Politics

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Trump has signed executive orders limiting automatic citizenship in specific cases after a Supreme Court decision blocked a broader effort.

The orders target birth tourism, certain foreign diplomats, and members of designated terrorist groups. Willie Nelson, the White House.

PHOTO – President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Thursday, Aug. 6, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

source

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Longtime Republican U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell said he was released from a rehabilitation center on Thursday and would continue his recovery from a fall and from pneumonia at home.

“On the advice of my doctors, I’ll maintain an intensive regimen of physical therapy from home during the state work period, and I’ll continue to engage with my staff and colleagues on important Senate business,” he said in a statement.

The 84-year-old Kentucky Republican and former Senate majority leader has been out of public view since mid-June, when he ​was taken from his home to a hospital ​in the ⁠Washington area for reasons that were not disclosed until July 12.

At that time, McConnell ​said he suffered a fall in mid-June that left him ​briefly unconscious. While hospitalized, he developed pneumonia and was treated with antibiotics, according to a separate statement that McConnell’s office attributed to the attending physician.

McConnell, who now chairs the Senate Rules Committee, said he had been working with his ​legislative staff on ​current issues ⁠and keeping in touch with Senate colleagues.

(Reporting by Ryan Patrick Jones and Doina Chiacu; Editing by David Ljunggren)

source

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signed executive orders on Thursday targeting birthright citizenship, a month after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Republican president’s bid to restrict the practice.

The orders expand the definitions of people who are ineligible for birthright citizenship and ban “birth tourism”.

(Reporting by Jacob Bogage in Washington, writing by Jasper Ward;Editing by David Ljunggren)

source

(Corrects Rand Paul’s last name in paragraph 1 by removing extraneous letter)

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci should be prosecuted, hours after Republican Senator Rand Paul said that he would ask the Justice Department to do so.

Paul said he wanted action after Fauci refused to answer questions about the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 38 years, became the face of the response and a primary target of anger over measures taken against a virus that killed more than 1.1 million Americans.

When asked if the Justice Department should prosecute Fauci, Trump told reporters that former aides Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon had faced similar action “over something that essentially was never prosecuted before, and there are sort of telltale signs of similarity.”

The Republican president added: “When you see that happen, you sort of say maybe he should (be prosecuted). What he did is far more serious than a lot of crimes, frankly.”

Paul’s demand followed a hearing last week where Fauci invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination more than 100 times.

(Reporting by Jacob Bogage in Washington, writing by Jasper Ward;Editing by David Ljunggren)

source

By Kristina Cooke, Andrew Chung and Daniel Trotta

Aug 6 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Thursday in a new but narrower attempt to curtail birthright citizenship, once again challenging a provision of the U.S. Constitution even though the Supreme Court rejected his previous effort. 

Limiting birthright citizenship has been one of the top priorities in the Republican president’s crackdown on immigration, with the White House taking particular aim at what it calls “birth tourism,” in which pregnant foreigners travel to the U.S. to give birth.

After his June 30 setback in the Supreme Court, Trump called on Congress to act, but on Thursday he opted for executive orders, which set policy but do not carry the same weight as laws passed by Congress.

The Supreme Court had struck down as unconstitutional Trump’s earlier executive order, which targeted a wide swath of immigrants in the country illegally or temporarily.

The administration argues the new directive falls outside the purview of the Supreme Court ruling, as it seeks to reinterpret the narrow, historical exceptions to citizenship at birth and expand who is ineligible.

“That practice of birth tourism is, as of the signing of this order, hereby banned,” White House aide Stephen Miller said at the Thursday signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

The Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration, estimated in an analysis in 2020 that between 20,000 and 25,000 mothers came to the U.S. for birth tourism in a year-long period between 2016 and 2017.

There were 3.6 million births in ‌the U.S. in 2025.

The executive orders also limit the rights of children born to foreign government employees in the U.S. and children of people who are classified as alien enemies.

