Iran is pushing back on President Donald Trump’s claim that it requested a ceasefire, with an official calling the statement “false and baseless in a blunt public denial.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Esmail Baghaei, made the remarks rejecting Trump’s claim on Wednesday, according to a report on Iranian state television.

Trump made the claim about Iran requesting a ceasefire in a Truth Social post Wednesday morning. But the president indicated that the U.S. will only entertain the prospect once the Strait of Hormuz is open for ships.

“Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!” Trump asserted in the post.

KAROLINE LEAVITT FIRES BACK AT NBC NEWS REPORTER WHO ASKED IF TRUMP’S IRAN THREAT AMOUNTS TO A ‘WAR CRIME’

Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard, however, issued its own statement saying the Strait of Hormuz “is firmly and decisively under the control” of its forces.

“This strait will not be opened to the enemies of this nation through the ridiculous spectacle by the president of the United States,” it said.

Iran has effectively shut the critical oil choke point, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, sending oil prices soaring.

TRUMP ORDERS WAR DEPT TO POSTPONE STRIKES ON IRANIAN ENERGY SITES, CITING ‘PRODUCTIVE’ TALKS TO END WAR

U.S. gas prices jumped past an average of $4 a gallon for the first time since 2022 on Tuesday. Analysts say that high fuel costs will trickle into groceries as businesses’ transportation and packaging costs pile up.

Trump also told Reuters in a telephone interview ahead of his televised address Wednesday night that the U.S. would be finishing its war in Iran soon, but he wouldn’t give a timeline.

“I can’t tell you exactly. … We’re going to be out pretty quickly,” he said.

But once the U.S. leaves, he said, “We’ll come back to do spot hits” on targets, as needed.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Nitzberg and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he was working to clean up the “filthy” Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on the National Mall, blaming the Biden administration for neglecting the Washington, D.C., landmark. 

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was working with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on the project, the latest in a series of beautification initiatives targeted by the Trump administration. 

SEWAGE SPILL SENDS E COLI SURGING IN THE POTOMAC RIVER NEAR DC

“Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and I are working on fixing the absolutely filthy Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument,” Trump wrote. 

“This work was supposed to be done by the Biden Administration, but Sleepy Joe doesn’t know what ‘CLEAN’ or proper maintenance is — The President and Secretary do!” he added. 

Burgum confirmed the project on X.

TRUMP TELLS MEXICO TO FIX CROSS-BORDER SEWAGE PROBLEM FLOWING INTO US COMMUNITIES ‘IMMEDIATELY’

“Unlike the Biden administration, @POTUS knows how to get things done! @Interior is working to Make D.C. Safe and Beautiful! Proud to work with you on this important task, Mr. President,” he wrote in a post accompanied by images of himself at the pool. 

In 2022, the National Parks Service posted a video on X showing a “Super-Scrubber” and vacuum cleaning the pool area. 

“Our facilities team cleaning up a year’s worth of trash, algae, and goose poop in the Reflecting Pool,” the post read. 

The pool is drained and cleaned once per year before being refilled with water. Fox News Digital has reached out to the NPS and Interior Department. 

On Tuesday, a federal judge ordered Trump to halt construction of his ambitious White House ballroom project. The ruling came amid a lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which argued the project required congressional authorization before moving forward.

For 47 days, Democrats have refused to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and parts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) without sweeping reforms. President Donald Trump is now considering a move that could make both agencies shutdown-proof for the rest of his second term. 

The president is asking top Republicans to draft a budget reconciliation package funding ICE and CBP that could pass both chambers without any Democratic support.

“We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won’t be able to stop us,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “We will not allow them to hurt the families of these Great Patriots by defunding them.”

The president added that he wants the legislation on his desk by June 1.

HOUSE CONSERVATIVES ERUPT OVER SENATE GOP, WHITE HOUSE DEAL AMID SAVE ACT FIGHT

The budget reconciliation push comes as Republican efforts to fund ICE and the Border Patrol through regular order have stalled in the Senate due to widespread opposition from Democrats.

With the Senate’s 60-vote legislative threshold in place, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., effectively has veto power over DHS appropriations if he keeps his caucus in line.

The budget reconciliation process would allow Republicans to steer around Democratic opposition and pass a DHS funding bill at a simple majority threshold. Republicans narrowly passed Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act using reconciliation in June 2025 after months of intraparty squabbling.

