Trump administration lifts sanctions on Delcy Rodriguez, Venezuela’s acting president

April 1, 2026 / 7:09 PM EDT / CBS News

The Trump administration has lifted sanctions on Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez, according to the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, as the U.S. seeks to rebuild ties with the Venezuelan government.

The rollback comes just three months after U.S. forces seized Rodriguez’ predecessor, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife in a daring special forces raid. Both were extradited to New York to face drug trafficking charges and have since pleaded not guilty.

The deletion of Rodriguez’s name from the so-called Specially Designated Nationals list will allow her to access certain blocked assets and deal with U.S.-based enterprises. It’s the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to normalize relations with Venezuela, which the U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations with since 2019.

Last month, the U.S. formally recognized Rodriguez as Venezuela’s leader and began taking steps to reopen the U.S. Embassy in Caracas. Mr. Trump has praised Rodriguez, saying last month she is “doing a great job” and is “working with U.S. Representatives very well.”

Since Maduro’s removal from power, the administration has sought to incentivize U.S. investment in Venezuela’s oil sector, rolling back sanctions to allow American oil companies to spend on infrastructure and production. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum have also led delegations to Venezuela, which holds the world’s largest oil reserves.

A Trump administration official said the removal of sanctions “signals our support for a more constructive U.S.–Venezuela relationship and for expanded private sector engagement that can help advance Venezuela’s economic recovery and democratic transition.”

Another administration official told CBS News the move “reflects our decision to work with the interim authorities led by Delcy Rodríguez in Venezuela.”

Rodriguez acknowledged the removal of sanctions in a post on her Telegram page.

“We value President Donald Trump’s decision as a step toward normalizing and strengthening relations between our countries,” she wrote. “We trust that this progress will allow for the lifting of current sanctions against our country, enabling us to build and guarantee an effective bilateral cooperation agenda for the benefit of our people.”

Rodriguez and several other Maduro government insiders were sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018, part of a diplomatic crisis following Maduro’s reelection that year, which the U.S. and several other countries viewed as rigged. At the time, the Treasury Department said Maduro had made Rodriguez vice president to “help him maintain power and solidify his authoritarian rule.”

In February, one of Venezuela’s opposition leaders, Maria Corina Machado, thanked the Trump administration for removing Maduro from power — but argued Rodriguez cannot be trusted because of her prior ties to Maduro.

In an interview with Face the Nation moderator Margaret Brennan in February, she said, “everything Delcy Rodríguez is currently doing is because she’s complying with instructions she’s getting from the United States.”

Ibrahim Aksoy contributed to this report.

What Americans think about Donald Trump’s Iran strategy ahead of his White House address

2026-04-01T20:00:14.803Z / CNN

By Ariel Edwards-Levy

Updated 1 hr 48 min ago
Updated Apr 1, 2026, 6:12 PM ET
PUBLISHED Apr 1, 2026, 4:00 PM ET

President Donald Trump speaks at the FII PRIORITY Summit in Miami Beach, Florida, on March 27.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images/File

Just one-third of the public believes President Donald Trump has a clear plan to handle the situation in Iran, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS, underscoring the deep skepticism ahead of his Wednesday night White House address on the war.

Americans’ already broad disapproval of US military action in Iran has grown since the start of the war, the poll found. Just 34% of Americans now say they approve at least somewhat of the US decision to take military action in Iran, down 7 points from a CNN poll conducted just after the start of the war. Disapproval has risen to 66%, with strong opposition climbing 12 points to 43%.

With a growing share of the public now calling a long-term military conflict between the US and Iran at least somewhat likely, most Americans are wary of deepening involvement. A 71% majority say they’d oppose Congress authorizing spending $200 billion to fund further US military action in Iran, as the Pentagon has proposed. A similar 68% are opposed to sending ground troops into Iran.

