Iraqi oil, Saudi oil, Qatari gas, passing through a recognized passageway through the middle of the Strait of Hormuz. Today, something like five to 10 ships are passing through every day, and those ships are no longer going unmolested through the middle of the strait.
They are being forced into Iranian waters between a series of islands. This has been nicknamed the Tehran toll booth. The Iranians are inspecting these ships as they come by. They are charging some of them $2 million to pass through, and every indication is that the Iranians want to make this into a long-term arrangement, even after the war continues.
The idea that the U.S. is going to step away and basically leave the Iranians in control of the Strait of Hormuz, in the hope that they are just going to naturally give up this level of control that they have asserted, is going to be very worrying for people here in the Middle East.
Trump said earlier today that he was considering withdrawing from NATO but made no mention of it tonight
Trump said in an interview earlier today that he was absolutely considering withdrawing from NATO — a significant step he could not take unilaterally. Trump would potentially have to ask Congress to do that, and right now, there are no indications that something like that could make it through.
Despite that, Trump did not mention that prospect during his address, though he did have some criticism for these countries, saying he believes they should step up and do more.
For weeks, Trump has engaged in this diplomatic dare, at times telling U.S. allies that he wants them to help ensure the safe passage of vessels and oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz while most recently telling them that the U.S. doesn’t want or need their help anymore.
Trump is making the argument that if the U.S. doesn’t do anything about the Strait of Hormuz, it won’t be an issue for America, despite the rise in oil prices it’s causing. Allies have indicated that they do want to ensure that vessels and tankers can pass through the strait, but they’ve also said this is not their war.
Fact check: Trump says Iran's ballistic missiles could have reached U.S. soon
“They were also rapidly building a vast stockpile of conventional ballistic missiles and would soon have had missiles that could reach the American homeland, Europe and virtually any other place on Earth.”
Verdict
Mostly false.
Analysis
Before the start of the war, Iran would not have had that capability for another 10 years, according to an analysis by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Stock futures slide and oil prices surge on Trump's speech
As Trump addressed the nation, markets reacted negatively to what he had to say about his plan for the war with Iran.
S&P 500 futures slid 0.75%, Nasdaq futures sold off by 1%, and Dow futures dropped more than 310 points.
Oil prices also shot higher, with U.S. crude oil rising from around $98 to nearly $104. Brent, the international oil benchmark, soared from $99 to $106.
The move in oil prices will directly translate into higher gas prices. Already, since the war began Feb. 28, prices at the pump for U.S. consumers have risen from an average $2.46 per gallon to more than $4 today.
Trump has concluded his remarks on Iran
Trump has finished his address to the nation on the war in Iran.
Trump says the U.S. will bring Iran 'back to the Stone Age' with strikes in the next few weeks
Trump threatened more strikes against Iran, saying that over the next two to three weeks, the U.S. will “bring them back to the stone age, where they belong.”
“I’ve made clear from the beginning of Operation Epic Fury that we will continue until our objectives are fully achieved. 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,” he said.
“We’re going to hit them extremely hard. Over the next two to three weeks, we’re going to bring them back to the Stone Age, where they belong. In the meantime, discussions are ongoing,” he added.
Iran has denied that it is negotiating with the U.S.
Trump blames Iran for rising oil prices
Trump blamed skyrocketing oil prices on Iran, saying the rising costs are "short term."
"Many Americans have been concerned to see the recent rise in gasoline prices here at home. This short-term increase has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching deranged terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring countries that have nothing to do with the conflict," he said.
"This is yet more proof that Iran can never be trusted with nuclear weapons," he continued.
Oil and gas prices have risen significantly since Operation Epic Fury began Feb. 28.
Trump urges other countries to take control of Strait of Hormuz
Trump said the U.S. imports almost no oil through the Strait of Hormuz, saying, “We don’t need it.”
Trump said countries that do get oil that passes through the strait “must take care of that passage.”
A fifth of the world’s oil passes the strait, which borders Iran.
“They must cherish it. They must grab it and cherish it. They can do it easily,” Trump said.
He said that the U.S. will be “helpful” but that the onus is on those countries to “take the lead in protecting the oil that they so desperately depend on.”
“So to those countries that can’t get fuel, many of which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, we had to do it ourselves. I have a suggestion. No. 1, buy oil from the United States of America; we have plenty. We have so much. And No. 2, build up some delayed courage. Should have done it before. Should have done it with us as we ask, go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.”
Trump says U.S. strategic objectives 'nearing completion'
Trump said the U.S. is "nearing completion" on achieving strategic objectives in Iran.
He did not offer specifics about when he would consider those objectives complete.
Trump says he 'vowed to never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon'
Trump said that from the beginning of his political career he "vowed" to "never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," and he described several attacks led by Iran's "fanatical regime" that justified the war.
"For these terrorists to have nuclear weapons would be an intolerable threat. The most violent and thuggish regime on Earth would be free to carry out their campaigns of terror, coercion, conquest and mass murder from behind a nuclear shield," Trump said.
"I will never let that happen, and neither should any of our past presidents," he continued. "This situation has been going on for 47 years and should have been handled long before I arrived in office."
Trump's assessment of war in line with previous remarks that U.S. is winning
Trump is giving an assessment of Iran that boasts U.S. military wins, saying Iran has suffered significant losses and that its leadership and armed forces have been hit hard.
Trump’s assessment is largely aligned with his previous remarks about the war.
Trump praises troops for ‘masterful job’ in Venezuela
In a tangent in his speech, Trump touched on Venezuela, praising troops for “the masterful job they did in taking the country of Venezuela in a matter of minutes.”