The feat could prove more difficult in an election year when lawmakers will have to identify pay-for spending cuts. The strategy could also extend the funding lapse for several more months.

It is not clear how long Republicans would seek to fund immigration enforcement or whether they would also include funding for non-immigration-related DHS agencies in a forthcoming budget reconciliation bill.

The U.S. Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the U.S. Secret Service have seen a lapse in appropriations, though Trump took executive action to provide back pay to TSA agents reporting to work during the shutdown.

A Senate bill funding those DHS subagencies was immediately rejected by House Republican leadership on Friday for failing to fund immigration enforcement. 

HOUSE REPUBLICANS PASS RIVAL DHS PLAN, SETTING UP SENATE FIGHT AS SHUTDOWN SET TO BECOME LONGEST IN HISTORY

Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., told reporters Monday that Senate Republicans are considering a budget reconciliation package that would fund Trump’s illegal immigration crackdown efforts for the next three years.

“The Democrats can’t create another shutdown like they did this time,” Hoeven said, if the bill were to be signed into law.

The North Dakota lawmaker also disputed that a budget reconciliation bill would take several months to put together.

“We’ll get it done as quick as you can,” Hoeven said. “I hope it’s certainly not months.”

Amid both chambers’ planned two-week recesses, Trump told the New York Post on Tuesday he is considering calling Congress back to Washington to find a solution to the DHS shutdown.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday that a “skinny reconciliation bill” funding the department would pass both chambers once Congress resumes session in mid-April if a deal has not been reached.

House GOP leadership has previously voiced skepticism about funding immigration enforcement through a budget reconciliation package. Some conservatives have also complained about the precedent of letting Democrats decide which agencies receive funding through the normal appropriations process.

“The problem is that what they’re doing is they’re placing the burden on the Republican Party entirely to make sure that we have border security funding and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, because they’re going to try to force it into a reconciliation bill,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade on Friday. “That’s a very difficult task. It is a high risk gamble for us to assume that we could do that.”

President Donald Trump goes before the nation in prime time on Wednesday evening to deliver what the White House says is “an important update” on the war with Iran.

The president’s address comes amid the month-long attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran, which polls indicate are unpopular with many Americans, and a surge in gas prices as a direct result of the fighting have triggered a further slide in Trump’s standing in public opinion surveys.

The political implications are clear: The strikes on Iran and the erosion of the president’s approval ratings are warning signs for the GOP as Republicans ramp up to defend their slim House and Senate majorities in this autumn’s midterm elections.

Trump stood at 41% approval and 59% disapproval in the latest Fox News national poll, which was conducted March 20–23. The president’s negative 18-point margin was up from 14 points in the previous Fox News poll, which was conducted Feb. 28–March 2, as the strikes against Iran began.

FOX NEWS LIVE UPDATES ON THE U.S. WAR WITH IRAN

The president’s approval ratings stood in the upper 30s, with his disapproval in the upper 50s to low 60s, in the most recent national surveys from Reuters/Ipsos, AP/NORC, and Quinnipiac University. A CNN poll conducted March 26–30 and released Wednesday indicated Trump had a 35%-64% approval/disapproval rating.

An average of the most recent national surveys gauging the president’s standing puts Trump just above 40%, with his disapproval in the upper 50s.

WHAT THE LATEST FOX NEWS POLL SHOWS ON THE WAR WITH IRAN

While Trump’s base remains extremely supportive of the president and the war, much of the slippage is coming from within the GOP, specifically those who are considered non-MAGA Republicans.

“I do see in the last couple of surveys an edging down…close to a double-digit movement,” veteran Republican pollster Daron Shaw, who helps run the Fox News Poll with Democrat Chris Anderson, said, pointing to declining support for Trump among non-MAGA Republicans.

Fueling Trump’s decline appears to be the surge in gas prices.

The average price of gasoline in the U.S. topped $4 per gallon on Tuesday, according to national averages from AAA and GasBuddy, for the first time in four years.

FOX BUSINESS: GAS PRICES TOP $4 PER GALLON

The military attacks by the U.S. and Israel have resulted in the deaths of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top officials, and the decimation of the country’s military.