The orders could also affect people born in U.S. territories, should Congress enact a proposed law to end automatic citizenship there. 

Trump’s new orders are likely to face legal challenge. Legal experts said it was unclear what effect the executive orders might have given the Supreme Court ruling, while immigrant advocates called it an attempt to evade the high court’s decision. The ACLU predicted it was doomed to fail in court.

 “Just five weeks ago, the Supreme Court made clear that birthright citizenship is not subject to a president’s whims, it is a constitutional guarantee that has stood for more than 150 years. Today’s executive orders are nothing more than an attempt to get around that ruling,” said Deborah Fleischaker, a former Biden administration official who is now with UnidosUS, a Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization.

Zain Lakhani of the Women’s Refugee Commission said the executive orders could trample the rights of pregnant women seeking lawful entry “in one of the most vulnerable moments of their lives,” and called on the government to establish guidelines honoring the Supreme Court ruling.

‘A VERY UNFORTUNATE DECISION’

Trump, speaking in the Oval Office on Thursday, called the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling on June 30 a “very unfortunate decision,” decrying that “people are building businesses around” birth tourism.

“That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace. They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen,” he said.

Trump’s prior executive order, issued on his first day in office in 2025 as part of a suite of policies to crack down on immigration, directed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder – barring babies of immigrants in the U.S. illegally or temporarily.

The 14th Amendment has long been interpreted as guaranteeing citizenship for babies born in the U.S. with only narrow exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.

“This was done for a different reason. This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves, and what’s happening now?” Trump said.

There are no official figures tallying the number of foreigners who come to the U.S. for the explicit purpose of giving birth and obtaining citizenship for their children, or the cost to taxpayers.

In any case, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the Supreme Court ruling that the authors of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every free-born person in the land.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights – to freely participate in our political community. We keep that promise today,” Roberts wrote.

The 14th Amendment provision known as the Citizenship Clause states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” 

(Reporting by Kristina Cooke, Andrew Chung, Ryan Patrick Jones and Ismail Shakil; writing by Daniel Trotta; editing by Michelle Nichols, David Ljunggren, Howard Goller and Stephen Coates)

source

By Helen Coster

NEW YORK, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Progressive candidates continue to rack up wins in primary elections across the United States, propelled by a new left-wing media ecosystem allowing them to build a national profile on their own terms — and sidestep the traditional gatekeepers of the Democratic establishment.

For Pennsylvania state Representative Chris Rabb, a Democratic socialist who recently prevailed in a congressional primary against a more moderate rival, appearances on programs like “The Majority Report with Sam Seder” and “Breaking Points” played a key role in his political breakthrough.

“It helps me increase my visibility, validation and ability to raise money,” said Rabb, describing it as “a Venn diagram of success.”

This fast-growing world of left-wing websites, podcasters, YouTube hosts and livestreamers – many of whom blend opinion journalism and activism – affords candidates a sympathetic space to sharpen their message and mobilize grassroots support. But it also risks deepening the fissures in the Democratic Party, analysts say, and alienating moderates in the coalition.

On Tuesday, progressive Abdul El-Sayed eked out a victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary against Haley Stevens, the preferred candidate of the party establishment.

El-Sayed, a former state health official and a rising star in left-wing media, was massively outspent in television advertising — funded by tens of millions of dollars from pro-Israel and other outside groups — but still managed to win in a swing state carried by Republican President Donald Trump in 2024.

New media entrepreneurs say they are filling a void in mainstream political coverage and providing a platform for candidates with views that have long been underrepresented in Washington. They include advocacy for universal healthcare, abolishing ICE and cutting off military aid to Israel.

“There is an audience and a demand and a hunger for different viewpoints,” said Mehdi Hasan, a former MSNBC host who launched his own news organization, Zeteo, in 2024.

“The same energy that enabled us to be a success as a media entity has enabled a lot of political candidates to be successes.”