Democrats and independents remain broadly opposed to the US deploying ground troops, but Republicans also break narrowly against the idea. Even Republicans identifying themselves as part of the “Make America Great Again” movement tilt against ground troops: 32% oppose the idea while 25% favor it. Among non-MAGA Republicans, 56% oppose it, with 20% in favor.

Trump’s approval rating for handling the situation in Iran sits at 33%, just below his overall 35% approval rating and his 36% rating for foreign policy. And 33% now say they approve of his handling of the role of commander in chief. That’s down 8 points from a January poll taken in the immediate aftermath of US military action in Venezuela and 5 points below his previous presidential low. About 6 in 10 say he has gone too far in trying to expand America’s power over other countries, little changed since January.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio fares slightly better than the president with a 41% job approval rating, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s approval rating stands at 35%.

More division within the GOP

Views of the Iran war remain sharply, although not symmetrically, divided along partisan lines: 94% of Democrats and 74% of independents disapprove of military action in Iran, while 28% of Republicans disapprove.

While Democrats are nearly unanimous in their opposition, the poll shows more division within the GOP.

Republicans over the age of 45 are more than twice as likely as younger Republicans to say they strongly approve of Trump’s decision to take military action.

While some prominent MAGA voices have criticized the Iran war, that divide is less evident among the broader public, where those identifying as MAGA remain Trump’s staunchest supporters. Instead, among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the gap is between the MAGA movement and everyone else. Those who describe themselves as members of the MAGA movement are 40 points likelier than others aligned with the GOP to believe that Trump has a clear plan for handling Iran and 27 points likelier to strongly approve of the decision to take military action.

Is the war worth the costs?

Underlying Americans’ reluctance to consider committing further funding or troops is a broader skepticism about whether the conflict is worthwhile. Asked whether the war in Iran has been worth the toll in American lives and the financial burden to the government, just 29% say yes.

That’s a marked contrast from similar polling taken in the initial days of the Iraq war. Just after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, 59% of US adults said that the war had been worth the toll in American lives and other costs, a CNN/Time survey found. While that consensus fell away over the following months, that figure was still higher a year later than the share of the public now saying the Iran war was worth the toll.

Concerns about the war’s costs, financially and otherwise, come against a backdrop of heightened economic concerns at home.

Most Americans say they’re following news about the situation in Iran at least somewhat closely. And asked in an open-ended question to name the most important issue facing the US, 13% mentioned the Iran war – a notably high percentage for anything relating to foreign policy. But that still lags far behind the 40% who mentioned economic issues.

For some, the two issues are interlinked.

“We’re involved in a war we shouldn’t be and the economy is collapsing,” wrote one woman who took the survey, a Republican from Idaho.

The CNN poll was conducted by SSRS online and by phone from March 26-30 among a random national sample of 1,201 adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points.

CNN’s Jennifer Agiesta and Edward Wu contributed to this report.

4月1日，在美国马萨诸塞州大巴灵顿，执法人员在逮捕安德鲁·埃默拉德后缴获多件刀具。 （路透社）

美国马萨诸塞州一名男子被控在社交媒体脸书上威胁要杀害美国总统特朗普，并在与执法人员对峙时挥舞长剑，最终被当场逮捕。

路透社报道，45岁的安德鲁·埃默拉德（Andrew Emerald）被控八项罪名，在马萨诸塞州斯普林菲尔德的联邦法院面对控状。他被指控去年发布了一系列威胁性帖子，其中包括一条他扬言如果特朗普在2026年之前没有去世，他将前往特朗普位于佛罗里达州的海湖庄园。他恫言把庄园烧成灰烬。每项罪名最高可判处五年监禁。

起诉书显示，埃默拉德在2025年5月发布的另一条社交媒体帖子中写道：“要么特朗普在2026年之前死去并入土为安，要么我就追杀他，把他送进坟墓。”

