Connect with us

INTERNACIONAL

Expert reveals key factor that led to massive Minnesota fraud scheme

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

An ongoing decline in American assimilation and a deep fear of being accused of racism were key factors in the massive fraud scheme in Minnesota that is now coming to light, according to an expert.

Advertisement

Minnesota is facing one of the largest social-services fraud scandals in U.S. history after federal prosecutors uncovered what they describe as «schemes stacked upon schemes» by Somali-run non-profits that siphoned hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars from child-nutrition and Medicaid housing programs.

Prosecutors have since charged more than 70 defendants, a large percentage of whom are members of Minnesota’s Somali community, securing dozens of convictions as new waves of indictments continue. The scandal has triggered state and federal investigations, congressional scrutiny, and calls for accountability over why warnings were missed and how the fraud was allowed to reach this scale.

Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, said that the decline in immigrant assimilation in America was key during an interview with Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

INSIDE ‘LITTLE MOGADISHU’: MINNESOTA’S BELEAGUERED SOMALI COMMUNITY UNDER A CLOUD OF FRAUD AND TRUMP ATTACKS

Two Somali women walk through a Minneapolis neighborhood as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz appears in a split image. Lawmakers say the state’s oversight failures and political sensitivity around Somali-run nonprofits helped fuel the $1 billion welfare fraud scandal now under federal investigation. (Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images; Michael Dorgan/Fox News Digital)

«Assimilation is a two-sided coin. The pressure comes from inside, from you wanting to assimilate so you can make it in the new society, but it also comes from outside, where the society says, ‘Hey, we expect you to do this. We expect you, if you want a driver’s license, to be able to speak and read English at a basic level.’ We don’t do that anymore in America. We don’t we don’t really expect anything of our immigrants,» explained Hankinson.

Advertisement

«There are a lot of people who are American-born,» he went on, «who really don’t like this country and what it stands for. And so, they don’t think anyone else ought to accept it and adapt to it either.»

Hankinson noted that in no way can the fraud scheme be blamed writ large on the Minnesota-Somali community, which is estimated to have around 80,000 people. He said that those involved in the scam are a minority. However, the fact that the tight-knit community has by and large not assimilated into the broader American society and customs meant that many of the factors that could have exposed the scheme earlier were not there, according to Hankinson.

«When you come from a culture that provides you with nothing from the center, everything is family, everything is clan, everything is local, then it’s almost impossible for you to understand how a federal system would work. And if your neighbor came to you and said, ‘Hey, we got this cool thing going, if you just say your kid’s autistic, I’ll give you a thousand dollars a month.’ I mean, that’s a no-brainer for an awful lot of people,» he explained.

Advertisement

«Even if they thought that maybe it was wrong on some level, they might think, ‘Well, hang on, in my new country, maybe that’s frowned upon,’ they’re not going to rat out the clan member, the family member,» he added.

TIM WALZ CALLED OUT BY WASHINGTON POST FOR REFUSING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MINNESOTA FRAUD SCANDAL

Somalis pray on rug minnesota

Men take part in a weekly Friday Jum’ah prayer session at Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center amid a reported ongoing federal immigration operation targeting the Somali community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. Dec. 5, 2025.   (Tim Evans/Reuters)

That, combined with the existence of generous taxpayer-funded welfare programs and Minnesota being what Hankinson called a «high trust state,» made the state «ill-equipped to handle fraud.»

Advertisement

«In Minnesota, these programs were low-hanging fruit. They were so easy to fleece, it’s almost farcical,» said Hankinson. «So, the carrot is there to commit fraud, and there’s no stick.»

He pointed to one aspect of the scheme in which prosecutors say Minnesota’s Medicaid autism program was exploited by companies recruiting families, securing fraudulent diagnoses, and billing for therapy that never happened, draining millions from the program.

«That is outrageous. Somebody should have noticed at some point that, ‘Hang on a minute, why have the autism rates in Somali kids gone from one in a hundred to like one in three or whatever it was?’» he said. «There should have been some oversight, and there again you get into the whole American racial guilt, which is a particular issue that we have, where if you’re an unscrupulous scammer, you can always play the race card, and that will often get you away with it because people are terrified.»

