(WASHINGTON) — In a new letter, Democratic lawmakers are asking federal regulators to look into legal and ethical questions around the meme cryptocurrency coins launched by President Donald Trump and the first lady.
The letter formally raises concerns about the risk of foreign countries trying to curry influence by buying the coins — and the ethics of Trump making “extraordinary profits off his presidency.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee and an advocate for crypto regulation, co-wrote the letter with Rep. Jake Auchincloss, D-Mass., who sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Warren and Auchincloss point to the foreign emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
“Anyone, including the leaders of hostile nations, can covertly buy these coins, raising the specter of uninhibited and untraceable foreign influence over the President of the United States, all while President Trump’s supporters are left to shoulder the risk of investing in $TRUMP and $MELANIA,” Warren and Auchincloss wrote to the Office of Government Ethics, the Treasury Department, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The meme coins also pose a conflict of interest, they write, because Trump’s family members are expected to directly profit off an industry he is charged with regulating. The president nominates the Chairs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Securities and Exchange Commission, the Directors of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the Secretary of the Treasury.
“This creates an unavoidable conflict of interest, as he will be in a position to both benefit directly from the sale of the tokens while also setting the policy on how these markets are regulated. He will be in a position to seek commitments from agency heads, to not only decide how the market is valued, but to implement lax policies to crack down on crypto scams like pump-and-dump schemes that are regularly conducted through meme coins,” the letter says.
ABC News reached out to the White House for comment.
Trump launched the $TRUMP coin Friday night, just days before he took office. Its estimated value is now $7 billion, according to CoinGecko. The $MELANIA coin is worth around $400 million. A big share of the profits from these coins go toward Trump and his businesses, according to financial disclosures. (If Trump divests of his interests in these companies like he did with most of his assets during his first term, his family could still profit off them.)
Meme coins are a highly volatile type of cryptocurrency that allow people to bet on a popular personality or trend.
On Thursday, Trump signed an executive order seeking to support the expansion of cryptocurrencies.
(NEW YORK) — While some companies are steering away from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, others are sticking with their previous commitments.
Leaders at Goldman Sachs, Costco and JPMorgan Chase & Co have recently spoken out in support of their diversity programs, as anti-DEI activist shareholders continue to push proposals that would roll back company policies.
Costco’s Board of Directors unanimously voted Thursday against a proposal from the National Center for Public Policy Research that had called for Costco to evaluate and publish a report on any risks that may be associated with the company’s diversity and inclusion efforts, according to a Jan. 23 shareholders meeting statement.
“Our efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion follow our code of ethics,” the board statement on the proposal stated. “For our employees, these efforts are built around inclusion – having all of our employees feel valued and respected. Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed.”
The board argued that its diversity programs comply with the law, and defended its commitments to diversifying its supplier base — including special attention to small businesses. The board statement ultimately argued the proposal reflected a “policy bias.”
Costco representatives have not responded to ABC News’ request for comment.
Amid ongoing pressure over its DEI initiatives, a Goldman Sachs spokesperson told ABC News in a statement: “We strongly believe that organizations benefit from diverse perspectives, and Goldman Sachs is committed to operating our programs and policies in compliance with the law.”
Goldman Sachs representatives directed ABC News to a Jan. 22 interview with CNBC from CEO David Solomon, in which Solomon said that the financial services company is looking at these issues “through the eyes of our clients.”
He added, “They think about decarbonization, they think about climate transition,” he said. They think about their businesses, how they find talent, the diversity of the talent they find all over the world. You know we operate a big global business and we serve global clients everywhere. We think about these issues through the lens of, how do we help our clients navigate these things? And we continue to stay focused on talking to our clients and doing the things we’ve always done.”
The company has come under scrutiny for its stated commitments to racial equity, gender equality and increasing diversity. Strategies listed on its website include expanded recruitment efforts, pay gap data collection, aspirational hiring goals and career development programs.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, in an interview with CNBC, said he’s “very proud of what we’ve done.”
“We will continue to reach out to the Black community, the Hispanic community, the veterans community, LGBTQ, we have teams with second chance initiatives — where I go, with blue states, red states, governors, they like what we do,” said Dimon.
JPMorgan Chase did not respond to request for comment.
DEI initiatives, according to ABC News interviews with DEI experts, are intended to address and correct discriminatory policies or practices that may be found within an organization. Experts told ABC News that some examples of DEI initiatives include: implementing accessibility measures for people with disabilities, addressing gender pay inequity, mitigating bias in hiring and recruitment practices, and holding anti-discrimination trainings and more.