In response, Iran has targeted energy facilities with missile and drone attacks in a number of Persian Gulf nations. It has also made the Strait of Hormuz nearly impassable to commercial shipping, bringing roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply to a halt and sending global fuel prices sharply higher.

That has only exacerbated Trump’s polling woes when it comes to his performance on the economy, amid public dissatisfaction with high prices and the cost of living.

A spotlight on inflation helped fuel sweeping victories by Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections, when they won back the White House and Senate and successfully defended their slim House majority.

DEMOCRATS TARGET TRUMP, GOP, OVER SURING GAS PRICES 

But a laser focus on affordability by Democrats, amid persistent inflation, has fueled a slew of victories and overperformances in 2025’s off-year elections and in special elections in the more than 14 months since Trump returned to the White House.

According to the Fox News poll, 80% of respondents said they were concerned about gas prices, and 86% concerned about inflation and high prices. And the CNN survey spotlighted that the president’s approval rating for handling the economy sank to 31%, Trump’s lowest level ever in their polling.

The White House says the surge in prices is temporary.

“When Operation Epic Fury is complete, gas prices will plummet back to the multiyear lows American drivers enjoyed before these short-term disruptions,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday.

Leavitt emphasized that “President Trump remains committed to fully unleashing American energy dominance, lowering costs, and putting more money back in the pockets of hardworking American families.”

OIL HAS SURGED SINCE THE IRAN CONFLICT BEGAN, BUT GAS PRICES MAY NOT BE DONE RISING

The gas price surge is giving Democrats more political ammunition to target the GOP.

“BREAKING: National Gas Prices Skyrocket to $4 Per Gallon,” read the headline from an email Tuesday morning from the Democratic National Committee.

The House Democrats’ campaign committee last week launched digital ads showing prices at the pump rising and an image saying “D.C. Republicans Did That!” Sources say to expect another round of ads on gas prices in the coming weeks.

But Democrats have their own polling problems, as the party’s brand image has cratered to historic lows in a slew of polls over the past year.

Shaw, pointing to the so-called double-haters, voters who disapprove of both Trump and the Democrats, said that group hasn’t “really swung dramatically to the Democrats” as the midterms approach.

Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas emphasized in a recent Fox News Digital interview that, in his opinion, Trump’s “decision to launch this military action is the most consequential decision” of his presidency.

Such perceptions only increase what’s at stake when Trump addresses the nation in prime time.

“The American people want to hear what the off-ramp for the war is and when it will end,” Dan Eberhart, an oil drilling chief executive officer and prominent Republican donor told Fox News Digital.

Eberhart, who is supportive of the president, said: “Trump’s base is with him, but many ordinary Americans feel the war is unnecessary. Tonight is Trump’s opportunity to explain why this war matters to everyday Americans.”

President Donald Trump made an extraordinary appearance Wednesday for Supreme Court arguments — an American presidential first — as his administration seeks to unwind birthright citizenship during two hours of dramatic oral arguments.

The Supreme Court voiced strong pushback against efforts to restrict who can be called an American, a politically divisive case over automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States to foreign nationals.

Trump, wearing a red tie and dark suit, entered the courtroom around nine minutes before the court gaveled into session and did not speak during the session, per court rules.

He closed his eyes for brief times during the session, but looked alert and focused throughout his time in the courtroom, staying for the entire oral presentation by his Solicitor General John Sauer, which lasted about 65 minutes.

THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO GIVE PRESIDENT TRUMP A MAJOR OPENING ON IMMIGRATION

Chief Justice John Roberts did not acknowledge the president’s appearance.

Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were in the front row of the public section and passed some notes to one another before Trump left the courtroom around 11:19 a.m. ET, seven minutes or so into the ACLU lawyer Cecilia Wang’s oral presentation. Trump left without commenting.

Trump later issued a Truth Social post saying, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Trump heard a majority of justices taking turns expressing varying levels of skepticism at the administration’s claim that the citizenship “privilege” has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose mother gave birth while in the country illegally or temporarily.

At issue is the executive order the president signed on his first day back in office to redefine birthright citizenship, part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has led to increased deportations and decreased admittance of refugees and asylum seekers at the border.

JOHN YOO: SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN EXPOSES SHAKY CASE AGAINST BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

In the first Supreme Court argument appearance by a sitting president, most of the bench appeared to agree with the post-Civil War’s 14th Amendment — and subsequent congressional laws and Supreme Court precedent — all support the idea of making citizens of everyone born in the country, regardless of immigration status.