Advertisement

«Nobody likes to be called a racist. It’s about one of the worst things you could be called,» he went on. «But I do think liberal Americans, in particular white liberal Americans, are more afraid of that label than anything else. So, some of these scammers, they threatened to make a fuss about being targeted on account of race or immigrant status or religion. And that probably contributed to state authorities being a little slower.»

ILHAN OMAR SAYS SHE’S FRUSTRATED SINCE SOMALIS ARE ALSO VICTIMS IN ‘FEEDING OUR FUTURE’ SCAM

Somali illegal alien Abdul Dahir Ibrahim and Ilhan Omar and Tim Walz

Somali illegal alien Abdul Dahir Ibrahim, who was convicted of fraud, has been photographed with Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., (left) and Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (right). (ICE)

This dynamic has also played out on the national level. Following the Trump administration’s announcement of its crackdown on illegal immigrant Somalis in Minnesota, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has accused it of «demonizing an entire group of people just by their race and their ethnicity.»

Advertisement

«I can’t take Tim Walz seriously, honestly, because he was the governor who was in charge while all this was happening. Where was he?» said Hankinson. «He was asleep at the switch.»

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

«It’s not a question of scapegoating,» he said. «It’s a good thing to send a message, not to the Somali community per se, but to all of Minnesota and the rest of the 49 states that this is America, we have laws, we have rules. When you break those rules, you are going to get punished.»

Advertisement

Hankinson added that ultimately, he hopes to see many Somalis joining in the effort to crack down on the minority involved in fraud so that they can «give their community the reputation that it deserves.»

minnesota fraud exposed,migrant crime,immigration,somali immigrant community,minnesota,tim walz

INTERNACIONAL

Here are the top US cities Trump could target with National Guard deployments in 2026

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

One of President Donald Trump’s most controversial moves in 2025 was his deployment of the National Guard to several major U.S. cities to provide security for federal buildings, public places and around law enforcement operations, including deportation operations.

Advertisement

While popular in some areas, Trump’s deployments were met with fierce resistance in some cities, especially in jurisdictions with «sanctuary» laws shielding immigrants from federal authorities. In some particularly controversial instances, the president went around Democratic governors by federalizing the National Guard or deploying troops from friendly states to blue cities.

In 2025, Trump deployed the National Guard to Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, the Chicago area, Memphis and New Orleans.

Here are the cities where residents may see National Guard troops on their streets in 2026.

Advertisement

WHERE THE TRUMP ADMIN’S COURT FIGHT OVER DC NATIONAL GUARD STANDS IN WAKE OF SHOOTING

National Guard members patrol the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 30, 2025. (Andrew Leyden/Getty)

Chicago

Despite a setback in the form of a Christmas week Supreme Court ruling denying a request to proceed with immediately deploying the National Guard to Chicago, the White House told Fox News Digital that the Trump administration plans to keep working «day in and day out to safeguard the American public.»

Advertisement

«The President promised the American people he would work tirelessly to enforce our immigration laws and protect federal personnel from violent rioters. He activated the National Guard to protect federal law enforcement officers and to ensure rioters did not destroy federal buildings and property,» White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement. «Nothing in today’s ruling detracts from that core agenda.»

With that being said, the Trump administration is likely to continue pushing for National Guard troops to be allowed into Chicago and the legal case is still ongoing.

St. Louis

While announcing a National Guard deployment to Memphis on Sept. 15, Trump hinted at sending troops to the Gateway City, saying, «We have to save St. Louis.»

Advertisement

While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office about the Memphis deployment, Trump said, «We’ll get to St. Louis also.»

The president grouped St. Louis in with Memphis and Chicago as a city suffering from high violent crime and strained local law enforcement, needing federal assistance to restore order.