Several other companies across industries — including Amazon, Meta and McDonalds — have stepped back and ended their diversity and inclusion initiatives that were largely pledged after the police killing of George Floyd and subsequent protests against racial inequality.
The reversal comes amid ongoing anti-DEI action from conservative politicians, who have implemented policies restricting diversity and equity programs in government, colleges, universities, and more. After taking office this week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order dismantling DEI programs in the federal government.
In an interview with ABC News, Ethan Peck, deputy director for the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project, said that diversity programs pose risks to shareholder value, as they may invite lawsuits from those claiming to have been discriminated against based on recent arguments made against affirmative action.
Some legal experts disagree, arguing that repealing DEI policies could leave companies vulnerable to potential lawsuits from marginalized groups alleging discrimination.
Peck, whose group mounts campaigns to pressure companies to disband DEI programs, argued that diversity programs sacrifice “excellence and innovation,” but said he did not provide examples of employment discrimination at these companies.
“Eventually you will drop DEI, and it’s better for your shareholders if you do it sooner rather than later,” said Peck, who noted that Boeing and John Deere were faced with similar proposals and later dropped their diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
“I believe that this is a fad,” he said.
Anti-DEI activists also argue that “aspirational” goals for increasing diversity and representation are a guise for quotas, which are largely considered illegal, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
“You can be fair in hiring and promotions with candidates of all backgrounds and perspectives without resorting to quota systems and considerations based on immutable characteristics,” said Paul Chesser, the director of the Corporate Integrity Project at the National Legal and Policy Center, in an emailed statement.
Christie Smith, former vice president of inclusion and diversity at Apple and C-Suite adviser, argued that DEI commitments instead increase shareholder value.
DEI has prompted “increased innovation, increased growth in these organizations, increased opportunities in startup organizations, which mostly women and people of color are at, starting these kinds of companies and growing our economy in that way,” she told ABC News.
(NEW YORK) — Trump administration border czar Tom Homan recently promised to carry out “big raids” in sanctuary cities across the U.S. — and scenes of immigration authorities detaining migrants Thursday have rattled some residents in cities like Newark, Boston and New York City.
However, sources told ABC News the enforcement operations this week since President Donald Trump’s second inauguration are the type of routine immigration raids that have been customary of ICE for years.
In a post on X, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said the agency had made a total of 538 arrests Thursday.
Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka said in a statement on Thursday that ICE “raided” a business in the city and detained “undocumented residents, as well as citizens, without producing a warrant.”
In a press release, the mayor said one of the detainees was a veteran “who suffered the indignity of having the legitimacy of his military documentation questioned.”
“This egregious act is in plain violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees ‘the right of the people be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” the mayor said. “Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized. I will be holding a press conference in alliance with partners ready and willing to defend and protect civil and human rights. Details to come.”
WABC also reported ICE made arrests in New York, including of an alleged MS-13 member on Wednesday.
In Massachusetts, WCVB reported ICE made arrests in Chelsea and East Boston on Wednesday.
Gov. Maura Healey said she supported the arrests of criminals regardless of their immigration status.
“I wouldn’t describe them as raids,” Healey told WCVB regarding the arrests.”What it seems to be, and what we expected and what I support, which is the apprehension of criminals in our communities.”
(WASHINGTON) — An internal Border Patrol memo obtained by ABC News indicates that the Department of Homeland Security could request up to 10,000 U.S. military troops to help with efforts along the United States-Mexico border.
Defense officials, however, said this week that they have not heard of this figure, but did say they expected that there could be additional requests for troops.
“This is just the start. This is an initial step, and we are anticipating many further missions,” a senior Defense official told reporters.
The White House yesterday announced that 1,500 troops would be sent to help with operations at the southern border. Those roles, according to sources, would be to help with processing and surveillance.
The Customs and Border Protection planning memo also says the agency could request military infrastructure and technology.
CBP “may” utilize military bases as holding facilities for those who are arrested by Customs and Border Protection. Defense officials said that DOD had not received any requests for that kind of assistance but would evaluate such requests.
The Navy may also help with enforcing and carrying out coastal border operations, according to the document.
Two U.S. officials told ABC News on Thursday afternoon that the first of 500 Marines bound for the border would be shipping out in the coming hours and Army units would be in transit later in the day. A good number of the Army troops will be military police, but they will not be carrying out law enforcement duties, according to other officials.