Roberts, appointed by Republican George W. Bush, questioned the government’s legal position when it came to the 14th Amendment’s limited exceptions to citizenship.

“The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts said. “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships — and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who 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.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondered how determining citizenship would be applied in practical terms if immigrant mothers gave birth.

SUPREME COURT’S SHOWDOWN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DECISION COULD RESHAPE AMERICA

“How does this work?” Jackson asked U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents present? Documents? Is this happening in the delivery room?

“How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule?”

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Sameul Alito — both confirmed to the bench before Trump’s first administration — sounded mostly likely to back Trump’s position.

“How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked early in the argument, saying it was designed to give newly freed slaves citizenship, and does not necessarily apply to children of newly arrived immigrants.

All lower federal courts that have heard various challenges to the birthright citizenship order have ruled against the administration.

An expected definitive high-court ruling against Trump by early summer could have sweeping national implications — and possibly slow momentum — for Trump’s get-tough immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of his second White House term.

The United Kingdom Home Office announced that police officers will no longer waste time investigating legal but offensive social media posts.

The decision by the UK government to scrap police investigations into non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) follows a review of guidelines by the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. The report recognized the importance for police to monitor hate, but found the public believes “the police response to hate or hostility has been disproportionate.”

“Over recent years, guidance has failed to keep pace with the digital age and has led to officers being called out to people’s homes over insults and routine arguments,” the United Kingdom Home Office wrote on X.

Officers have been collecting reports of non-crime hate incidents for nearly 30 years to track posts that are legal but could be perceived as hostile or prejudiced toward certain groups based on characteristics such as religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or national origin.

RETIRED PASTOR FACES CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR PREACHING GOSPEL SERMON NEAR NORTHERN IRELAND HOSPITAL

“In today’s polarised and highly connected world, police have increasingly found themselves drawn into policing the online space and social media debates,” the report stated. “The boundaries between what is legitimate free speech, even where it is offensive, and what requires police intervention are not always clear or absolute.”

For instance, there were 9,305 reports of non-crime hate incidents under investigation across 34 police forces from 2024 to 2025.

The Home Office will now implement a narrower definition of what constitutes police involvement, preventing officers from recording lawful free speech.

BRITISH MAN SAYS HE WAS ARRESTED AFTER POSTING PHOTOS HOLDING GUNS DURING JULY 4 TRIP TO FLORIDA

“Under these reforms, forces will no longer be policing perfectly legal tweets,” Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said in a statement. “Instead, they will be doing what they do best: patrolling our streets, catching criminals and keeping communities safe.”

The national standard governing police involvement in addressing NCHI was last updated in 2011, during the early years of social media.

Henry Jackson Society Research Fellow Emma Schubart called the Home Office’s reforms a “common sense reset.”

UK TARGETS ELON MUSK’S X WITH FINES AND POSSIBLE BAN OVER GROK DEEPFAKE ABUSE

“Police should be focused on stopping crime – not recording lawful speech,” Schubart said. “At a time when resources are stretched and public safety is under pressure, officers must be out on the streets, not tied up in paperwork over opinions that break no law.”

“Free speech matters,” Schubart continued. “And where behaviour crosses into criminality, the police already have the powers they need to act. This change restores focus, strengthens legitimacy, and ensures policing is directed where it’s actually needed.”

The United Kingdom’s decision to ditch non-crime incident reporting comes amid an ongoing dispute between the government and social media platform X.

X owner Elon Musk has repeatedly accused the United Kingdom of being “fascist” for making thousands of arrests based on individuals’ posts on social media.

The United Kingdom threatened to ban X in January over concerns about the platform’s AI bot creating nonconsensual sexual images of women and children.

President Donald Trump, frustrated by the Senate stalemate on the SAVE America Act, has moved via executive order to create a nationwide list of verified eligible voters and to restrict mail-in voting, a move that swiftly drew legal threats from Democrats.

“I don’t see how they can challenge it,” Trump said at Wednesday night’s Oval Office signing, admitting, “maybe it’ll be tested.”

“I believe it’s foolproof.”

Arizona, California and Oregon, states that widely offer mail-in voting, immediately pledged to sue the Trump administration, but Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, Utah, Vermont, Washington state, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin could follow suit.