埃默拉德的律师尚未对此事作出回应。

根据检方提交的拘留申请文件，埃默拉德的帖子引起了联邦调查局的注意，起因是一位市民举报他威胁总统生命是犯罪行为。

延伸阅读

与伊朗有关联巴基斯坦男子 密谋刺杀特朗普罪成 赫格塞斯：美军击毙试图暗杀特朗普的伊朗头目

联邦调查局特工的宣誓书显示，埃默拉德回应称，他已经在网上威胁特朗普十年之久，并扬言如果执法部门找上门，“我会杀了他们，直到他们杀了我为止”。

联邦调查局人员星期三（4月1日）前往埃默拉德位于马萨诸塞州大巴灵顿（Great Barrington）的住所执行逮捕令时，他拒绝出来，最终却挥舞着一把长长的金属剑出现在众目睽睽之下。

联邦调查局特工说，埃默拉德此前曾在脸书帖子中提及这把剑，威胁特朗普，包括在2025年7月，他扬言要用剑刺穿总统的喉咙。

据联邦调查局探员回忆，埃默拉德告诉探员，他们必须先开枪才能锁上他的门。

联邦调查局探员的宣誓书中写道，当地警方和联邦调查局危机谈判小组到达现场后，一名警官通过电话联系到埃默拉德，他最终同意被捕。

US traffic deaths fall to lowest number since 2019

2026-04-01 6:09 PM UTC / Reuters

By David Shepardson

April 1, 2026 6:09 PM UTC Updated 2 hours ago

A car spins-out on the freeway during a “winter rain storm” near Mission Viejo, California, U.S., October 14, 2025. REUTERS/Mike Blake/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

April 1 (Reuters) – U.S. traffic deaths last year fell to the lowest number since 2019 after a ​sharp rise in road fatalities during the COVID pandemic.

The National ‌Highway Traffic Safety Administration said traffic deaths fell 6.7% to 36,640 and the fatality rate fell to 1.10 fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, the ​second lowest in U.S. history. American road deaths jumped dramatically ​during the 2020 COVID pandemic and remained elevated for years.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

U.S. ⁠traffic deaths jumped 10.8% in 2021 to 43,230, the most ​in a single year since 2005. Pedestrians and cyclists killed on American ​roads rose to the highest number in more than four decades.

Jonathan Morrison, who heads the U.S. auto safety agency, said the agency is “doubling down on safety strategies ​that reduce risky driving behaviors before they cost lives.”

This is the ​fourth straight year of declines. Traffic deaths fell 3.8% in 2024 to below ‌40,000 ⁠for the first time since 2020.

As U.S. roads became less crowded during the pandemic, some motorists perceived police as less likely to issue tickets, experts said, resulting in riskier driving. Some drivers were also more ​likely to drive ​while being impaired ⁠by alcohol or drugs consumed at home during the pandemic.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The U.S. fatality rate rose much higher than ​for other developed nations during the pandemic.

Congress approved $5 billion ​over ⁠five years as part of a $1 trillion 2021 infrastructure law to address road safety.

A 2023 NHTSA study found crashes directly cost taxpayers $30 billion, and ⁠society ​as a whole $340 billion. When quality-of-life valuations ​were included, the total cost to society ran to $1.37 trillion – equivalent to 1.6% of U.S. ​economic output.

Reporting by David Shepardson, Editing by Franklin Paul and Aurora Ellis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

U.S. Justice Department sues Idaho for failure to produce voter rolls

April 1, 2026 5:00 PM UTC / Reuters

The Department of Justice (DOJ) building after two National Guard members were shot near the White House on Wednesday, in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 28, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard Purchase Licensing Rights

LOS ANGELES, April 1 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday said it sued Idaho for failing to produce voter rolls.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Reporting by Daphne Psaledakis, Writing by Christian Martinez, editing by Michelle Nichols

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Activist ship’s collision with krill trawler off Antarctica called “deliberate attack”

April 1, 2026 / 2:30 PM EDT / CBS/AP

A ship operated by a group founded by anti-whaling activist Paul Watson collided with an industrial krill trawler in Antarctica in what the ship’s Norwegian owner said was a “deliberate attack” that endangered its crew and could’ve caused a disaster in the same environmentally sensitive waters the activists claim they want to protect.