He said the military operations were “quick, lethal, violent and respected by everyone all over the world.”
He said the U.S. is working with Venezuela as "joint venture partners."
“We’re getting along incredibly well in the production and sale of massive amounts of oil and gas, the second-largest reserves on Earth, after the United States of America. We’re now totally independent of the Middle East, and yet, we are there to help,” he said.
Trump begins address to the nation on Iran war
Trump is now delivering his prime-time remarks from the White House.
He is expected to give an "important update" on the war in Iran, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt.
Congressional Democrats sue Trump administration over mail-in ballot executive order
Top Democrats in Congress and the Democratic campaign committees for the House and Senate sued the Trump administration today over the president's executive order on mail-in ballots.
The lawsuit said Democratic lawmakers and candidates are “severely harmed by the President’s unlawful attempts to upturn the electoral playing field in his own favor and against his political rivals."
"Tens of millions of Plaintiffs’ members and supporters are likewise injured by the Order’s directives that erect obstacles for casting ballots that will be counted, frustrate the fair administration of federal elections, and mandate unlawful disclosures of protected information,” the lawsuit added.
“President Trump’s Order dramatically exceeds his highly limited constitutional and statutory authority when it comes to regulating elections,” the Democrats wrote, asking the court to declare that the executive order violates the constitutional separation of powers and is not enforceable.
Trump quips he can't be a king because he 'can't get a ballroom approved'
Trump poked fun at people calling him a king, saying he's not even able to get his ballroom project approved.
“On Palm Sunday, Jesus entered Jerusalem as crowds welcomed him with praise, honoring him as king. They call me king now. Do you believe it? No king. I’m such a king. I can’t get a ballroom approved,” Trump said at a private Easter luncheon at the White House.
“Pretty amazing, right? I’m a king. If I was a king, would be doing a lot more. I’m doing a lot, but I could be doing a lot more if I was a king,” he added.
His remarks, a video of which was posted to the White House’s YouTube page briefly and then deleted, come a day after a federal judge paused construction on Trump’s White House ballroom, saying Congress needed to approve the project.
Trump commented on the ruling at the luncheon, calling the judge, George W. Bush appointee Richard Leon, a “Trump-hating judge.”
“We had a judge that ruled that we had to go back to Congress. In the history of this building, nobody’s ever gone back, when they build something here — you don’t go back to Congress. But we have a lot, I have a lot of unfriendly judges. Somehow we seem to get by them, but they’re not good people,” he said.
Despite Trump’s claims, there’s no indication Iran’s regime has lost power, Western officials and experts say
Trump has claimed repeatedly in recent days that the air war on Iran has ousted the regime, but there is no indication that the authoritarian government has lost its grip on power or that successors to assassinated leaders have made a break with the Islamic Republic’s ideology, according to multiple Western officials, U.S. intelligence assessments and regional analysts.
The U.S. and Israel say they have killed numerous senior figures in the clerical regime since they launched their campaign against Iran on Feb. 28, including the former supreme leader, Ali Khamenei.
Airstrikes have killed Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and one of the country’s most powerful officials; Mohammad Pakpour, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the ministers of intelligence and defense; and a slew of other senior commanders, according to Israeli officials.
But the regime shows no sign of unraveling, and the people who have replaced senior leaders are known as equally hard-line or arguably even more militant than their predecessors, according to Western officials and experts on Iran.
Trump says Americans 'don't have the patience' for the U.S. to take Iran's oil
At a private luncheon this afternoon, Trump said that while his preference is to "just take the oil" from Iran, he doesn't think "that the people in our country have the patience to do that."
His remarks at an Easter luncheon at the White House without any reporters present were posted in a video to the White House’s YouTube channel this evening before they were deleted.
“We could do it so easily. I would prefer that,” Trump said. “But people in the country sort of say: ‘Just win. You’re winning so big. Just win. Come home.’”
Trump made similar remarks Sunday in an interview with the Financial Times.
This afternoon, he said that the U.S. has to "take a few more hits" in Iran, adding that "we're sort of pretty much winding that up."
He then criticized NATO, saying the military alliance "treated us very badly, and we have to remember it because they'll be treating us badly again if we ever need them.”
Trump told The Daily Telegraph today that he is considering leaving NATO over its resistance to join Israel and the U.S. in their war on Iran.
Trump this afternoon also teased his prime-time address.
“Tonight, I’m making a little speech at 9 o’clock. And basically I’m gonna, I’m gonna tell everybody how great I am,” he said.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she will now oppose all U.S. military aid to Israel
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said today that she is now opposing all U.S. military aid to Israel, a shift in her previous position that made exceptions to support Israeli efforts to defend itself.
The new stance distinguishes Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., from both leaders in her party and other potential 2028 Democratic White House contenders, should she launch a presidential run.
“I believe the Israeli government is well able to fund the Iron Dome system, which has proven critical to keep innocent civilians safe from rocket attacks and bombardment,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement today. “Consistent with my voting record to date, I will not support Congress sending more taxpayer dollars and military aid to a government that consistently ignores international law and U.S. law.”
House Democrat to introduce bill to bar Trump's signature from appearing on dollar bills
A California Democrat is set to introduce a bill that would block Trump’s signature from appearing on paper currency.
Rep. Jimmy Gomez will put the bill forth tomorrow morning, his press secretary, Billy Berler, said in an email. The planned bill, which would face an uphill battle to become law, would prohibit a sitting president from signing U.S. currency and securities.
“I introduced this bill because no sitting President should be allowed to use the nation’s currency to personally promote themselves,” Gomez said in a news release announcing his bill. “Trump wants to slap his name on buildings, airports, and now the dollar bill, but U.S. currency belongs to the American people, not the President.”