In addition, four military cargo planes are being positioned for use in deportation flights — a C-17 and C-130 in San Diego and another C-17 and C-130 at Fort Bliss, Texas. So far only the C-17 to Ft. Deportation flights cannot begin until the State Department arranges details, which could take some time.
The U.S. Northern Command said in a news release Thursday that it is “aggressively” bolstering security at the border. About 1,500 soldiers and Marines are “immediately” deploying to the region to augment the approximately nearly 2,500 service members already there supporting CBP’s mission at the border.
“In a matter of days, we will have nearly doubled the number of forces along the border, effectively implementing the President’s intent while planning and posturing for expanded efforts to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the United States,” said Gen. Gregory M. Guillot, commander of the Northern Command.
The exact number of personnel will fluctuate as units rotate personnel and as additional forces are tasked to deploy once planning efforts are finalized, Northern Command said. These forces will support enhanced detection and monitoring efforts and repair and emplace physical barriers, the release said.
-ABC News’ Matt Seyler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Seven sitting governors are throwing their support behind Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler’s run for Democratic National Committee chair. Four of them are eligible to vote in the party’s officer elections.
In endorsements first shared with ABC News, Govs. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Tina Kotek of Oregon, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Laura Kelly of Kansas, Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico, Maura Healey of Massachusetts, and Janet Mills of Maine lauded Wikler as an experienced organizer and unifier. Kelly, Beshear, Lujan Grisham and Whitmer are among the 448 DNC members who can vote for chairperson next week on Feb. 1.
The governors urged their state’s delegations to join them in their support, which would tighten the gap between Wikler and the other leading candidates in this race, Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Chairman Ken Martin and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.
Kelly said Wikler is a “commonsense leader” the party needs and urged “all Kansas voting members to join” her in voting for him.
“As Democratic governors continue to show we can win in battleground and deep red states, we need a DNC Chair who understands the importance of ensuring Democratic governors are some of the strongest voices in our party and who will prioritize investing in our critical 38 races for governor in the next two years. We also need someone who knows that if we’re going to win back essential voters, we need to get back to talking about core issues … in a way that will actually resonate,” Kelly said.
Michigan’s Whitmer said she believes Wikler can generate victories for Democrats at all levels of government.
Whitmer, a two-term Democrat who has repeatedly succeeded in a state twice won by President Donald Trump, has been mentioned as a possible 2028 presidential contender and was discussed as a replacement for President Joe Biden in 2024.
“As Governor of Michigan, I’ve seen Ben fight and win for working people in our neighboring state. Our next Chair needs to be a leader who can do exactly that: get our party unified, organized, and talking to voters to deliver wins up and down the ballot,” Whitmer said. “Ben has my vote, and I encourage my fellow Michiganders to join me in supporting him next week.”
Another name floated as a possible party leader is Beshear, who was on former Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate short list. Beshear said he believes Wikler can unify the rebuilding Democratic Party and raise the resources needed to win.
“There are other good leaders in this race but I will be voting for Ben for DNC Chair and will be encouraging the entire Kentucky delegation to join me — because we need a leader who gets what’s needed to compete not just in blue states but in deep-red and battleground areas too,” Beshear said. “As Chair of WisDems, Ben Wikler has shown that when you unite our party, raise the historic resources needed to invest in governor’s races and every other level of the ballot, and talk to voters about the challenges they’re facing every day, Democrats can win everywhere.”
Lujan Grisham echoed the sentiment that Wikler will value and invest in governors.
“I will be voting for Ben Wikler for DNC Chair because he has shown that he knows how to raise historic funds for candidates up and down the ballot — all while standing up for working families and the year-round organizing we need to fight and win across the country,” Lujan Grisham said.
Kotek offered similar praise, saying Wikler is the “changemaker the Democratic Party needs.”
“The next leader of the DNC needs to be someone with the experience to get our party back and deliver for working people. I urge DNC members from Oregon and across the country to join me in supporting Ben for DNC chair,” Kotek said.
Earlier in the race, Gov. Tony Evers of Wikler’s home state of Wisconsin also endorsed Wikler’s run.
Two governorships will be up for grabs this year, and Democrats are looking to play competitively in both — namely by keeping control of New Jersey and flipping Virginia. These races will be the first large-scale electoral tests for the party since its sweeping losses last November.