A two-minute video provided to The Associated Press by the Aker QRILL Co. shows the moment Tuesday when the M/V Bandero, operated by the Captain Paul Watson Foundation, slowly steams toward the stern of the fishing vessel, hitting its port side at a slight angle.

The collision underscores the growing battle in the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean over the future of Antarctic krill, a shrimplike crustacean central to the diet of whales and critical buffer to global warming that’s also in demand for use in health supplements, fishmeal and other products.

In this image taken from video provided by the Aker Qrill Company shows an activist ship, operated by the Captain Paul Watson Foundation, crashing into the Antarctic Sea, a vessel operated by Aker Qrill Company, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, in Antarctica. Aker Qrill Company via AP

Aker said Wednesday that the Bandero came within centimeters of striking a diesel tank on its vessel, the Norwegian-flagged Antarctic Sea, and put at risk a habitat teeming with multiple whale species, seals and seabirds — all feeding on the Southern Ocean’s abundant but environmentally sensitive krill population.

The company said its multinational crew was shaken but unharmed and it would pursue all available legal action.

“Our crew were put at risk in some of the most remote waters on Earth, and only luck avoided potential environmental damage,” Aker CEO Webjørn Barstad said in a statement.

“If the steel plates (…) had ruptured, it could have caused a spill. It was probably just luck that it didn’t cause more damage,” Barstad told the Reuters news agency.

In a statement to Reuters, the Captain Paul Watson Foundation said that it was “an accidental collision” and that it was committed to “lawful, responsible, non-violent action in defense of marine ecosystems”.

In its own news release, the foundation characterized its actions as “aggressive nonviolence.” It said the crew, led by French activist Lamya Essemlali, managed to disrupt all krill fishing during a five-hour “direct intervention” against two Aker-owned vessels. It also provided images showing the crew launching giant metal net shredding devices intended to disrupt fishing.

“David-and-Goliath scenario”

Watson himself was not on the ship, which departed Australia last month as part of what the Watson foundation called Operation Krill Wars.

“Throughout the encounter, the crew witnessed Antarctic wildlife in the surrounding waters, including penguins, seals, and even a whale, underscoring what was at stake as a small ship challenged a powerful industrial krill operation in a stark David-and-Goliath scenario,” the foundation said in a statement.

Watson founded the global Sea Shepherd conservation movement in the 1970s and for decades won a fearsome reputation for ramming vessels and other aggressive tactics in confrontations on the high seas that repeatedly landed him in jail. He was last detained in Greenland for five months in 2024 on a Japanese warrant that was later rejected by Denmark. Japan’s coast guard sought his arrest over an encounter in 2010 in which he was accused of ordering a captain of his ship to throw explosives at what the Japanese labeled a whaling research ship.

Last year, Interpol removed its most-wanted designation for Watson over the 2010 incident. Watson told CBS News in 2014 that the warrant was issued for trespassing and said that “it’s all very political.”

While the Canadian-American citizen in the past has drawn support from Hollywood celebrities, his hard-line tactics have split the movement he started, with affiliates in France and Brazil rallying behind his newly created namesake foundation while Sea Shepherd Global and 20 national affiliates focus more on watchdog patrols on the high seas, policy action and supporting law enforcement in poorer countries where illegal fishing is rampant.

Fishing in Antarctica for krill surged to a record last season, forcing an early closure of fishing activity for the first time.

Aker is the world’s largest harvester of krill, responsible for over half the world’s catch.

“The krill are taken directly from the feeding grounds of whales, seals and penguins and expanding krill extraction poses a serious threat to the Antarctic ecosystem,” the Captain Paul Watson Foundation said in its statement. “Krill are a foundational species, serving as the primary food most marine life, without krill the entire food chain would collapse.”