The Treasury Department announced last week that it plans to include Trump’s signature on bills in honor of the country’s 250th anniversary, the first such instance for a sitting president. Bills have historically been signed by the U.S. treasurer and the Treasury secretary or the Treasury register.
A federal commission made up of Trump appointees approved a plan last month to put Trump’s image on a commemorative gold coin for the country’s 250th birthday.
While a 2005 law prohibits a president’s image from appearing on coins, Congress passed an act in 2020 that said the Treasury could mint $1 coins with “designs emblematic of the U.S. semiquincentennial” for a one-year period. Officials have made the case that the coin with Trump’s face would be commemorative and separate from minting a circulated coin.
Senate may pass DHS funding bill for a second time tomorrow morning
The Senate may try for a second time tomorrow morning to pass its bill to fully fund DHS for the rest of the fiscal year, without funding ICE and CBP, a source familiar with the situation told NBC News.
Although the Senate passed the bill last week, it has to pass it again because the House amended last week's bill with its own, different short-term stopgap bill. For the House to take up the bill again, the Senate would need to pass it for a second time with the same language it used the first time.
Republican leaders announce plan to vote to end DHS shutdown
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a new statement that Congress will move forward with “fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process.”
The duo said that through reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority in both chambers, Republicans will aim to “fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited.”
NBC News reached out Johnson’s office to clarify exactly what the new plan will look like. The House previously rejected the Senate-passed bill that would have funded everything in DHS except for ICE and the Border Patrol.
At this point, we have no indication that the House or the Senate will return early from their two-week recess to start the process.
Polls show consistent majorities opposing military action in Iran after a month of war
When Trump provides an “important update” on the Iran war tonight, he’ll be addressing a nation that has been deeply skeptical of the military operation since it began.
Polls conducted over the last month find majorities of Americans have opposed U.S. military action in Iran, although Republicans remain broadly supportive of Trump’s actions. And even larger majorities remain opposed to sending U.S. ground troops to the conflict.
As the war first began, NBC News polling conducted from Feb. 27 to March 3 found 52% of registered voters said the U.S. should not have taken military action against the country, while 41% supported the action and 7% were not sure. That was a stark departure from other recent conflicts, including wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when majorities in NBC News polling voiced support for the military actions at the outset.
Even as voters broadly opposed the strikes, 77% of Republicans — and 90% voters who said they aligned with the "Make America Great Again" movement — supported the strikes against Iran in the NBC News poll.
Since then, polls have found persistent majorities opposing the military operation in Iran, with Republicans remaining steadfast in their support.
Trump will monitor Artemis II space launch, White House says
Trump plans to monitor the Artemis II space launch set for this evening from the White House, a White House official said.
Trump posted on Truth Social that at 6:24 p.m. ET, "for the first time in over 50 YEARS, America is going back to the Moon!"
"We are WINNING, in Space, on Earth, and everywhere in between — Economically, Militarily, and now, BEYOND THE STARS. Nobody comes close!" he wrote.
White House spokeswoman Liz Huston noted in a statement that the Artemis program was formally established during Trump's first term in office.
"President Trump is excited about the next phase with the historic upcoming Artemis II launch. This effort will strengthen American leadership in space, usher in scientific discoveries, and serve as the proving ground for missions to Mars," she said.
ACLU director says he hopes Trump 'was schooled in the importance of birthright citizenship'
The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, told reporters after the Supreme Court arguments today on Trump's birthright citizenship order that he was glad Trump attended the hearing.
"I was especially gratified that President Trump was sitting a mere 6 feet away from me, and I hope that he was schooled in the importance of birthright citizenship,” Romero said.
Romero spoke to reporters alongside other members of the legal team that argued against the Trump administration's bid to limit birthright citizenship.
Cecillia Wang, who argued against the order, said she was thinking of her parents when she left the court.
“I come out of the court today with the thought of my parents and so many of our parents and ancestors who came to this country seeking refuge, seeking new opportunities, and who relied on the rule that we’ve had in this country for 150 years that everyone born here is a United States citizen, all alike,” Wang said.
She said she was "confident" the Supreme Court will side with the ACLU.
White House posts photo of Trump inside the Supreme Court building
The White House shared on X a photo of Trump inside the Supreme Court building for today's arguments on his order to limit birthright citizenship.
While visitors can take photographs in the public areas of the Supreme Court building for personal use, photography is prohibited in the courtroom when the court is in session. It’s unclear precisely where in the building the photo was taken.
Trump calls for GOP to pass ICE and Border Patrol funds without Democrats
Trump said on Truth Social that he would work with Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to fund ICE and the Border Patrol "through a process that doesn’t need Radical Left Democrat votes."
Republican senators have previously floated funding ICE through what is known as a budget reconciliation process that would not need Democratic support to bypass the filibuster and funding the rest of the Department of Homeland Security through a separate bill.
"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.
Democrats in Congress are demanding that any legislation to fund DHS include an overhaul of ICE.
Last week, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent to fund all of DHS except for immigration and deportation operations. Johnson, though, rejected the bill in the House and instead led GOP lawmakers to pass a bill to fund all of DHS on a short-term basis. That bill would require some Democratic support in the Senate and does not have enough support to pass.
The DHS shutdown became the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history this week.
Gov. Ron DeSantis signs Florida’s version of the SAVE Act
Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill today that will require proof of citizenship to vote and impose stricter voter ID restrictions on Floridians.