A GROWING AUDIENCE

The American left has long had its own constellation of shows and publications. But as the reach of, and trust in, traditional media declines and consumers look elsewhere for news, independent content creators are becoming political kingmakers.

While much smaller and less well-funded than right-wing media, the left’s growing network of podcasters, streamers and digital publishers is becoming an increasingly important force in Democratic politics, shaping primary campaigns, fundraising and activist organizing.

Zeteo has 700,000 Substack subscribers, up 50% from a year ago. “The Majority Report with Sam Seder” has more than 2 million subscribers on YouTube and roughly 75% of listeners are under age 55.

Progressive commentator and activist Hasan Piker has more than 3 million followers on Twitch.

For campaign strategists, the appeal of this new media environment is simple. Their candidates can have long, in-depth conversations on policy issues – the kind seldom seen on cable news – engage directly with voters and generate clips that can be blasted across social platforms.

“I think we help create early enthusiasm,” said Sam Seder. “Our audience in particular has a lot of activists and a lot of people who run activist organizations, and I know we have a lot of legislative staffer types.”

Candidates often move through the same circuit of shows and creators, allowing audiences to discover them through trusted ideological allies, said Jesse Lehrich, a Democratic operative and co-host of the political podcast “Nobody Knows Anything.”

In turn, rising stars on the left help emerging media figures build their brands.

“It’s interconnected,” said Hasan. “I don’t think one is necessarily leading the other.”

‘PREACHING TO THE CHOIR’

Most of the left-wing media personalities that have risen to prominence in recent years are unapologetic partisans.

“Breaking Points” co-host Krystal Ball took part in a livestreamed August fundraiser for El-Sayed and other progressive candidates in Michigan.

Piker canvassed last week for Francesca Hong, who is vying to be the first democratic socialist governor of Wisconsin, and took part in El-Sayed’s election night party in Detroit.

“The work is only beginning,” he posted to X as the last votes trickled in on Tuesday night.

Piker has voiced support for Hamas, used the word “cracker” to refer to white people and said that “America deserved 9/11,” a comment he later described as “inappropriate.” He did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

He has built a deeply devoted following on his daily Twitch streams, where he hosts free-floating discussions about hot-button issues – similar to Joe Rogan, the influential right-leaning podcaster who endorsed Trump in 2024.

For Seder, the goal of “Majority Report” is less about persuading swing voters than educating and energizing those already in their corner.

“We may be preaching to the choir, but the choir is then going out and preaching to the independents,” he said.

Hans Noel, a professor of government at Georgetown University, said these creators and outlets “energize voters who find the party’s platform too lukewarm or uninspiring.”

“At the same time,” he added, “factional voices are not always interested in compromise,” which could pose a problem for candidates like El-Sayed as they seek to win over more moderate Democrats in the general election.

AN OPPOSITION PARTY

Jennifer Welch and Angie “Pumps” Sullivan, friends from Oklahoma City, started the “I’ve Had It” podcast in 2022 – a venue to vent about all the things that annoyed them, from the antics of reality stars to their own misbehaving children.

It wasn’t until the 2024 presidential campaign that they began to talk about politics, savaging Trump in typically irreverent terms.

Soon they were interviewing Democratic presidential hopeful Kamala Harris and attending the party convention in Chicago.

Their show now has more than 5.2 million subscribers and followers across YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok.

Listeners “are coming to us to get news and to get our opinion on the news,” Welch told Reuters.

El-Sayed appeared on the podcast twice, and Welch endorsed him on-air, a decision she described as a “layup”.

“I think that the Democratic base is so much further than what the establishment realizes,” she said, “and I think candidates like Abdul are the future of the Democratic Party if we are to be an opposition party.”