The support from the slate of governors also points to a late-stage surge for Wikler after both Martin’s and O’Malley’s teams indicated that the Wisconsin party chairman was lagging behind them in support. Earlier this month, O’Malley’s team asserted, “This is a three-way race and we are not in third place.”
These endorsements also come just days after Martin said he has garnered support from 200 voting members, by far the highest private whip count announced in the race thus far, rapidly approaching the 225 votes needed to win. (Martin currently has the majority of public endorsements.)
But Wikler and O’Malley disputed the assertion, calling Martin’s count inflated and accusing him of muddying the process. Wikler received the backing of four powerful public sector unions and the Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer.
Wikler also came forward with his team’s internal whip count for the first time during the race earlier this week, claiming to have 131 members supporting him. O’Malley’s campaign says he has 100 supporters.
Wikler had previously said he would not release details about his internal whip count. But in a series of social media posts on Wednesday night, Wikler said he was changing course, taking a veiled swipe at Martin and citing a statement from O’Malley’s campaign.
“Until tonight, I’d held back from releasing my whip count,” Wikler said. “But another candidate released a count so inflated that, as another campaign rightly said, it was ‘disrespectful to the 448 voting members of the DNC — many of whom are still making up their minds.'”
He continued, “In a moment of national crisis, DNC members deserve the chance to choose the next Chair based on vision and record, not based on whisper campaigns and attempts to manufacture an illusion of inevitability.”
Nevertheless, no campaign has provided a full list of exactly who is backing their bids, and there are a number of other long-shot candidates who have qualified to run and could peel off a handful of members along the way. It’s unclear, too, if any candidate will clinch a majority of votes to win on the first ballot, opening up the race and allowing members to reconsider their choice in subsequent ballots.
Wikler said he is “honored” to have the backing of these governors, who he said are “some of the most important Democratic voices in the country.”
“Democratic governors present the model for how Democrats can compete and win in the toughest states in the country,” Wikler said, “and we need to invest in their leadership in a way that reflects their invaluable power as messengers and leaders. I’m ready to expand the map and win, together.”
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to declassify files related to the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King.
“That’s a big one,” Trump said as put his signature to the order in the Oval Office. He asked an aide standing nearby to give the marker to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who he’s nominated to be secretary of Health and Human Services.
Trump has long vowed to make the information public. He released a trove of documents in 2017 related to the 1963 killing of John F. Kennedy but left some of it redacted based on recommendations from the CIA and FBI.
A 1992 law passed by Congress required the release of the JFK files by 2017 unless the president authorized that they be withheld longer.
According to the White House text of the order, Trump has “now determined that the continued redaction and withholding of information” on JFK “is not consistent with the public interest and the release of these records is long overdue.”
“And although no Act of Congress directs the release of information pertaining to the assassinations of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I have determined that the release of all records in the Federal Government’s possession pertaining to each of those assassinations is also in the public interest,” the order states.
The records, however, will not immediately be made available.
The order gives the director of national intelligence and attorney general 15 days to present a plan to Trump for the “full and complete” release of records for JFK and 45 days for a plan for the RFK and MLK documents.
The Biden administration also released documents related to JFK’s assassination — more than 13,000 of them.
At the time, the National Archives said more than 97% of records in the collection, which contain more than 5 million pages, were publicly available. The CIA also said that 95% of its collection had been released, and that no documents remained entirely redacted.
In 2023, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called on then-President Joe Biden to release all the files related to his uncle’s assassination.
Last year, as he ran for president first as a Democrat then as an independent before endorsing Trump, RFK Jr. pushed a conspiracy theory that the CIA was directly involved in the assassination of JFK.
When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stood on stage with Trump in August after making his endorsement, Trump announced he would establish a “a new independent presidential commission on assassination attempts” tasked with releasing “all remaining documents pertaining to President John F. Kennedy’s assassination and other events in question.”
JFK was shot and killed in November 1963 during a visit to Dallas at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald.
RFK and MLK were killed in 1968. RFK was shot on the night he won the 1968 California Democratic presidential primary by Sirhan Sirhan. King was killed in Memphis, where he was supporting a sanitation workers strike, by James Earl Ray.
“Lot of people are waiting for this for a long — for years and decades,” Trump said as he signed the order on Thursday.
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has continued to defend his controversial pardons of the Jan. 6 rioters during a Fox News interview, claiming that most were “absolutely innocent” despite being convicted.