The new law, most of which won’t take effect until after the midterm elections, is Florida’s version of the federal SAVE America Act, a bill Trump has championed. That measure is stalled in the U.S. Senate, where it lacks the 60 votes needed to advance under current rules.
What to expect from Trump's prime-time address on Iran tonight
Trump is set to give the third prime-time address of his second term from the White House tonight. It will not be from the Oval Office, according to a senior White House official.
So what will he actually announce in his speech? That is still being worked out, the official said, so here’s what we can report, with the huge caveat that all of this is subject to change until Trump delivers it.
A current U.S. official, a former U.S. official and a person familiar with the speech planning say Trump is expected to declare a success in the war and say it will be ending soon, in the coming weeks. One of the current officials said that the military has almost completed its target checklist and that there is a plan for how to get to the end of the war but would not go into details about the plan.
The senior White House official said the speech will serve as an “operational update” on the ongoing military operations and is “likely” to touch on the timeline but is meant to be a “broader update to the public.”
For weeks, Trump has repeatedly said the war would end “pretty quickly,” “very soon” and “pretty much, the very near future.” So it’s often unclear exactly what he means when he discusses timelines.
The last prime-time address Trump gave from the White House was in the Diplomatic Reception Room, and it had an overly political tone and was light on new policy.
Supreme Court appears skeptical of Trump’s attempt to limit birthright citizenship
Tackling one of Trump’s most provocative policies, members of the Supreme Court expressed skepticism today about the lawfulness of his proposal to limit the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil.
Announced on the first day of Trump’s second term in office as part of his hard-line immigration policy, the executive order at issue would limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident
After Supreme Court arguments, Trump says U.S. 'stupid' for allowing birthright citizenship
Trump again criticized birthright citizenship in a post to Truth Social, his first public reaction to the case since arguments wrapped just minutes ago.
"We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow 'Birthright' Citizenship!" he said in the post.
A Pew Research Center analysis published yesterday indicated that 32 other countries have similar birthright citizenship laws to the U.S. and an additional 50 countries have more narrow versions of birthright citizenship on the books.
Supreme Court arguments conclude
The arguments have concluded after about two hours. The justices are expected to announce their decision by the end of the term in June.
Sauer begins his rebuttal
Sauer has begun his rebuttal arguments after Supreme Court justices finished questioning ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang.
Rebuttals are usually relatively brief, and justices do not ask questions. The arguments will conclude after Sauer's rebuttal.
Wang says the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment sets a 'floor'
During his questioning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Wang if the exceptions to birthright citizenship are "frozen forever."
"The way I would put it is that the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, again, has a universal rule with a closed set of exceptions," she said.
Wang continued, "It sets a floor so the Congress has, under the naturalization clause, the power to expand citizenship to other people not covered by the 14th Amendment. And obviously they have, in many ways, but they can't go below that floor that that the Constitution sets."
What did the Supreme Court decide in the landmark Wong Kim Ark case?
The plaintiffs' argument centers on a landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a decision in 1898 that established the precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent’s nationality or citizenship status, is automatically a citizen under the 14th Amendment.
The case focused on Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the grounds that he was not a U.S. citizen.
In a 6-2 decision, the Fuller Court, named after Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was U.S. born, and his parents were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China,” Section 1 of the 14th Amendment — the citizenship clause — automatically made him a U.S. citizen.
Much of the disagreement in the case surrounded the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
Looking to limit birthright citizenship, Trump turns to an 1884 Supreme Court ruling against a Native American man
In a moment that could take on new significance almost 150 years later, Omaha election official Charles Wilkins on April 5, 1880, refused to register John Elk to vote on the grounds that he was Native American, and therefore not an American citizen.
Elk — believed to have been a member of what is now known as the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska — objected, saying he had severed all ties with his tribe and had willingly subjected himself to the authority of the United States.
He launched a legal challenge, arguing among other things that he was a citizen at birth because he was born within United States territory.
But the Supreme Court, in an 1884 case called Elk v. Wilkins, ruled against him, saying that Native Americans born within the territory of the United States did not have birthright citizenship. They had the same status as “the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,” the court said.
The Trump administration is now citing that case as it defends the president's plan to end automatic birthright citizenship, putting a new spin on the long-standing interpretation of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
Justice Gorsuch says Elk case 'may not be' helpful to Wang's argument
Speaking about the 1884 Elk v. Wilkins case that decided Native Americans were not automatically American citizens, Gorsuch told Wang, "Well, there's a lot in Elk, and some of it's not terribly helpful for you."
Noting that the same justice who authored Elk wrote the opinion in Wong Kim Ark, Gorsuch said, "it's a struggle."
"Sure," Wang agreed, adding, "let me help you out with that," and explained why she believes that there are some parts of Elk that are helpful to the ACLU's argument.
Justice Alito says the 1866 Civil Rights Act is 'pretty straightforward'
Alito asked Wang if she agrees that the citizenship test in the 14th Amendment is the same as the test in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
Wang said the "the framers were trying to do the same thing with the language in both."
"So then I think we can turn to the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, because it's more straightforward," Alito said. "You know, subject to the jurisdiction thereof is like the, you know, the puzzle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mystery, but not subject to any foreign power, is pretty straightforward."
ACLU lawyer arguing case is a birthright citizen
Cecillia Wang, the ACLU legal director who's arguing in favor of birthright citizenship, is a birthright citizen herself.
Wang told The New York Times that her parents, who were from Taiwan, were in the country on student visas when she was born in Oregon in 1971, which made her a U.S. citizen by birth.
“Your parents could be undocumented immigrants who fled here with nothing but the clothes on their back, or your ancestors could have come on the Mayflower,” she told the paper. “But you and I are exactly the same as U.S. citizens.”