(Reporting by Helen Coster; Editing by Jesse Mesner-Hage and Alistair Bell)

source

By David Shepardson

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Four Republican U.S. senators on Thursday proposed repealing landmark California vehicle emissions rules in a bid to prevent the state from imposing stricter tailpipe requirements than the federal government.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June sent the Republican-controlled Congress state vehicle emissions rules for potential repeal, saying the waivers granted under the Clean Air Act for California environmental regulations approved under prior Democratic administrations should have been sent to lawmakers under the ​Congressional Review Act. California sued to block the action in federal court, saying it was illegal to send the waivers to the Senate under the Congressional Review Act.

Consideration under the CRA allows repeal by a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes needed for most legislation.

Senators Cynthia Lummis, Eric Schmitt, Pete Ricketts and Jon Husted said the waivers allowed the California Air Resources Board “to impose its regulatory agenda far beyond California’s borders.”

The Trump administration has mounted a multi-pronged effort to deny California the ability to require cleaner vehicles and ​more electric vehicles. The EPA has also enacted rules making it easier for automakers to sell more ​gasoline-powered cars and trucks, while making it more expensive to buy EVs.

The waivers granted California authority to enact its own emission standards for cars and trucks as well as lawn, garden and power-washing equipment. The rules have prodded companies to produce cleaner electric models to reduce emissions.

California won approval in 2022 under then-President Joe Biden’s EPA for the state’s current ​vehicle rules known as Advanced Clean Cars I or ACC I, which remain in effect and are one of the waivers targeted.

California’s ​rules require automakers to ​sell a rising number ⁠of electric vehicles and meet increasingly stringent limits on tailpipe emissions that are far tougher than federal rules.

The administration of Republican President Donald Trump plans ​to roll back federal fuel-economy rules, while California says fuel savings ​for consumers from ⁠the rules far exceed higher upfront costs of EVs.

Last year, Congress rescinded authority for California to outlaw traditional gasoline-powered vehicles after 2035 after Toyota, General Motors and other automakers lobbied for relief from California’s emissions regulations.

Congress passed legislation in 2025 to stop collecting penalties for not meeting vehicle tailpipe standards, saving automakers hundreds of millions of dollars.

(Reporting by David Shepardson in WashingtonEditing by Nick Zieminski and Matthew Lewis)

source

By Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – In one courtroom after another, federal judges have accused U.S. President Donald Trump’s Justice Department of an extraordinary spate of misconduct, including making false statements, failing to comply with court orders and improperly using the legal system to harass political opponents.

Such rebukes might be expected to trigger a flurry of activity within the department’s two internal watchdogs tasked with policing the government’s most powerful law-enforcement agency.

But shrinking staffs and fears of political retribution have largely sidelined the offices, limiting new investigations into the administration, according to Reuters interviews with four former DOJ staffers and a review of department employment and investigations data.

Nearly half the workforce at the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has left during Trump’s second term, while about 17% have departed the Office of Inspector General, government records show. Many retired or took buyouts the administration offered to shrink the federal workforce, according to the records and three people familiar with the departures.

The number of new OPR investigations has declined to a 20-year low even as misconduct complaints soar, the review found. The government watchdogs are “afraid of doing any watching,” said one former DOJ official who left last year.

Details of the watchdogs’ diminished staffing and declining investigations have not previously been reported.

OPR investigates misconduct by department lawyers while the inspector general probes waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongdoing departmentwide. OPR does not disclose who it investigates and the inspector general conducts much of its work in secret. But the four former DOJ employees said the staff departures and the slower pace of investigations make clear that they are not adequately addressing the surge of allegations facing the department.

Justice Department spokesperson Kiersten Pels said OPR “remains committed to ensuring accountability for all DOJ attorneys” and rigorously investigates misconduct allegations. John Lavinsky, a spokesperson for the DOJ Inspector General, said the office is committed to independent oversight and does not “avoid investigations or reviews that are difficult or controversial.”

DOJ officials have broadly disputed judges’ findings of misconduct and have accused courts of being politically hostile to Trump.