According to the FBI’s most recent annual crime report, compiled for cities with 50,000+ residents and released in August, St. Louis ranks among the highest in violent crime rates nationally.

Advertisement

TRUMP CALLS CHICAGO ‘OUT OF CONTROL’ AFTER TRAIN ATTACK LEFT WOMAN CRITICALLY BURNED

National Guard soldiers stand together after shooting in DC

National Guard are seen after reports of two National Guard soldiers shot near the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2025.  (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)

New York

While announcing his temporary federal takeover of D.C. in August, Trump suggested he may also intervene in New York, saying, «We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem.»

Trump also said, «I’m going to look at New York in a little while.»

Advertisement

At the same time, Trump voiced, «I hope they do a self-clean-up.» He expressed, however, that the rise to power of socialist now Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani may necessitate a deployment to «straighten out the city.»

The president has since met with Mamdani in the Oval Office, in a highly publicized meeting in which the two appeared to have worked through their differences. Trump predicted that Mamdani would be a «great mayor.»

«We have one thing in common,» said Trump. «We want this city of ours that we love to do very well.»

Advertisement

Despite this, the possibility of a National Guard deployment to New York remains should the city begin to spiral out of control under Mamdani’s leadership.

PAM BONDI SAYS TRUMP ‘ABSOLUTELY’ HAS AUTHORITY TO INVOKE INSURRECTION ACT TO CURB CHICAGO CRIME

Mayor-elect Mamdani and President Trump

President Donald Trump met with New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani for the first time in the Oval Office in November.  (Jim Watson / AFP via Getty Images)

Baltimore

Trump also said that he would send the National Guard to Baltimore to «quickly clean up the crime» if Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore were to say he needs help.

Advertisement

Moore had earlier invited Trump to attend a public safety walk in the crime-ridden city in September, saying in an Aug. 21 letter that the event would provide an opportunity to «discuss strategies for effective public safety policy.»

«As President, I would much prefer that he clean up this crime disaster before I go there for a walk,» Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

He accused Moore of having a poor record on crime, «unless he fudges his figures on crime like many of the other Blue States are doing.»

Advertisement

Trump added that he did not appreciate the tone of Moore’s invitation.

«But if Wes Moore needs help, like Gavin Newscum did in L.A., I will send in the «troops,» which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the crime,» Trump wrote. He added that Baltimore ranks among the worst cities in the United States for crime and murder.

THE ICIEST MOMENTS OF 2025: THE 5 POLITICAL FEUDS THAT FROZE WASHINGTON

Advertisement
California National Guardsmen at Los Angeles No Kings protests

California National Guard members stand in formation during the protest in Los Angeles, California on June 14, 2025.  (David Pashaee/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

California cities

Led by Democratic, pro-sanctuary politicians, America’s most populous state has stood firmly opposed to much of the Trump administration’s actions. California Gov. Gavin Newsom was a fierce critic of Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer despite ongoing unrest and anti-ICE riots in the city.

Despite the pushback, Trump has signaled his willingness to send the National Guard back to Los Angeles as well as to Oakland and San Francisco.

«We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad,» said the president. «You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is.»

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Addressing crime, Trump has said, «Then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore. They are so far gone. We are not going to let that happen. We are not going to lose our cities over this.»

Trump also said, «Look at what the Democrats have done to San Francisco. They’ve destroyed it. We can clean that up, too, we’ll clean that one up, too.»

Advertisement

Fox News Digital’s Amanda Macias contributed to this report.

donald trump,national guard,defense,us

Advertisement
Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Donald Trump dio su explicación sobre los moretones en sus manos y reveló detalles sobre su último examen médico

Published

on


El presidente estadounidense Donald Trump habló de su salud en una entrevista con The Wall Street Journal y reveló que se sometió a una tomografía computada, no a una resonancia magnética, durante un examen realizado en octubre y sobre el cual ni él ni la Casa Blanca quisieron revelar detalles en su momento. Además, dio su explicación sobre los moretones en sus manos, que han llamado la atención en los últimos meses.