What is 'domicile' as a legal concept?
Numerous judges have peppered Sauer about his arguments on the importance of the "domicile" of a child's parents.
Sauer contends the 14th Amendment does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants because their parents don’t owe "allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile," or permanent residence.
The Law Dictionary defines domicile as: "That place in which a man has voluntarily fixed the habitation of himself and family, not for a mere special or temporary purpose, but with the present intention of making a permanent home, until some unexpected event shall occur to induce him to adopt some other permanent home."
Justices press ACLU lawyer about the use of 'domicile' in prior court case
Justices are pressing Wang about the term "domicile," which refers to permanent residence.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that the ACLU dismisses the use of the word "domicile" in the Wong Kim Ark case.
"Isn't it at least something to be concerned about to say that since it's discussed 20 different times and has that significant role in the opinion that you can just dismiss it as irrelevant?" he asked.
Shortly after, Justice Elena Kagan circled back to asking about the use of the word "domicile" repeatedly in the 1898 case.
Justice Samuel Alito also brought up the fact that "domicile" was referenced repeatedly in the case.
"Why put it in if it's irrelevant?" he asked.
Wang responded, arguing "it was a stipulated fact" and that the Wong Kim Ark decision "has binding precedential effect."
"Even if you think that Wong Kim Ark decided the case based on the stipulated facts, you have to follow that controlling rule of decision," she said.
Justice Gorsuch says legal community's interpretation of Wong Kim Ark case is 'a mess'
In his initial questions for Wang, Justice Gorsuch told her, "if we’re trying to understand how the legal community understood what happened in Wong Kim Ark, seems to me it’s a mess. So maybe you can persuade me otherwise."
"I think I can Justice Gorsuch," Wang answered, going on to argue that the Wong Kim Ark case clarified that domicile is "not relevant" in the question of birthright citizenship.
Trump leaves Supreme Court as birthright citizenship arguments continue
Trump has departed the Supreme Court after attending his solicitor general's arguments for more than an hour.
The plaintiff's attorney, Cecillia Wang, is now delivering her arguments against the president's executive order.
The motorcade carrying President Donald Trump departs the Supreme Court today. Kent Nishimura / AFP - Getty Images
Lawyer for plaintiffs in birthright case begins arguments
The plaintiffs' lawyer, Cecillia Wang, has begun her arguments. She serves as the national legal director for the ACLU.
Wang argued that the administration not asking to overturn the Ark decision is a "fatal" error.
Justice Jackson asks why Sauer believes framers didn't adopt common law when considering allegiance
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson told Sauer that he has "a number of hurdles" in his argument, including explaining why he believes that the framers didn't adhere to common law at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified.
"It seems as though the court had already accepted at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment that the allegiance that you were talking about was the English common law rule that," Jackson told Sauer.
"Allegiance meant that you are covered by the laws of the jurisdiction that you can rely on that jurisdiction's protection," Jackson added. "That's what allegiance meant. Now you're saying today, 'No, no, allegiance meant something about loyalty or that kind of idea.'"
Justice Barrett weighs potential 'messy' applications of new interpretation
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on potential "messy" applications of a new interpretation of birthright citizenship.
"I can imagine it being messy in some applications," she said.
"What if you don't know who the parents are?" she asked moments later, asking Sauer about how the Constitution may address this issue.
"Domicile is a constitutional standard in all kinds of other situations," Sauer said, referring to permanent residence.
The justice also pointed out that in some cases, it may not be clear if the parent, including citizens, intends to stay in the U.S.
"What if you have someone who is living in Norway with their husband and family, but is still a U.S. citizen, comes home and has her child here and goes back," she said. "How do we know whether the child is a U.S. citizen because the parent didn't have an intent to stay?"
Sauer said that Trump's executive order focuses on immigration status.
"Taking evidence, so to speak, under subjective intent wouldn't be done," he said.
Justice Kavanaugh doubts whether the administration's point about other countries is legally relevant
Justice Brett Kavanaugh said to Sauer, "I get the point thinking about, 'Gee, European countries don’t have this, or most other countries, many other countries in the world don’t have this.'
"I guess I’m not seeing the relevance as a legal, constitutional interpretive matter, necessarily, although I understand it’s a very good point as a policy matter," he added.
Sauer said, "Our point is, you know, it’s a very small minority, because almost every country, and certainly all European countries, have a different rule, and the world hasn’t ended."
Justice Kavanaugh presses Sauer on his interpretation of a 19th-century law
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer on why Congress repeated language in the 1940s and 1950s about "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and did not try to disagree with the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark.
The 1898 Wong Kim Ark case established precedent that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen, regardless of their parent's nationality or citizenship status.
"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, and yet Congress repeats that same language, knowing what the interpretation had been," Kavanaugh said.
Trump is the first sitting president to attend high court arguments
Trump is the first sitting president to attend an oral argument at the high court, but not the first to be in the courtroom, according to the Supreme Court Historical Society.
Trump has been there twice before in 2017 and 2018, attending the formal investiture ceremonies of Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the society noted. Both were held on days the court was not in session.
Other presidents have attended swearing-in ceremonies as well, but only one stayed to witness any court proceeding — Richard Nixon in 1969. The then-president watched the swearing-in of Warren Burger and read a tribute to retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, and listened to decisions that were being handed down by the court before he spoke, the society said.
Others presidents have argued cases as lawyers before the court, but did so before or after serving in the White House, and not while they were in office, the society said.
They include John Quincy Adams, who argued four cases before becoming president and one after he was president, and Nixon, who argued a case in 1966.