The remote fishery is managed by the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, an international organization composed of 27 nations and the European Union.

Any investigation into the incident, including possible criminal prosecution, is likely to commence at the Mongolia-flagged Bandero’s next port of call. Under international maritime law, an overtaking vessel has an obligation to stay clear of any nearby ship it’s passing.

Bandero is named after the tequila company owned by John Paul DeJoria, an American billionaire who founded Paul Mitchell hair care products and has been a longtime supporter of Watson’s endeavors.

US Congress to pass bills to fully fund Homeland Security, Republican leaders say

2026-04-01T17:05:07.022Z / Reuters

By Richard Cowan and Nolan D. McCaskill

April 1, 2026 5:05 PM UTC Updated 17 mins ago

节点运行失败

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the signing ceremony for an executive order on mail ballots, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., March 31, 2026. REUTERS/Evan Vucci/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, April 1 (Reuters) – Republican leaders in the U.S. Congress on Tuesday ​said they will take a two-pronged approach to ending the legislative ‌deadlock over Department of Homeland Security funding by passing a bill soon to end the partial agency shutdown and attempting to follow up with another bill providing money ​for the remainder of the Trump administration.

Congress “will fully reopen the Department, ​make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund ⁠immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years,” Senate Majority ​Leader John Thune and House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson said in a ​joint statement.

The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Congress is in the midst of a two-week recess.

But the next legislative action is expected to come early on Thursday, when the Senate is scheduled to hold a “pro ​forma” session that usually operates for a very short period of time ​and with few senators in the chamber.

The goal, according to a source with knowledge ‌of the ⁠plan, is to again approve a DHS funding bill that the Senate unanimously passed last week, but the House rejected. That bill would fund DHS to September 30, the end of this fiscal year.

The longer-term funding will ​take longer to ​compose and could ⁠be through a process that excludes Democrats.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

President Donald Trump said he was working with Johnson and Thune to fund ​immigration agents through a process that bypasses the Senate filibuster.

“We ​are ⁠going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents,” Trump said in a post on Truth ⁠Social.

“I am ​asking that the Bill be on my ​desk NO LATER than June 1st,” he said.

Reporting by Richard Cowan and Nolan D. McCaskill in ​Washington and Bhargav Acharya in Toronto; Editing by Daphne Psaledakis and Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Ukraine signals progress on US security guarantees after call with Trump envoys

April 1, 2026 3:41pm EDT / Fox News

Zelenskyy says Ukrainian forces intercepted roughly 90% of more than 700 drones targeting energy facilities and residential buildings on Wednesday

By Alexandra Koch Fox News

Zelenskyy discusses security guarantees with US envoys

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday spoke with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, joined by Lindsey Graham and Mark Rutte, about how to strengthen diplomacy. (Volodymyr Zelenskyy via X)

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Listen to this article

2 min

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday touted new momentum toward ending the country’s war with Russia after a high-level call with President Donald Trump’s envoys, pointing to progress on a U.S.-backed security deal.

Zelenskyy announced in an X post that he and his officials had a “positive” conversation with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte — with talks centered around forging a “dignified peace.”

“We agreed to strengthen security guarantees, and I have already instructed our team to promptly update the documents so that the security guarantees for Ukraine are strong, the prospects for post-war reconstruction are real, and everything is doable,” Zelenskyy wrote.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was pictured in a meeting Wednesday, April 1, 2026.(@ZelenskyyUa via X)

WITKOFF AND KUSHNER SCHEDULED TO MEET PUTIN IN MOSCOW

He emphasized Ukraine needs clear agreements so that its citizens understand exactly how international partners will respond to deter any renewed Russian aggression.