En la entrevista, Trump expresó que lamentaba haberse sometido a estudios de imágenes de su corazón y abdomen durante una visita en octubre al Centro Médico Militar Nacional Walter Reed porque generó preguntas públicas sobre su salud. Según un memorando emitido por su médico, la Casa Blanca publicó en diciembre que el mandatario se había realizado estudios de “imagenología avanzada” como un examen preventivo para hombres de su edad.

Advertisement

Inicialmente, Trump lo describió como una resonancia magnética, pero dijo que no sabía qué parte de su cuerpo había sido escaneada. Una tomografía computada es una forma más rápida de imagen diagnóstica que una resonancia magnética, pero ofrece menos detalles sobre las diferencias en los tejidos.

El médico del presidente, el capitán de la Marina Sean Barbabella, dijo en un comunicado emitido este jueves por la Casa Blanca que Trump se sometió al examen en octubre porque planeaba estar en Walter Reed para reunirse con personas que trabajan allí. El mandatario ya se había sometido a un examen físico anual en abril.

“El presidente Trump acordó reunirse con el personal y los soldados en el Hospital Médico Walter Reed en octubre. Para aprovechar al máximo el tiempo del presidente en el hospital, recomendamos que se sometiera a otra evaluación física de rutina para asegurar una salud óptima continua”, explicó Barbabella.

Advertisement

El médico pidió al presidente que se sometiera a una tomografía computada o una resonancia magnética “para descartar definitivamente cualquier problema cardiovascular” y los resultados fueron “perfectamente normales y no revelaron absolutamente ninguna anomalía”.

Donald Trump habla durante la fiesta de Año Nuevo en su residencia Mar-a-Lago, de Florida, bajo un cartel que erróneamente dice «Feliz cumpleaños». Foto: REUTERS

La secretaria de prensa de la Casa Blanca, Karoline Leavitt, dijo el jueves en un comunicado que los médicos del presidente y la Casa Blanca “siempre han sostenido que el presidente se sometió a un proceso de imagenología avanzada”, pero dijo que “el propio presidente ha revelado detalles adicionales sobre las imágenes” porque “no tiene nada que ocultar”.

“En retrospectiva, es una pena que lo haya hecho porque les dio algo de munición”, dijo Trump en la entrevista con The Wall Street Journal publicada el jueves. “Habría sido mucho mejor si no lo hubieran hecho, porque el hecho de que lo hice decía: ‘Oh, caramba, ¿hay algo mal?’ Bueno, no hay nada mal”.

Advertisement

Preguntas sobre la salud del presidente

El mandatario, de 79 años, se convirtió en la persona de mayor edad en prestar juramento como presidente el año pasado y ha sido sensible a las preguntas sobre su salud, particularmente porque ha cuestionado repetidamente la aptitud de su predecesor Joe Biden para el cargo.

Biden, quien cumplió 82 años en el último año de su presidencia, fue acosado al final de su mandato y durante su fallido intento de buscar la reelección por el escrutinio de su edad y su agudeza mental.

Advertisement

Pero este año también han surgido preguntas sobre la salud de Trump, ya que se lo ha visto con moretones en la parte posterior de su mano derecha que han sido visibles a pesar de que se les ha colocado una capa de maquillaje encima, junto con una notable hinchazón en sus tobillos.

Este verano, la Casa Blanca dijo que al presidente se le había diagnosticado insuficiencia venosa crónica, un padecimiento común entre los adultos mayores que ocurre cuando las venas de las piernas no pueden llevar adecuadamente la sangre de regreso al corazón y se acumula en la parte inferior de las extremidades.

En la entrevista, Trump dijo que intentó usar medias de compresión por un tiempo para abordar la hinchazón, pero dejó de hacerlo porque no le gustaban.

Advertisement
Un visible moretón en la mano derecha de Donald Trump, en una imagen de agosto. Foto: REUTERS  Un visible moretón en la mano derecha de Donald Trump, en una imagen de agosto. Foto: REUTERS

Los moretones en la mano del presidente, según Leavitt, son por “frecuentes apretones de manos y el uso de aspirina”, que Trump toma regularmente para reducir el riesgo de ataque cardíaco y accidente cerebrovascular.

