Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship, ruling against Trump’s order

Politics — 2026-06-30 14:46:00 — www.washingtonpost.com

The Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Push to Redefine Citizenship

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reaffirmed that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, directly rejecting President Donald Trump’s efforts to fundamentally alter the definition of who is considered American—a principle that has stood for more than 150 years.

Trump’s Attempt to Redefine Citizenship

President Trump has repeatedly challenged the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States. His administration pushed for a dramatic change, seeking to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship. This move was widely seen as an attempt to restrict the rights of children born to non-citizen parents, a stance that would have marked a significant departure from established constitutional law.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Throughout his presidency, Trump has made numerous statements questioning the legitimacy of birthright citizenship. He has claimed that the United States is the only country that grants citizenship to everyone born within its borders, a statement that has been repeatedly fact-checked and found to be false. Many countries around the world, including Canada and Mexico, have similar birthright citizenship policies.

Trump’s push to redefine who is American was met with strong opposition from legal scholars and civil rights advocates, who argued that his position was not supported by the Constitution or by more than a century of legal precedent.

Supreme Court’s Firm Response

The Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message: the principle of birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of American identity. By rejecting Trump’s attempt to narrow the definition of citizenship, the Court has upheld a fundamental right that has shaped the nation’s history and diversity.

Conclusion

President Trump’s campaign to redefine who is American has been decisively turned back by the Supreme Court. The ruling not only preserves a key constitutional protection but also highlights the ongoing importance of fact-checking and challenging false or misleading claims by public officials. As the nation moves forward, the Court’s decision stands as a reaffirmation of the values that have long defined American citizenship.

Source article

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/06/30/birthright-citizenship-upheld-by-supreme-court-ruling-against-trump-order/

How about this? Micron, a GREAT American Company, announced that they are putting in 250 Million Dollars into the Trump Accounts for the future benefit of children, and their stock went up 9 points today. Thank you Micron! President DJT

Trump's Truth – Latest Posts — 2026-07-02 08:23:00 — trumpstruth.org

Donald Trump Claims Major Investment by Micron, Ties Stock Surge to His “Trump Accounts”

In a recent statement, Donald Trump asserted, “Micron, a GREAT American Company, announced that they are putting in 250 Million Dollars into the Trump Accounts for the future benefit of children, and their stock went up 9 points today. Thank you Micron! President DJT.” This claim, presented as a public message, combines praise for the company with a specific financial assertion and a direct link to stock market performance.

Questionable Claims About Corporate Investment

Trump’s statement alleges that Micron, a major American technology company, has committed $250 million to “the Trump Accounts for the future benefit of children.” The nature of these “Trump Accounts” is not clarified in the excerpt, and there is no supporting detail provided to substantiate the existence of such accounts or the purpose behind the alleged investment. The claim is presented as fact, but without corroborating evidence or explanation, it raises questions about accuracy and intent.

Stock Market Exaggeration

Trump further claims that Micron’s stock “went up 9 points today” as a result of this announcement. This assertion directly links the purported investment to a specific stock market gain. However, the excerpt does not provide any independent verification of the stock movement or evidence that the alleged investment announcement caused such a change. This pattern of tying positive market performance to his own influence or related announcements is consistent with previous exaggerations Trump has made regarding economic outcomes.

Pattern of Unsubstantiated Statements

The statement exemplifies Trump’s frequent use of bold, unverified claims to shape public perception. By attributing a large financial commitment and a subsequent stock surge to his own initiatives, Trump seeks to project influence and success. However, the lack of supporting details or external confirmation in the excerpt highlights a recurring issue: the use of exaggeration and unsubstantiated assertions in his public communications.

Conclusion: Scrutinizing Trump’s Claims

Trump’s statement about Micron’s $250 million investment and the resulting stock increase is presented without evidence or clarification. This continues a documented pattern of making sweeping claims that are difficult to verify and often lack factual support. Readers should approach such statements with skepticism and seek independent confirmation before accepting them as fact.

Source article

Source: https://trumpstruth.org/statuses/39667

The GOP’s dirty little secret about the SAVE America Act

Donald Trump — 2026-07-02 03:45:00 — www.politico.com

Trump Pushes for Unpopular Mail-Voting Restrictions Despite GOP Concerns

President Trump is demanding the inclusion of mail-voting restrictions, a move that has sparked significant controversy within his own party. According to the , these proposed restrictions are “highly unpopular among some Republicans,” highlighting a growing divide over election policy.

Trump’s Push for Mail-Voting Restrictions

The president’s insistence on tighter mail-voting rules comes amid ongoing debates about election security and access. While Trump has repeatedly raised concerns about the integrity of mail-in ballots, his push for new restrictions is not universally embraced, even among Republicans. The excerpt notes that these measures are “highly unpopular among some Republicans,” suggesting resistance within his own ranks.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Claims

Throughout his presidency, Trump has made numerous claims about mail-in voting, often alleging widespread fraud without evidence. The excerpt does not provide specific falsehoods or disparagements in this instance, but it does make clear that Trump is actively advocating for policies that are controversial and not broadly supported within his party.

Republican Resistance

The fact that the president’s demands are described as “highly unpopular among some Republicans” is significant. It underscores the internal conflict over how to approach voting rights and election integrity, with some GOP members wary of alienating voters or undermining confidence in the electoral process.

Conclusion

President Trump’s demand for mail-voting restrictions, despite their unpopularity among some Republicans, highlights ongoing tensions within the party and the broader debate over voting rights. As the discussion continues, the divide over these measures will remain a critical issue for both the GOP and the country’s election system.