REPUBLICAN SENATORS BLAST DEMOCRATS FOR ‘FEAR-MONGERING’ OVER ELECTION SECURITY SAVE ACT

“The President wants to limit which Americans can participate in our democracy,” California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X.

“We’re challenging it,” he added. “See you in court.”

Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said the state’s vote-by-mail system is now used by 80% of voters, adding Arizona does not need the federal government to tell it who can vote and arguing federal data is not always reliable.

GOP TRIGGERS MARATHON SENATE FIGHT TO EXPOSE DEMS’ OPPOSITION TO TRUMP-BACKED VOTER ID BILL

“It is just wrongheaded for a president of the United States to pretend like he can pick his own voters,” Fontes, a Democrat, told The Associated Press. “That’s just not how America works.”

It is yet another battleground for Trump versus blue on the U.S. map ahead of the 2026 midterms. Republicans will fight to maintain razor-thin majorities in the House (217-214 currently, with one GOP-caucusing independent) and Senate (53-45, with two independents caucusing with Democrats).

“The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary,” Trump said after signing the order in the Oval Office on Wednesday night. “It’s horrible what’s going on.

GOP GOVERNORS, AGS BACK TRUMP SAVE ACT PUSH, WARN SYSTEM GIVES ‘UNDUE INFLUENCE’ TO STATES WITH ILLEGAL ALIENS

“I think this will help a lot with elections.”

Trump won 30 states outright in 2024, compared to former Vice President Kamala Harris‘ 18 (19, when including Washington, D.C.). Maine and Nevada split their Electoral College votes.

Trump won Nevada and Utah, two universal mail-in voting states. Nevada is a battleground state, while Utah is generally reliably red.

TRUMP VOTER ID PUSH FACES SENATE TEST AS GOP REBELS THREATEN TO SINK BILL

Among the states won by Harris, New Hampshire is the only one that generally requires a specific reason (such as illness or absence) to vote by mail.

“This is a massive and unconstitutional voter suppression effort aimed at giving Trump the power to create a list of who is allowed to vote by mail,” Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias, who was an election integrity attack dog for both former President Joe Biden and Harris, wrote immediately on X.

“We know where this will go — the targeting of Democrats for mass disenfranchisement.

DOJ SUES 5 MORE STATES, DEMANDING ACCESS TO VOTER ROLLS: ‘WE WILL NOT BE DETERRED’

“We will sue and we will win.”

New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Minnesota have “Permanent Absentee” lists where, once you sign up, you are automatically mailed a ballot for every future election. New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Mexico and Delaware have standard no-excuse needed mail-in voting.

Any of those states also stand to object, but Trump said he is prepared for the legal wrangling.

TRUMP SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER OVERHAULING MAIL-IN VOTING IN MAJOR ELECTION INTEGRITY PUSH

“They’ll probably challenge it,” he said. “You find a rogue judge — a lot of rogue judges. Very bad, bad people. Very bad judges. And hopefully we’ll win on appeal if it is.”

Trump’s order directs the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile lists of eligible voters in each state and seeks to block the U.S. Postal Service from delivering absentee ballots to voters not on state-approved rolls. It also calls for ballot envelopes with unique tracking barcodes and threatens to withhold federal funding from states and localities that do not comply.

“Not only is his order unconstitutional, it’s unserious,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson told Reuters in a statement. “This order will not stand.”

TRUMP WARNS HE WON’T ENDORSE LAWMAKERS WHO OPPOSE SAVE AMERICA ACT

Legal experts said the order is likely to face immediate constitutional challenges because election administration is largely left to the states, not the president.

“This executive order is plainly unauthorized and unlawful,” Brennan Center for Justice Vice President at New York University Wendy Weiser told The Washington Post.

AP reported that Oregon, Arizona, Maine and Nevada were among the Democrat-led states where top officials either threatened lawsuits or said they would not comply:

TRUMP EXPLAINS VOTING BY MAIL: ‘I’M PRESIDENT’ WITH ‘A LOT’ GOING ON

Oregon: “We don’t need decrees from Washington, D.C.,” Secretary of State Tobias Read, a Democrat, said. “My message to the President: We’ll see you in court.” Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, also a Democrat, added that the state would “use every legal tool available to us to fight this and protect Oregonians’ right to vote.”