Dijo que toma más aspirina de la que sus médicos recomiendan, pero afirmó que se ha resistido a tomar menos porque la ha consumido durante 25 años y dijo que es “un poco supersticioso”. Trump toma 325 miligramos de aspirina diariamente, según el médico Barbabella.

“Dicen que la aspirina es buena para adelgazar la sangre, y no quiero sangre espesa fluyendo por mi corazón”, argumentó el jefe de la Casa Blanca. “Quiero sangre agradable y delgada fluyendo por mi corazón. ¿Tiene sentido?», agregó.

En la entrevista, el presidente negó haberse quedado dormido durante las reuniones en la Casa Blanca cuando las cámaras lo han captado con los ojos cerrados, insistiendo en cambio que estaba descansando los ojos o parpadeando.

Advertisement

“Simplemente cierro los ojos. Es muy relajante para mí”, señaló. “A veces me toman una foto parpadeando, parpadeando, y me atrapan en el parpadeo”.

Afirmó que nunca ha dormido mucho por la noche, un hábito que también describió durante su primer mandato, y dijo que comienza su día temprano en la residencia de la Casa Blanca antes de pasar a la Oficina Oval alrededor de las 10 de la mañana y trabajar hasta las 7 o las 8 de la noche

El presidente desestimó las preguntas sobre su audición, diciendo que solo tiene dificultades para escuchar “cuando hay mucha gente hablando”, y afirmó que tiene mucha energía, lo cual atribuyó a sus genes.

Advertisement

“Los genes son muy importantes”, afirmó. “Y tengo muy buenos genes”, concluyó.

Continue Reading

INTERNACIONAL

Inside Trump’s first-year power plays and the court fights testing them

Published

on


NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump spent the first year of his second White House term signing a torrent of executive orders aimed at delivering on several major policy priorities, including slashing federal agency budgets and staffing, implementing a hard-line immigration crackdown and invoking emergency authority to impose steep tariffs on nearly every U.S. trading partner.

Advertisement

The pace of Trump’s executive actions has far outstripped that of his predecessors, allowing the administration to move quickly on campaign promises. But the blitz has also triggered a wave of lawsuits seeking to block or pause many of the orders, setting up a high-stakes confrontation over the limits of presidential power under Article II and when courts can — or should — intervene.

Lawsuits have challenged Trump’s most sweeping and consequential executive orders, ranging from a ban on birthright citizenship and transgender service members in the military to the legality of sweeping, DOGE-led government cuts and the president’s ability to «federalize» and deploy thousands of National Guard troops.

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

Advertisement

Many of those questions remain unresolved. Only a few legal fights tied to Trump’s second-term agenda have reached final resolution, a point legal experts say is critical as the administration presses forward with its broader agenda.

Trump allies have argued the president is merely exercising his powers as commander in chief. 

Critics counter that the flurry of early executive actions warrants an additional level of legal scrutiny, and judges have raced to review a crushing wave of cases and lawsuits filed in response.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump speaks to the media after signing an executive order at the White House. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

WINS:

Limits on nationwide injunctions

In June 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, a closely watched case centered on the power of district courts to issue so-called universal or nationwide injunctions blocking a president’s executive orders. 

Though the case ostensibly focused on birthright citizenship, arguments narrowly focused on the authority of lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and did not wade into the legality of Trump’s order, which served as the legal pretext for the case. The decision had sweeping national implications, ultimately affecting the more than 310 federal lawsuits that had been filed at the time challenging Trump’s orders signed in his second presidential term.

Advertisement

Justices on the high court ultimately sided with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, who had argued to the court that universal injunctions exceeded lower courts’ Article III powers under the Constitution, telling justices that the injunctions «transgress the traditional bounds of equitable authority,» and «create a host of practical problems.»