The others who did so were Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, Grover Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison and William Howard Taft.
Taft argued the most cases — 39 of between 1890 and 1892 while he was serving as solicitor general, according to the society. He then served as chief justice of the Supreme Court after his one term in the White House.
Justice Gorsuch asks if Native Americans are birthright citizens
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Sauer if Native Americans would be considered birthright citizens today under his argument.
"I think so?" Sauer said. "I mean, obviously they've been granted citizenship by statute."
Gorsuch asked again and Sauer said, "No, I think the clear understanding that everybody agrees in the congressional debates is that the children of tribal Indians are not birthright."
"I understand that's what they said," Gorsuch said, "But your test is the domicile of the parents, and that would be the test you'd have us apply today, right?"
"Yes, yes," Sauer said.
Gorsuch eventually responded, "I'll take the yes."
Justice Sotomayor asked Sauer whether he's asking the court to overturn the Wong Kim Ark decision
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer whether he's asking the court to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a case decided in 1898 that established the precedent that anyone born in the United States, regardless of their parent's nationality or citizenship status, is automatically a citizen.
"We're not asking you to overrule Wong Kim Ark," Sauer said.
He added later, "We think that's similar to a drive-by jurisdictional ruling, where there's a simple statement that's not debated, there's no further analysis of it. There's really an assumption there."
Wong Kim Ark appears in an image attached to his 1894 departure statement fom San Francisco. National Archives
Justice Thomas questions Sauer on whether 19th-century domicile text applies to current day immigration
Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Sauer on whether the 19th-century cases he cites can be applied to today's era of immigration, which features many more immigrants to the U.S. than there were back then. Thomas made the distinction between immigration and citizenship.
"Generally, you're getting a lot of questions about immigration, and they harken back, of course, to citizenship, which is defined in or set out in the 14th Amendment. How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?" Thomas asked.
Sauer said that many of the debates about the 14th Amendment, when it was discussed, were about Native American tribes, not immigrants.
Justice Barrett presses administration on theory about children of enslaved people
Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed Sauer on the administration's arguments related to formerly enslaved people, saying that enslaved people "were here against their will, and so maybe felt allegiance to the countries where they were from."
"And you say that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to put all slaves on equal footing, newly freed slaves on equal footing, and so they would be citizens," she said. "But that's not textual. So how do you how do you get there?"
The Trump administration has argued that children of undocumented migrants do not owe allegiance to the U.S. because they do not have legal status to establish permanent residence.
Sauer said that 19th-century Antebellum law treated enslaved people's presence as lawful.
Justice Gorsuch questions Sauer's reasoning on 'domicile'
Justice Neil Gorsuch said to Sauer that he's pointing to laws against immigration that are "much more restrictive" than they were in the 19th century.
"We really didn’t have laws like that we do today until maybe 1880," he said. "So if somebody showed up here in 1868 and established domicile, that was perfectly fine, without respect to anything, any immigration laws, there they were. And so why wouldn’t we, even if we were to apply your own test, come to the conclusion that the fact that someone might be illegal is immaterial?"
He continued, "It's a natural extension whose domicile matters. I mean, it's not the child, obviously, it's your, it's the parents. You'd have us focus on. And you know, what if, is it the husband? Is it the wife? What if they're unmarried, whose domicile?"
Gorsuch asked how is domicile determined.
Sauer argued that he doesn't see a strong distinction between 1868 and now. "Domicile is a high-level concept, has been pretty consistent over centuries, which is lawful presence with the intent to remain permanently."
Gorsuch responded, "It's striking that in none of the debates do we have parents discussed. We have the child's citizenship and the focus of clauses on the child, not on the parents, and you don't see domicile mentioned in the debates. That's the absence is striking."
Justice Jackson asks Sauer if 'domicile' is controlled by Congress
Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asked Sauer if he was arguing that domicile is controlled or will eventually be controlled by Congress.
"Who is domiciled? I'm struggling to figure out who is domiciled," she said.
Sauer said, "Domiciliaries are people who are lawfully present and have an intent to remain permanently." He said that Congress "can't dictate that certain classes of people legal entrance and so forth, cannot lawfully lack the legal capacity to form a legally binding..."
Jackson responded, "Doesn't it make the domicile for the purpose of the 14th Amendment turn then ultimately on Congress' will in a way that the framers did not intend?"
Sauer said it's his understanding that the framers put the citizenship clause into the Constitution "to prevent future Congresses from being able to affect citizenship in this way."
Justice Kagan questions Sauer's argument about undocumented immigrants
Justice Elena Kagan questioned Sauer about his argument that children of undocumented immigrants shouldn't be granted U.S. citizenship, saying that temporary visitors to the U.S. aren't the same as undocumented immigrants.
"Most of your brief is not about illegal aliens. Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country," Kagan told Sauer.
Later, she asked Sauer to explain where he's drawing his argument about undocumented immigrants from, telling the solicitor general, "You're using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept."
Chief Justice Roberts questions the administration's 'quirky' arguments
Chief Justice John Roberts said in his line of questioning that the examples the administration are raising to support its argument are "very quirky."
"You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships," he said. "And then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens are here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples."
Justice Thomas asks first question
The justices' questions for attorneys kicked off with Justice Clarence Thomas asking Sauer about the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford case.
Thomas specifically asked Sauer to explain the government's position on state citizenship versus national citizenship.
ACLU national policy director says Supreme Court case is 'fundamental to what it means to be American'
Mike Zamore, the ACLU’s national director of policy and government affairs, said outside the court that “this case is really fundamental to what it means to be American and what America means.”