“We need strong, shared positions, and Ukraine’s contribution to this strength is unquestionable,” Zelenskyy wrote. “… I expect that the teams will work substantively in the coming days so that we can all feel progress. A trilateral format — a leaders’ format — all of this is necessary.”

Ukranian leaders were pictured in a meeting discussing the Ukraine-Russia war on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.(@ZelenskyyUa via X)

TRUMP CONFIRMS HE INVITED PUTIN TO JOIN HIS BOARD OF PEACE: ‘HE’S BEEN INVITED’

In a subsequent video, Zelenskyy reported Russia on Wednesday launched a massive wave of more than 700 drones, including “shaheds,” targeting Ukraine’s energy facilities, food warehouses and residential buildings across multiple regions.

Although Ukrainian forces intercepted roughly 90% of the incoming drones, Zelenskyy condemned the bombardment as Russia’s direct response to Ukraine’s proposal for an Easter ceasefire.

Leaders meet to discuss the Ukraine-Russia war on Wednesday, April 1, 2026.(@ZelenskyyUa via X)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He noted that a halt in fighting during the holidays was intended to be a signal that diplomacy could be successful.

Beyond the U.S. and Europe, Zelenskyy said Defense Minister Rustem Umerov is working to secure long-term defense contracts with several Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain and Turkey.

Alexandra Koch is a Fox News Digital journalist who covers breaking news, with a focus on high-impact events that shape national conversation.

She has covered major national crises, including the L.A. wildfires, Potomac and Hudson River aviation disasters, Boulder terror attack, and Texas Hill Country floods.

Hershey says it will shift back to classic Reese’s recipe after backlash

April 1, 2026 / 12:45 PM EDT / AP

Hershey said Wednesday it will use classic recipes for all Reese’s products starting next year, a change that comes after the grandson of Reese’s founder criticized the company for shifting to cheaper ingredients.

Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups have always been made with real milk chocolate or dark chocolate and peanut butter. But a small portion of Hershey’s and Reese’s products, like mini Easter eggs, are now made with a coating that contains less chocolate.

Hershey said that in 2027, it will shift those products to “their classic milk chocolate and dark chocolate recipes.”

The Hershey, Pennsylvania-based company said it will also be making other changes to its sweets portfolio next year, including transitioning to natural colors and enhancing KitKat’s recipe to make it creamier. The company said it plans to increase its research and development funding by 25% next year.

“Hershey is committed to making products consumers love and that means continually reviewing our recipes to meet evolving tastes and preferences,” the company said in a statement.

Brad Reese, the grandson of the inventor of Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, ignited the controversy in a public letter he sent to Hershey’s corporate brand manager on Valentine’s Day.

“How does The Hershey Co. continue to position Reese’s as its flagship brand, a symbol of trust, quality and leadership, while quietly replacing the very ingredients (Milk Chocolate + Peanut Butter) that built Reese’s trust in the first place?” Reese wrote in the letter, which he posted on his LinkedIn profile.

Hershey acknowledged some recipe changes but said it was trying to meet consumer demand for innovation. High cocoa prices also have led Hershey and other manufacturers to experiment with using less chocolate in recent years.

The Associated Press left a message with Brad Reese on Wednesday seeking comment.

Brad Reese is the grandson of H.B. Reese, who spent two years at Hershey before forming his own candy company in 1919. H.B. Reese invented Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups in 1928; his six sons eventually sold his company to Hershey in 1963.

Supreme Court skeptical of Trump birthright citizenship order, Roberts questions argument in landmark case

Trump attended oral arguments Wednesday, signaling just how important he views the case at hand

April 1, 2026 2:57pm EDT / Fox News

By Breanne Deppisch , Bill Mears , Shannon Bream, Fox News

A majority of Supreme Court justices on Wednesday appeared skeptical of President Donald Trump’s effort to end so-called birthright citizenship, using oral arguments to cite concerns over the legality and enforcement of an executive order that could reshape protections for millions of Americans.