The Supreme Court largely agreed. Justices ruled that plaintiffs seeking nationwide relief must file their lawsuits as class action challenges. This prompted a flurry of action from plaintiffs in the weeks and months that followed as they raced to amend and refile relevant complaints to lower courts.

Firing independent agency heads 

The Supreme Court also signaled openness to expanding presidential authority over independent agencies.

Advertisement

Earlier in 2025, the justices granted Trump’s request to pause lower-court orders reinstating two Democratic appointees — National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, two Democrat appointees who were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. It also suggested the Supreme Court is poised to pare back a 90-year-old precedent in Humphrey’s Executor, a 1935 ruling that prohibits certain heads of multi-member, congressionally created federal regulatory agencies from being fired without cause.

It is not the only issue in which the justices appeared inclined to side with Trump administration officials and either overturn or pare back Humphrey’s protections.

In December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, a similar case centered on Trump’s attempt to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. Justices seemed likely to allow the firing to proceed and to weaken Humphrey’s protections for similarly situated federal employees, though the extent that justices will move to dilute an already watered-down court ruling remains unclear.

Advertisement

The high court will also review another case centered on Trump’s ability to remove Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook early in 2026.

SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS REINS IN SOTOMAYOR AFTER REPEATED INTERRUPTIONS

LOSSES:

Tariffs 

While it’s rarely helpful to speculate on how the Supreme Court might rule on a certain case, court watchers and legal experts overwhelmingly reached a similar consensus after listening to oral arguments in Learning Resources v. Trump, the case centered on Trump’s use of an emergency wartime law to enact his sweeping tariff plan. 

Advertisement

At issue in the case is Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact his steep 10% tariffs on most imports. The IEEPA law gives the president broad economic powers in the event of a national emergency tied to foreign threats. But it’s unclear if such conditions exist, as voiced by liberal and conservative justices in their review of the case earlier in 2025.

Several justices also noted that the statute does not explicitly reference tariffs or taxes, a point that loomed large during oral arguments.

A ruling against the administration would deliver a major blow to Trump’s signature economic policy. 

Advertisement

Court watchers and legal experts said after arguments that a Trump administration win could be more difficult than expected, though each cautioned it is hard to draw conclusions from roughly two hours of oral arguments, a fraction of the total time justices spend reviewing a case.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, said in a blog post that the justices «were skeptical and uncomfortable with the claim of authority, and the odds still favored the challengers.»

«However, there is a real chance of a fractured decision that could still produce an effective win for the administration,» Turley added.

Advertisement

Brent Skorup, a legal fellow at the CATO Institute, told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that members of the court seemed uncomfortable with expanding presidential power over tariffs.

«Most justices appeared attentive to the risks of deferring to a president’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute and the executive branch ‘discovering’ new powers in old statutes,» Skorup said.

‘LIFE OR DEATH’: SUPREME COURT WEIGHS TRUMP TARIFF POWERS IN BLOCKBUSTER CASE

Advertisement

Birthright citizenship

The Supreme Court has agreed to review Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, one of the most legally consequential actions of his second term.

At issue is an executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office that would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to most children born to illegal immigrant parents or parents with temporary legal status, a sweeping change critics say would upend roughly 150 years of constitutional precedent.

The order immediately sparked a flurry of lawsuits in 2025 filed by dozens of U.S. states and immigrants’ rights groups. Opponents have also argued that the effort is an unconstitutional and «unprecedented» one that would threaten some 150,000 children in the U.S. born annually to parents of noncitizens and an estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 who are living with an illegal immigrant parent, according to data from the Pew Research Center. 

Advertisement

To date, no court has sided with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, though multiple district courts have blocked the order from taking force.

While it’s unclear how the high court might rule, the lower court rulings suggest the Trump administration might face a steep uphill battle in arguing the case before the Supreme Court in early 2026.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

Advertisement

The court said in early December it will hold oral arguments in the case in 2026, between February and April, with a ruling expected by the end of June. 

donald trump,supreme court,federal courts

Continue Reading

Tendencias