“What Donald Trump is trying to do in rewriting the 14th Amendment is essentially say that there are two different kinds of people in this country, and that there's a permanent underclass, essentially, who's not good enough for citizenship, and we just fundamentally reject that,” he said.
He said he was interested to watch if justices ask about the practical implications for reshaping birthright citizenship.
“I think there's also an interesting question about, just like, the practical implications of what Trump is trying to do, and it'll be interesting, I think, to see whether some of the justices push the administration on these questions of like, ‘Yeah, but how? Like what would the implications of this really be?’” he said.
Mike Zamore, the ACLU’s national director of policy and government affairs. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Oral arguments in birthright citizenship case begin
Oral arguments in the challenge to Trump's birthright citizenship order have begun, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer delivering his opening remarks.
Trump leaves White House with Pam Bondi to head to Supreme Court
Trump just left the White House with Attorney General Pam Bondi. They are heading to the Supreme Court to attend oral arguments in the birthright citizenship case.
President Donald Trump's limousine arrives at the Supreme Court today. Win McNamee / Getty Images
ACLU calls Trump's visit to Supreme Court today an 'effort to distract from the gravity and importance' of the case
The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is leading the legal challenge to Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship at the heart of today's oral arguments, blasted the president's decision to attend oral arguments today.
“If President Trump wishes to come to the Supreme Court to watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship, we will be glad to sit alongside of him in that very court," Anthony D. Romero said in a statement.
Romero called Trump's visit to the court an effort "to distract from the gravity and importance of this case" that "will not succeed."
"The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them," he added, later calling today's case "one of the most important cases in the last hundred years."
Protester calls birthright citizenship 'essential'
Mary Wertsch, 74, protested outside the Supreme Court with umbrellas adorned with messages like “due process” and “rule of law.”
“This is fundamental,” she said of birthright citizenship. “I can't believe the court even is looking at it. It could not be clearer in the Constitution, this is essential.”
Wertsch said she has protested a lot, adding that “since the inauguration, I put everything else in my life on hold. This is what I do.”
She said she was affiliated with the group Third Act, a liberal advocacy group for people ages 60 and older.
Mary Wertsch. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Protesters demonstrate against Trump's birthright citizenship order
Kathleen Otal, 54, protested against the Trump administration outside the Supreme Court with a sign that read “Born in the U.S.A. = true American."
“Our democracy is being assaulted and attacked in the most basic of ways, and I'm here to defend democracy and defend the human rights of all Americans,” she said.
Otal has protested the Trump administration before, including at "No Kings" protests, but said this was her first time demonstrating in front of the Supreme Court.
“This is something that is fundamental to our country, is that we were built on immigrants,” she said. “And people who were born here are true Americans, and they always will be, and we're not willing to give that up.”
Kathleen Otal. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Birthright citizenship arguments — and Trump — draw college students' interest
Fabio Crynen, 28, arrived outside the Supreme Court at around 5:30 a.m. with a group of fellow Georgetown students for a chance to see the arguments. Crynen, from Germany, said he was interested to see the court because it was very different “concerning the legal culture from our countries.”
“The significance of the single justices is quite unique in the U.S." Crynen said.
"Secondly, of course, because the case is a landmark case, and it tells a lot about the differences about methodology, originalism, living Constitution, so it's quite interesting from a legal perspective,” he said, adding that he was also interested to see Trump.
Fabio Crynen. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Supreme Court observers go without sleep to 'witness history in the making'
Rose Griffis, 39, has been waiting outside the Supreme Court since about 1:30 a.m. for the chance to “witness history in the making.”
“Precedence has already been set in many courts before this moment, and now here we are rehashing this fight all over again,” she said.
Griffis says she’s been awake since 9 a.m. yesterday, except for maybe a 45-minute nap on the sidewalk.
“It's been a little cold, but great people are all around us, and so it's had a tinge of excitement to the air," she said. "It's not every day that you get to be a part of a moment like this, and it's certainly not every day that the president of the United States shows up to give his two cents.”
Despite the lack of sleep, she said she felt “straight adrenaline.”
Rose Griffis outside the Supreme Court. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
Jiashuo Wang, a high school student, flew from the Bay Area during his spring break to try to attend the arguments with a friend. The two slept on the ground last night, and Wang said he got just an hour of sleep.
“It's not really cold now, but the floor is hard, but for such case, it's worth it,” he said.
“I really like constitutional laws,” he said. Rattling off other citizenship cases, Wang added that today marks “really a landmark case for the whole United States” in the past hundred years.
Political junkie spends 'freezing' nights outside Supreme Court
Leo Contreras, 43, flew in from Kansas City and slept two nights outside to try to ensure a spot inside the Supreme Court for the arguments on Trump's birthright citizenship order.
Leo Contreras. Megan Lebowitz / NBC News
“The problem is that this is something that Republicans have for a long time been trying to do away with,” said Contreras, a self-described politics junkie. “And in my opinion, this is going to affect every American.”
Contreras said he slept on the sidewalk and got a sleeping bag for the second night. He took turns with another man for bathroom breaks and to go to a store.
“It was horrible, especially the first night,” he said. “It was super cold, super, super cold, freezing, freezing concrete.”
Transportation secretary says renaming of Palm Beach's airport after Trump is official
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a post on X that the renaming of Palm Beach International Airport after Trump is official.
"The FAA is working on changing PBI’s airport code RIGHT NOW… the name change to Donald J. Trump International Airport already official! Stay tuned @FAANews," he wrote.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed a bill Monday to rename the airport after the president.