DEFANGED ETHICS WATCHDOG

Department policy requires attorneys to report any judicial finding or substantial allegation of misconduct to the OPR. Its investigations, if sustained by DOJ leadership, can lead to attorneys being fired or referred to state disciplinary authorities for review of their law licenses.

Since Trump returned to office, the Office of Professional Responsibility has shrunk from 29 employees to 16, according to Justice Department data Reuters obtained through a public-records request. The administration also fired OPR’s director, Jeffrey Ragsdale, and has yet to name a replacement.

Such office turmoil “sends a message to the workforce that ethics is not important or that ethics is subordinate to the wills or interests of the political administration,” said Benjamin Grimes, a former Justice Department ethics official who now lectures at Columbia Law School.

During the 2025 fiscal year, which ended in September, OPR opened seven new investigations, the lowest in two decades, even as the office received 1,666 complaints, the highest in any year since 2005, according to a Reuters review of annual reports. The office has not disclosed its more recent work this fiscal year.

By comparison, the office opened an average of more than 18 investigations annually during the past decade, including Trump’s first term.

This week, federal prosecutors revealed they reported to OPR a federal judge’s findings of grand jury misconduct in a now-dismissed case against six Chicago-area immigration activists. It was not immediately clear if OPR opened an investigation.

OPR typically investigates only a small fraction of the complaints it receives, finding most lack evidence or fall outside its remit.

One of OPR’s highest-profile probes examined Jack Smith, who led DOJ prosecutions into Trump’s handling of classified documents and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election. The probe examined Republican lawmakers’ claims that Smith’s team tried to harm Trump’s chances in the 2024 election and sought to improperly coerce cooperation from a Trump aide.

By last spring, OPR investigators had interviewed Smith, which has not been previously reported, and expected to complete the investigation by last summer, according to two people familiar with the matter. But a year later, the probe has yet to conclude. One of the people told Reuters that political appointees asked for it to be suspended.

The department has since launched a separate criminal investigation into Smith, who denies any wrongdoing.

A department spokesperson declined to answer questions about the probe. A spokesperson for Smith declined to comment.

STAFF EXODUS AT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE

The inspector general’s office lost 99 employees since the end of President Joe Biden’s administration, reducing staffing to 477 people, according to Office of Personnel Management records.

Historically, the office has investigated politically sensitive matters including the FBI’s handling of its investigation into contacts between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia.

The office routinely informs Congress about major investigations. During Trump’s current term, however, it has publicly disclosed only one politically sensitive inquiry – an audit of the DOJ’s release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein. The department faces bipartisan criticism alleging it botched the congressionally mandated release of files, heavily redacting records of public interest while failing to redact information exposing some victims’ identities.

In another case, according to letters reviewed by Reuters, the inspector general’s office referred a DOJ whistleblower alleging wrongdoing by senior Trump officials to OPR, saying that office was better positioned to investigate. Reuters could not establish whether OPR has pursued the matter.

One former official who left the Inspector General’s office late last year said it had started to avoid investigating “the high-profile stuff.”

COURT REBUKES

The declining power of the DOJ watchdogs comes as judges increasingly call out the government’s lawyers for alleged misconduct. A federal judge last year found what he called a disturbing pattern of Justice Department errors in the first of two prosecutions of James Comey, the former FBI director and Trump foe, including improper evidence handling and fundamental misstatements of the law to a grand jury. The case was later dismissed on other grounds.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused senior officials including acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of failing to properly defend the government in Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service and instead reaching what she described as a collusive settlement granting Trump and his family businesses sweeping tax immunity.

Blanche this week formally rescinded a separate portion of the agreement setting aside $1.8 billion to compensate Trump allies the president claims suffered government mistreatment. Republican opposition to the “anti-weaponization fund” had stalled Blanche’s bid to become attorney general.

Federal prosecutors said the findings in the Comey case were based on misinterpretations by the judge. Blanche has disputed what he called insinuations in Williams’ order and Trump’s personal lawyers have appealed it.