Arizona: Fontes, in addition to his comments above, added, “We will not let this stand.”

Maine: Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, called the order “laughably unconstitutional” and said Maine would not comply. More than a quarter of Maine voters cast mail-in ballots in the 2024 election.

TRUMP CALLS MAIL IN VOTING CORRUPT AS SENATE BEGINS DEBATE ON SAVE ACT REQUIRING VOTER ID

Nevada: Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, the lone Democrat in a state won by Trump in 2024, said the order would burden local election officials and “doesn’t benefit anybody in this country except himself.”

The latest order follows Trump’s broader push to reshape election rules from Washington. A March 2025 executive order that sought major changes to voter registration and mailed-ballot rules was largely blocked in court after lawsuits from voting-rights groups and Democrat state attorneys general.

“The president has no authority to regulate elections,” Weiser told the Post. “He tried to do something like this a year ago.

TWO DOZEN HOUSE REPUBLICANS GO TO WAR WITH SENATE GOP OVER SAVE AMERICA ACT

“We and others actually sued. We won. We expect the same result this time.”

Election-law specialists say Tuesday’s order is vulnerable for many of the same reasons.

David Becker, a former Justice Department lawyer who now leads the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said the Constitution is clear that the president does not control state-run elections.

PENCE URGES SENATE TO ‘RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE’ WITH NATIONWIDE VOTER ID LAW

The order was “clearly unconstitutional” and would be blocked immediately, Becker wrote on social media, adding Trump “might as well sign an EO banning gravity.”

Becker also noted the Postal Service is governed by a board of governors, limiting the president’s authority to dictate what mail it can carry.

“There’s no authority for any of this,” UCLA Safeguarding Democracy Project Director Richard Hasen told the Post, adding the order would be unenforceable in time for the midterm elections.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP WEIGHS ‘NUKING’ FILIBUSTER TO PASS TRUMP’S SAVE ACT

It is “just a fantasy,” Hasen concluded. “That’s why I think this isn’t serious.”

The order also revives concerns about the federal SAVE system, which voting-rights advocates have criticized as unreliable and prone to errors that could affect eligible voters.

At least one Republican elections official on Tuesday defended the SAVE system while downplaying the potential of widespread voter fraud.

REPORTER’S NOTEBOOK: GOP PUSHES ELECTION SECURITY BILL DESPITE SLIM ODDS, AS TRUMP PRESSURE LOOMS

Robert Sinners, a spokesperson for Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger — who stood firmly against Trump’s 2020 presidential election integrity investigation — said their recommendations to the Trump administration have strengthened voter verification and stressed that “the small number flagged as potential noncitizens cannot vote by mail or in person until they provide proof of citizenship.”

“The executive order will be decided in court, but in Georgia, we already verify citizenship and will continue to do so regardless of the outcome,” Sinners added.

The Brennan Center and other groups have warned that using federal databases to police state voter rolls can create mistakes, privacy concerns and barriers for lawful voters.

SLOTKIN PRESSES DHS PICK ON ICE AT POLLS, SAYS SHE CAN’T TRUST TRUMP TO ALLOW ‘FREE AND FAIR’ ELECTION

“The Constitution doesn’t allow the executive to take over elections administration; that’s a job for the state legislatures or Congress, and so I don’t think this is going to pass any sort of judicial muster,” Fontes told The New York Times.

“So this is a big, giant waste of time, and it’s an attention grab from the Trump administration.”

Trump vehemently disagrees, despite using mail-in voting himself last month.

SCOTUS CONSERVATIVES SIGNAL READINESS TO CURB LATE-ARRIVING MAIL BALLOTS

“Yeah, I did,” Trump shot back at a reporter Thursday. “You know what? Because I’m president of the United States.”

“And because of the fact that I’m president of the United States, I did a mail-in ballot for elections that took place in Florida because I felt I should be here instead of being in the beautiful sunshine.”

“You know, we have exceptions for mail-in ballots,” Trump said. “You do know that, right? So if you’re away, you have an exception. If you’re in the military, we have an exception. If you’re on a business trip, we have an exception. If you’re disabled, we have an exception. And if you’re ill, if you’re not feeling good.

“So I was away mostly in Washington, D.C., so I used a mail-in ballot.”

Trump frequently invokes the critical 2005 findings of the Carter-Baker Commission, which warned about the election integrity vulnerabilities of mail-in voting.