At issue in the case, Trump v. Barbara, is the legality of an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office, which seeks to end automatic citizenship for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S.

The high-stakes case brought into focus more than a century of executive branch action, Supreme Court precedent, and the text of the Constitution itself — or, more specifically, the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment — which the administration argues has been misinterpreted in the more than 100 years since its passage.

President Donald Trump attended a portion of the oral arguments in person, making history and signaling just how closely he has been monitoring the issue.

Still, the majority of justices appeared poised to block Trump’s order. In what proved to be a telling exchange, Chief Justice John Roberts told U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer shortly after arguments began that he viewed a key argument from the Trump administration as “quirky.”

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

A demonstrator is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected arrival on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C.(Al Drago/Getty Images)

Roberts noted he was having a hard time making sense of the Trump administration’s legal position on the 14th Amendment’s exceptions to birthright citizenship, noting that they cite examples such as children of ambassadors, and children on warships, among other limited groups. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” Roberts said.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer told Roberts.

Sauer also argued that “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.

The exchange previewed what proved to be an overarching reluctance from justices on the high court to allow the executive order to stand.

The doubts appeared to be shared by several conservative justices seen as key swing votes in deciding the case.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared the most likely justices to side with Trump in the case.

“How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked Sauer, noting that the amendment was designed to give newly-freed slaves citizenship, and not necessarily applied to children of newly arrived immigrants.

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.

Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, albeit to varying degrees.

They used their time to press Sauer on key issues centered on precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause and laws passed by Congress.

Kavanaugh cited the passage of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), noting that it essentially mirrors the text of the 14th Amendment and text of the 1898 case.

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

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

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices on the high court are seen during President Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Shortly before arguments adjourned, Kavanaugh told the ACLU’s lawyer: “If we did agree with you on Wong Kim Ark, that could be just a short opinion.”

The case, he said, brings to the forefront questions about how laws should be read, and if they should be limited only to situations that lawmakers envisioned at the time of their passage, or whether they should be applicable in future situations, even if the situations were unimaginable at the time.

Alito pointed to an argument from his former colleague, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia, he said, had “imagined an old theft statute that was enacted well before anybody conceived of a microwave oven. And then afterwards, someone is charged with the crime of stealing a microwave oven,” he added. “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.

Thomas, though less vocal during arguments, also appeared to embrace the narrower reading of the 14th Amendment shared by the administration.

Justices also posed tough questions to the ACLU’s legal director, Cecillia Wang, who argued the case on behalf of migrants. Their questions focused more on clarifying details, however, than they did on the underlying arguments.

Wang,for her part, argued Wednesday that birthright citizenship is “enshrined” in the 14th Amendment, and sets what she described as a “fixed, bright-line rule [that] has contributed to the growth and thriving of our nation.”

“It comes from text and history. It is workable, and it prevents manipulation,” Wang said. “The executive order fails on all those counts.”

SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

People demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, which will determine if President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional.(Al Drago/Getty Images)

The oral arguments come as President Donald Trump has embraced a hardline posture on immigration enforcement in his second presidential term — including seeking to end birthright citizenship, an issue on which he campaigned on in his successful 2024 reelection campaign.

Trump’s attendance underscored the importance of the case to him and marked the first time in U.S. history that a sitting U.S. president has attended arguments before the high court.

Clad in a red tie and dark suit, Trump was quiet for the duration of oral arguments — in accordance with strict Supreme Court rules — and appeared focused on the arguments made by Sauer. Attorney General Pam Bondi was also in attendance, as was Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

Chief Justice John Roberts did not acknowledge Trump during arguments, and proceedings were otherwise conducted without fanfare or interruption.

Trump left the court shortly after Sauer presented his case, and did not comment publicly as he departed.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

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, which Trump and his allies argue are misguided. Critics argue that the order is unconstitutional and unprecedented — warning that, if implemented, it could impact an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually to noncitizens.

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

Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.