Trump told Fox News host Sean Hannity in an interview that aired Wednesday night that he made the pardons and commutations for 1,500 people involved in the pro-Trump mob attack on the U.S. Capitol for a “number of reasons.”
“They were treated like the worst criminals in history. And you know what they were there for? They were protesting the vote,” Trump said repeating the false claim the 2020 election was “rigged.”
After Hannity said that no one should be able to invade the Capitol, Trump responded, “Most of the people were absolutely innocent.”
On Thursday afternoon, answering reporter questions in the Oval Office, Trump was asked whether he planned to meet with those he pardoned –including at the White House.
“I don’t know, he responded. “I’m sure that they probably would like to.”
More than 250 people were convicted for their roles in the attack.
U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died after suffering multiple strokes hours after he was pepper sprayed by rioters. The Washington, D.C. medical examiner ruled he died of natural causes, but said his experience on Jan. 6 played a role in his condition.
Four officers who responded to the Capitol attack have since died by suicide, investigators said.
Approximately 140 Capitol Police officers were injured by rioters, making it one of the most violent days for law enforcement in recent U.S. history, according to investigators. Videos of the destruction and attacks, where the rioters used weapons including bats, hockey sticks, bear spray and stun guns were documented through thousands of hours of videos and police body camera footage that has been publicly released.
Trump, however, claimed on “Hannity” that the attacks on the police were “very minor incidents.”
“This was a political hoax. And you know what? Those people, and I’m not saying in every single case, but there was a lot of patriotism with those people,” he said.
He also said it would have been “very, very cumbersome” to separate out those convicted of violent assaults on police.
Trump’s pardons have come under fire from police unions, prosecutors and some Republicans on the Hill, including Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, who condemned the attacks on police officers.
Trump also suggested former President Joe Biden should have pardon himself as he did with his family members and lawmakers on the Jan. 6 committee.
“This guy went around giving everybody pardons. And you know, the funny thing, maybe the sad thing, is he didn’t give himself a pardon,” Trump said without giving specifics on what crimes his predecessor could have committed.
The president added that he would let Congress decide if Biden and those leaders should be probed.
(SEATTLE) — A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is a constitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
“It’s enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case,” said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Coughenour’s order temporarily enjoins Trump and any federal employee from enforcing or implementing the executive order.
“The Plaintiff States have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,” Coughenour wrote, citing the costs of medical care, social services, and administrative work encountered by the four states who sued Trump.
“The balance of equities tips toward the Plaintiff States and the public interest strongly weighs in favor of entering temporary relief,” the order said.
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In an interview with ABC News after the hearing, Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown said he plans to continue fighting the executive order if the Trump administration appeals to a higher court.
“I don’t think it ends here,” Brown said. “First and foremost, there are other cases being brought across the country, and so those cases will continue to move forward, and this president and this administration certainly has a propensity to keep these fights going, and so I anticipate that will happen moving forward.”
Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit says. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices,” the complaint says. “And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Intended to take effect next month, Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child’s citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court’s finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
(WASHINGTON) — Pete Hegseth, President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, faces a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Thursday on advancing his nomination.
The vote will occur after lawmakers consider the nomination of John Ratcliffe for CIA director. Ratcliffe is poised to be Trump’s second confirmed Cabinet official.
Hegseth’s test vote could come down to the wire, as he can only afford to lose three Senate Republicans assuming all Democrats oppose him.
If he loses three Republicans, Vice President JD Vance, in his role as president of the Senate, could be called on to cast a tie-breaking vote.
Moments before the showdown, a key Senate Republican had announced her opposition to Hegseth.
“After thorough evaluation, I must conclude that I cannot in good conscience support his nomination for Secretary of Defense,” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in a post on X. “I did not make this decision lightly; I take my constitutional responsibility to provide advice and consent with the utmost seriousness.”
Murkowski said she was not confident Hegseth was sufficiently prepared to lead the Pentagon, which is the largest government agency, and took issue with his past statements concerning women in the military.
The Alaska Republican also referenced allegations of sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. Hegseth has largely denied the accusations against him, and told lawmakers he’s a “changed man.”
“The past behaviors Mr. Hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming of someone who would lead our armed forces,” she said. “These behaviors starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of servicemembers.”
All eyes will be on GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell, who have also expressed varying levels of skepticism about Hegseth’s nomination.
In a floor speech on Thursday, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker gave an endorsement of Hegseth, calling him the “right man for the job.”