Reuters and AP contributed to this report.

A top Republican predecessor of Gov. Abigail Spanberger challenged her to publicly debate the merits of the redistricting referendum she and Virginia Democrats so fervently support, as an anti-gerrymandering group he works with also fired off a letter to her in his stead.

Spanberger, along with Senate and House leadership in Richmond, is squarely in the “Vote YES” camp when it comes to the April 21 public referendum to redraw the Old Dominion’s congressional districts in a way that would likely remove all but one GOP congressman from office.

Gov. George Allen, a Republican who served as governor from 1994 to 1998 between tenures in the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, said in a statement that if the incumbent’s ideas are right, she should publicly defend them.

“Virginia voters expect a robust and transparent discussion of the issues. So, I am inviting Governor Spanberger to join me in a series of public debates to look Virginians in the eye and explain each side of this referendum vote,” Allen said.

BATTLE FOR THE HOUSE RUNS THROUGH VIRGINIA AS COURT OKS HIGH-STAKES REDISTRICTING VOTE

“I am prepared to discuss why I oppose gerrymandering in Virginia and anywhere else in our nation.”

Allen, whose father was one of the then-Washington Redskins’ most successful coaches, said that people in Virginia are being “barraged” by political ads and that $28 million has been spent on commercials that “are at best misleading and designed to confused voters.”

“Let’s give Virginians the honest and transparent discussion of gerrymandering that they deserve,” he said.

In that regard, the group No Gerrymandering Virginia, which is being spearheaded by a bipartisan group of former Virginia lawmakers and officials including Allen, sent a letter requesting such to Spanberger’s office at the Capitol.

“If you’re confident that your ideas and your candidates are so great, then you ought not fear the people,” Allen told Richmond’s NBC affiliate.

He added that gerrymandering is a personal subject, as part of his impetus to run for governor came when Albemarle County — where he owned a “log house on a gravel road” — was split into several pieces during one such redrawing.

No Gerrymandering Virginia’s letter called the April 21 vote a “consequential moment for Virginia.”

GOP-LED COUNTIES PUSH BACK AGAINST DEMOCRAT’S REDISTRICTING CHARGE, TESTING VIRGINIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS

“At its core, the referendum asks whether the commonwealth will maintain its commitment to fair representation or move toward a mid-decade gerrymandering approach that has already taken hold in other states,” the letter said.

“Virginians deserve the opportunity to hear a clear and direct debate on this question before they vote.”

“To that end, I would like to invite you to participate in a televised, live-streamed debate on the referendum. Former Governor George Allen has agreed to participate and would present the case against adopting the proposed maps. As you know, Governor Allen has long opposed gerrymandering, shaped in part by his experience being drawn out of his congressional district in the early 1990s, and he supported the 2020 constitutional amendment establishing Virginia’s current fair redistricting process.”

In a prior statement in February, Allen said mid-decade “gerrymandering” is wrong, no matter who does it.

“Texas was wrong. California was wrong. North Carolina was wrong. Virginians should stand up for principle like those in Indiana and South Carolina who said ‘No’ to this egregious gerrymandering their states,” he said, adding that the 2020 referendum that took power away from the assembly shows Virginia has “much better standards of fairness than this.”

Allen is joined on No Gerrymandering Virginia’s advisory council by former Virginia House Speaker William Howell, R-Stafford, former State Sen. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax, and ex-Del. William Fralin, R-Roanoke.

Other recent Virginia officials have also lambasted the redistricting push, including ex-Gov. Glenn Youngkin and ex-Attorney General Jason Miyares.

Fox News Digital reached out to Spanberger for comment.

In recent public statements defending the referendum, she said it is “temporary” and suggested she still supports the 2020 amendment otherwise.

Rep. Susie Lee, D-Nev., sparked an online frenzy after launching an expletive-filled, late-night rant against President Donald Trump in protest of his plans to attend oral arguments at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

“So f—ing f—ed up. I’ll pray they f— him to his face,” Lee wrote shortly before 1 a.m. Eastern time Wednesday. 

“Sorry, I say f— a lot these days,” Lee, 59, added.

Lee, a four-term House lawmaker, made the crude remarks in response to a story from The Associated Press reporting that Trump planned to visit the court to listen to Wednesday’s case about his birthright citizenship order.