King Charles to address Congress on April 28 during state visit
King Charles will address a joint meeting of Congress on April 28, congressional leaders announced this morning.
In a letter to the king, RepuBlican and Democratic leaders said the speech "will provide a unique opportunity to share your vision for the future of our special relationship and reaffirm our alliance at this pivotal time in history."
Charles' late mother, Queen Elizabeth II, last addressed a joint meeting of Congress in May 1991. The leaders referred to her remarks in their letter, saying she told lawmakers the U.S.-U.K. relationship was rooted in shared "spirit of democracy."
Charles' address will come as he makes a state visit to the White House.
What to know about the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship arguments
The Supreme Court will tackle a question that most people had assumed was settled law: Is a child born in the United States a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the parents are?
For 158 years, the answer to that question has largely been yes. The Trump administration will argue today that no, U.S. citizenship does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, and Trump’s January 2025 executive order limiting birthright citizenship should stand.
The Trump administration’s arguments, laid out in a 66-page brief submitted by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, focuses on what may be the five most-focused-on words in the world today: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
The administration is arguing that the children of undocumented immigrants don’t owe allegiance to the United States by virtue of domicile, or permanent residence, because undocumented immigrants lack the legal capacity to establish legal residence here, and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
It also says considering anyone “subject to U.S. law” as a citizen is far too broad, bringing up several exceptions to birthright citizenship in its brief, including the children of Native Americans, who the Supreme Court ruled in 1884 did not have birthright citizenship (which was remedied by President Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s).
The case was brought by a Honduran named Barbara who lives in New Hampshire. The plaintiff represents a class of families who argue that Trump's order is “squarely contrary to the constitutional text, this Court’s precedents, Congress’s dictates, longstanding Executive Branch practice, scholarly consensus, and well over a century of our nation’s everyday practice.”
“Their view would allow Congress to decide who is entitled to birthright citizenship, by enacting statutes to manipulate domicile rules,” her lawyers wrote in their brief. “That is obviously untenable, as the whole point of the Clause was to prevent the political branches from stripping away birthright citizenship.”
Pete Hegseth says Army aircrew who flew helicopters near Kid Rock’s home won’t be punished
There will be no punishment and no investigation after two Army military helicopters were flown by Kid Rock’s house over the weekend, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said yesterday.
The Army had suspended the aircrew in Saturday’s incident, a U.S. official said earlier in the day, but Hegseth announced last night that the suspension was lifted and no punishment would be forthcoming.
“No punishment. No investigation,” Hegseth wrote on X. “Carry on, patriots.”
American journalist kidnapped in Iraq
An American journalist was kidnapped in Iraq yesterday by suspected Iranian-backed militants, according to the State Department and the country’s Interior Ministry.
The journalist was identified in the hours after her kidnapping came to light as freelancer Shelly Kittleson, with Al-Monitor, one of the publications she works for, calling for her “safe and immediate release.”
Federal judge temporarily blocks further demolition of the White House for Trump’s ballroom
A federal judge in Washington has issued an order temporarily blocking the further demolition of the East Wing of the White House and the construction of Trump’s expansive new ballroom.
“I have concluded that the National Trust is likely to succeed on the merits because no statute comes close to giving the President the authority he claims to have,” wrote U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, an appointee of President George W. Bush.
The ruling yesterday blocks the administration “from taking any action in furtherance of the physical development of the proposed ballroom at the former site of the East Wing of the White House, including but not limited to any further demolition, site preparation work, landscape alteration, excavation, foundation work, or other construction or related work, other than actions strictly necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House and its grounds.”
Leon paused his order from taking effect for 14 days to allow time for appeal.
Trump signs executive order on voting, criticizes mail-in ballots
Trump signed an executive order yesterday outlining new rules for voting by mail.
In doing so, he criticized mail-in voting, telling reporters in the Oval Office without evidence that “the cheating on mail-in voting is legendary.”
The order directs the federal government to review voter roll data across the country to verify voter eligibility. It also asks the U.S. Postal Service to take measures to ensure ballots are sent only to eligible voters. Trump acknowledged that the order could be challenged in court.
Trump cast a mail-in ballot this month in a special election in Florida, just days after he had said voting by mail was “mail-in cheating.” He later told reporters that he decided to use mail-in voting because he is president and couldn’t be in Florida, as he “had a lot of different things.”
Trump to address the nation tonight with ‘important update on Iran’
Trump will give an “important update” on the Iran war in an address to the nation tonight, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on X.
The address is scheduled for 9 p.m. ET. Leavitt did not provide details about what Trump will say.
Trump told reporters yesterday that he expects the U.S. to “leave” Iran in two or three weeks. He added that Iran does not have to make a deal with the U.S. for the war to end.
“Whether we have a deal or not, it’s irrelevant,” he said in the Oval Office.
Trump plans to attend oral arguments in Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
Trump said he plans to attend arguments at the Supreme Court today in the case that could end birthright citizenship.
“I’m going,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “Because I have listened to this argument for so long.”
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed to NBC News that Trump plans to be there this morning when Supreme Court justices hear arguments on the constitutionality of a January 2025 executive order he signed that seeks to limit birthright citizenship to anyone who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident.
Both the court and the nonprofit Supreme Court Historical Society said in October that there is no official record of any sitting president having attended oral arguments at the high court.
Supreme Court weighs Trump’s contentious attempt to limit birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON — Tackling one of President Donald Trump’s most provocative policies, the Supreme Court today considers the lawfulness of his proposal to limit the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil.
Announced on the first day of Trump’s second term in office as part of his hard-line immigration policy, the executive order at issue would limit birthright citizenship to people who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.