The committee earlier this week narrowly advanced Hegseth’s nomination in a 14-13 vote along party lines.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(SEATTLE) — A federal judge in Seattle has signed a temporary restraining order blocking President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship.
U.S. District Judge John Coughenour on Thursday heard a request made by four Democratic-led states to issue a temporary restraining order against the executive order signed by Trump that purports to limit birthright citizenship — long guaranteed by the 14th Amendment — to people who have at least one parent who is a United States citizen or permanent resident.
“I have been on the bench for over four decades,” said Judge Coughenour, who was nominated to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. “I can’t remember another case where the case presented is as clear as it is here. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”
“In your opinion, is this executive order constitutional?” he asked DOJ attorney Brett Shumate.
“Yes, we think it is,” Shumate said, drawing the judge’s rebuke.
“I have difficulty understanding how a member of the bar can state unequivocally that this is an unconstitutional order. It boggles my mind,” Coughenour said. “Where were the lawyers when this decision was being made?”
Shumate implored Coughenour to hold off on blocking the order, saying that it does not take effect until Feb. 19.
“It’s enough to say there is no imminent harm that the states will incur as a result of this order,” Shumate said. “We urge the court not to grant any temporary order today on the merits. What makes sense is to have a full briefing on the preliminary injunction.”
“Births cannot be paused while the court considers this case,” said Lane Polozola, an attorney representing the state attorneys general, who said Trump’s executive order attempts to change a part of the Constitution that is “off limits” after being settled across a century of legal precedent.
Judge Coughenour appeared convinced, ending the hearing by saying that he signed the temporary restraining order and that he would consider whether to grant a long-term injunction over the coming weeks.
Thursday’s ruling was the first legal test of Trump’s executive order reinterpreting the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, which Trump long promised on the campaign trail. The executive action is expected to spark a lengthy legal challenge that could define the president’s sweeping immigration agenda.
Democratic attorneys general from 22 states and two cities have sued Trump over the executive order, and the president faces at least five separate lawsuits over the policy.
In Seattle, Judge Coughenour scheduled Thursday’s in-person hearing in the case brought by the attorneys general of Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Illinois. In a federal complaint filed on Tuesday, the four attorneys general argued that Trump’s policy would unlawfully strip at least 150,000 newborn children each year of citizenship entitled to them by federal law and the 14th Amendment.
“The Plaintiff States will also suffer irreparable harm because thousands of children will be born within their borders but denied full participation and opportunity in American society,” the lawsuit says. “Absent a temporary restraining order, children born in the Plaintiff States will soon be rendered undocumented, subject to removal or detention, and many stateless.”
The lawsuit argues that enforcement of Trump’s executive order would cause irreparable harm to the children born from undocumented parents by preventing them from enjoying their right to “full participation and opportunity in American society.”
“They will lose their right to vote, serve on juries, and run for certain offices,” the complaint says. “And they will be placed into lifelong positions of instability and insecurity as part of a new underclass in the United States.”
Lawyers for the Department of Justice, now under new leadership, opposed the request for a temporary restraining order in a court filing Wednesday.
Taking effect next month, Trump’s executive order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship by arguing a child born in the United States to an undocumented mother cannot receive citizenship unless his or her father is a citizen or green card holder.
While most countries confer a child’s citizenship based on their parents, the United States and more than two dozen countries, including Canada and Mexico, follow the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil.”
Following the Civil War, the United States codified jus soli through the passage of the 14th Amendment, repudiating the Supreme Court’s finding in Dred Scott v. Sanford that African Americans were ineligible for citizenship.
“President Trump and the federal government now seek to impose a modern version of Dred Scott. But nothing in the Constitution grants the President, federal agencies, or anyone else authority to impose conditions on the grant of citizenship to individuals born in the United States,” the states’ lawsuit argued.
The Supreme Court further enshrined birthright citizenship in 1898 when it found that the San Francisco-born son of Chinese immigrants was an American citizen despite the Chinese Exclusion Act restricting immigration from China and prohibiting Chinese Americans from becoming naturalized citizens.
By seeking to end birthright citizenship, Trump’s executive order centers on the same phrase within the 14th Amendment — “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” — that the Supreme Court considered in 1898. Trump’s executive order argues that text of the 14th Amendment excludes children born of parents who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, such as people who are unlawfully in the U.S.
While legal scholars have expressed skepticism about the legality of Trump’s executive order, the lawsuit could set the stage for a lengthy legal battle that ends up before the Supreme Court.