The Trump administration has also moved to make it harder for outside authorities to scrutinize the actions of DOJ attorneys, suing to block one ethics case against a former official and seeking new authority to restrict investigations by state agencies that regulate lawyers.

Justice Department officials have accused state-level investigations of being politically motivated and aimed at intimidating lawyers carrying out Trump’s agenda.

“We see all these opinions where judges are critical of the government lawyers, and then we’re not seeing anything coming out of OPR,” said Bruce Green, a legal ethics expert and law professor at Fordham University. “So how can you trust them?”

(Reporting by Andrew Goudsward and Brad Heath in Washington; editing by Michael Learmonth and Richard Valdmanis)

source

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Tennessee Republicans head to the polls on Thursday to choose their nominee for governor in a tightening race between two of President Donald Trump’s closest allies in Congress: U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Representative John Rose.

Blackburn, 74, and Rose, 61, are running for the party nod to replace two-term Republican Governor Bill Lee, who is leaving office because of term limits. Five candidates, including Memphis city councilor Jerri Green, are vying for the Democratic nomination.

The governor’s office in Tennessee, a state Trump won by nearly 30 percentage points in 2024, is widely expected to remain in Republican hands in the November general election. 

Blackburn, who spent 16 years in the U.S. House of Representatives before entering the Senate in 2019, has led Rose by comfortable double-digit margins for much of the race, according to opinion polls. But in recent weeks, there have been signs that the contest has tightened.

A third Republican candidate, 62-year-old state representative Monty Fritts, could play spoiler by appealing to far-right voters as a self-identified Christian nationalist with strong conservative positions.   

The Tennessee primary election also features the first U.S. House contest since the Republican-controlled state redrew its congressional map to dismantle a majority-Black Memphis district, currently represented by Democrat Steve Cohen. He chose not to seek reelection to the seat, which independent political analysts now rate as safe Republican. 

Four Democrats are vying for their party’s nomination for the seat, including state representative Justin Pearson, who is backed by U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and more than a dozen other progressives in Congress, and state senator London Lamar, who has endorsements from Cohen and Memphis Mayor Paul Young.

On the Republican side, four candidates are seeking the party nod, including state senator Brent Taylor, who is endorsed by Trump and Republicans in Congress, and state representative Todd Warner.

(Reporting by David Morgan; Editing by Edmund Klamann)

source

LAS VEGAS/WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump said talks with Tehran seemed “to be working out quite well,” reiterating his positive portrayal of the negotiations on the Iran war without elaborating on the specifics of the discussions.

DETAILS:

• “I hear they are doing very well,” Trump said in an interview on the “FOX5 1-ON-1” show with FOX5 Las Vegas journalist Tom Durian. The interview was published on Wednesday evening.

• Even as the Iran war has entered its sixth month and the two sides have so far failed to reach a permanent end to the conflict, Trump has repeatedly attempted to portray the talks positively.

• Trump has said a deal on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for energy supplies that Iran blocked after the war began, is imminent.

• “I am not looking to kill people and totally obliterate everything, and that’s where we were headed. And they wanted to negotiate and we’re doing that, and it seems to be working out quite well,” Trump said in the interview.

• Human rights experts have condemned Trump’s threats to target civilian infrastructure.

• Iran has warned that if the U.S. carried out the threats, Tehran would target regional critical infrastructure.

• The 1949 Geneva Conventions ​on ⁠humanitarian conduct in war prohibit attacks on sites considered essential for civilians.

• Such attacks could amount to war crimes, international law experts in the ⁠U.S. ​said in April, after Trump’s previous threats.

• The war began on February ‌28 when the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran. ⁠Tehran responded with strikes on Israel and Gulf states with U.S. bases.

• U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran and Israeli attacks on Lebanon have since killed thousands and displaced millions.

(Reporting by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Stephen Coates)

source