TRUMP BLASTS OMAR, TLAIB AS ‘LUNATICS,’ SAYS ‘SEND THEM BACK’ AFTER SOTU PROTESTS

Democrats have widely opposed Trump’s effort to end automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants or those taking advantage of the birth tourism industry.

“Either Democrat Rep. Susie Lee was blackout drunk when she tweeted this or it was a staffer posting from her account,” conservative commentator Steve Guest wrote in response.

“Mentally deranged psycho!” conservative personality Eric Daugherty said on social media.

Amid the backlash, Lee deleted the tweet on Wednesday morning with little explanation.

When asked for comment, a spokesperson for Lee referred Fox News Digital to a statement posted on Lee’s personal social media account.

“Clearly my language touched a nerve — my nerve was touched by the attacks on our Constitution and its separation of powers,” Lee wrote. “I took an oath to protect and defend it.”

OMAR SHOUTS ‘YOU ARE A MURDERER’ AND ‘LIAR’ AT TRUMP DURING STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Lee’s social media outburst comes as the Nevada Democrat has sought to brand herself as a bipartisan lawmaker. Trump notably won Lee’s suburban Las Vegas district by less than one point in 2024 and national Republicans view the battleground seat as a top flip opportunity. 

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Republicans’ campaign arm, slammed Lee’s expletive-filled post aimed at the president.

“Democrat Susie Lee has become Nevada’s fool, more focused on vulgar outbursts than doing the job she was elected to do,” NRCC spokesman Christian Martinez said in a statement. “Hitting delete doesn’t clean up her mess, it just proves she knows how embarrassing it is.

The Trump administration has argued that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to American slaves and their children, not the descendants of illegal immigrants or those living in the United States temporarily.

“I have listened to this argument for so long, and this is not about Chinese billionaires, or billionaires from other countries who all of a sudden have 75 children or 59 children in one case, or 10 children becoming American citizens. This was about slaves,” Trump told Fox News’ Peter Doocy in the Oval Office on Tuesday regarding the case.

“It had to do with the babies of slaves,” the president continued. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen. It’s been so badly handled by legal people over the years.”

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed lawyers for the Trump administration and the ACLU on so-called “birthright citizenship” protections in the U.S., part of a landmark court challenge that could upend more than a century of legal precedent and executive branch policy. 

In Trump v. Barbara, justices are weighing the legality of the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. 

As oral arguments kicked off, justices appeared somewhat skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, including its view of the 14th Amendment, and pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on the administration’s reading of the citizenship clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that he viewed one of the key arguments made by the Trump administration in its case as “quirky.”

FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS

“You obviously put a lot of weight on [the] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ issue,” Roberts told Sauer. He noted the administration cited “children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism during early questions, and pressed Sauer on key issues of precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause itself.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, noting that “some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

“It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response.

As expected, arguments focused heavily on precedent set in the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established birthright citizenship protections for persons “domiciled,” or born on U.S. soil.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the administration’s argument. He noted that Congress adopted the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment.

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

Kavanaugh pointed to the INA and the precedent in Wong Kim Ark, noting: “One might have expected Congress to use a different phrase if it wanted to try to disagree with Wong Kim Ark on what the scope of birthright citizenship, or the scope of citizenship, should be.”

“I am not seeing the relevance as a legal constitutional interpretative matter,” he told Sauer, after a brief back-and-forth.

Justice Samuel Alito, for his part, appeared the most open to Trump’s argument.

He noted that the case brings to the forefront key questions on whether laws should be read as being limited only to situations lawmakers had in mind at the time of passage, or whether they should be applicable in future situations, even if unimaginable at the time.

“Scalia had an example that dealt with this situation,” Alito said, referring to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

“He imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven,” Alito said. “And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven. And this fellow says, ‘Well, I can’t be convicted under this, because the microwave oven didn’t exist at that time.’”

“There’s a general rule there, and you apply it to future applications,” Alito said, to which Sauer emphatically agreed.

 SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

Trump’s executive order was immediately met with a flurry of federal lawsuits last year, and to date, no U.S. court has sided with the administration on the issue.

Trump himself attended Supreme Court oral arguments, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. Other administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, were also in the audience.

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided.

It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. 

A decision from the high court is expected by late June.