Source article

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/07/02/save-america-act-mail-voting-00985315

Donald Trump overstates Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-01 11:42:00 — www.politifact.com

Donald Trump Overstates Supreme Court Ruling on Transgender Athletes

Donald Trump took to social media to celebrate the Supreme Court’s June 30 decision upholding state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban transgender girls and women from competing on girls’ and women’s sports teams at publicly funded schools and colleges. Trump declared, “The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS,” and claimed the ruling “takes that ridiculous situation off the table.”

However, Trump’s statement significantly overstates the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision. The ruling does not impose a nationwide ban on transgender women participating in women’s sports. Instead, it affirms that states have the authority to determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. This means states can choose to exclude transgender athletes from those teams, but states that allow transgender athletes to compete can continue to do so.

Legal experts have pointed out that Trump’s characterization is overly broad. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion explicitly states that the cases in question do not address whether schools may allow transgender women to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams, and that “nothing in this opinion is intended to decide that question.” As Duke University law professor Doriane Coleman explained, the ruling means West Virginia can lawfully exclude transgender girls from girls’ sports teams, while California can continue to include them.

Currently, 29 states have laws or policies prohibiting transgender athletes from participating on women’s and girls’ sports teams. The Trump administration has pushed for a nationwide ban, including a 2025 executive order seeking to bar transgender women’s participation under Title IX and launching investigations into states and institutions that allow transgender athletes to compete.

While the Supreme Court’s decision is a partial victory for Trump’s position, it does not mandate a nationwide ban. The ruling leaves the decision to individual states and does not prevent states from allowing transgender athletes to compete.

In summary, Trump’s claim that the Supreme Court “ruled against men playing in women’s sports” is only partially accurate. The court’s decision does not require all states to adopt bans on transgender participation in women’s sports, and states that permit such participation are unaffected by the ruling. Fact-checkers rate Trump’s statement as “Half True,” reflecting his tendency to exaggerate the impact of legal decisions to fit his narrative.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2026/jul/01/donald-trump/transgender-sports-supreme-court-ruling-title-IX/

Pritzker: Trump 'suffering from dementia'

Administration News — 2026-07-01 17:51:00 — thehill.com

President Trump Claims Communism Is a Greater Threat Than World Wars, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11

President Trump has recently asserted that communism poses a bigger threat to the United States than both world wars, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. This statement, made in comments referenced during a CNN interview with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, has drawn sharp criticism and renewed scrutiny of Trump’s record of exaggerations and controversial comparisons.

Fact-Checking Trump’s Comparison

Trump’s claim equates the threat of communism to the most devastating events in American and world history. World War I and World War II resulted in millions of deaths globally and fundamentally reshaped international relations. The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 led to the United States’ entry into World War II, while the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks killed nearly 3,000 people and had profound impacts on U.S. security and foreign policy.

By comparison, Trump’s assertion that communism is a greater threat than these catastrophic events is not supported by historical evidence or current national security assessments. While communism as an ideology has been opposed by the U.S. government for decades, the direct loss of life and immediate impact of the world wars and major terrorist attacks are widely recognized as unparalleled in American history.

Political Fallout and Response

Governor Pritzker responded to Trump’s comments by accusing him of “suffering from dementia,” highlighting the degree of alarm and disbelief such statements have provoked among political leaders. The governor’s remarks underscore the ongoing debate over Trump’s rhetoric and the accuracy of his public statements.

Conclusion

President Trump’s recent claim that communism is a bigger threat to the United States than the world wars, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11 continues his pattern of making sweeping and often unsubstantiated statements. Such comparisons not only distort historical facts but also risk undermining public understanding of the true scale and impact of past national tragedies. As the political discourse intensifies, Trump’s record of exaggerations remains a focal point for both critics and fact-checkers.

Source article

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5950569-jb-pritzker-trump-dementia/

Trump’s crypto earnings far outpace the businesses he spent decades building : NPR

NPR Topics: Politics — 2026-07-01 15:11:00 — www.npr.org

Trump’s Crypto Windfall Raises Ethics Questions as White House Dismisses Concerns

A new financial disclosure form reveals that President Trump and his family have collected over a billion dollars from cryptocurrency ventures in the past year alone, a dramatic shift for a president who was once a vocal critic of crypto. Since embracing the sector in his second term, Trump has loosened government scrutiny of cryptocurrencies, a move that has coincided with unprecedented personal profits.

From Crypto Critic to Industry Champion

Trump’s position on cryptocurrency has changed significantly. While he previously criticized digital currencies, he has now become a major supporter, with the White House claiming he has “done great things for America by helping the crypto industry.” This pivot has been accompanied by a surge of revenue from crypto-related businesses, outpacing even the growth of his longstanding property empire.

Ethics Rules Abandoned

In his first term, Trump signed a white paper pledging not to strike new business deals abroad and promised to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. However, according to the Associated Press, these self-imposed restrictions have disappeared in his second term. The language barring deals in countries with significant U.S. government interests is now gone, and Trump’s reluctance to profit from the presidency appears to have vanished as well.

Opaque Investors and Potential Conflicts

The disclosure forms show that Trump’s crypto ventures have attracted massive investments from foreign sources, including a Chinese billionaire, Justin Sun, who purchased $275 million in Trump-related crypto assets. Sun was previously sued for duping investors, a case that was put on hold and later settled for $10 million. Another $500 million came from a company tied to the United Arab Emirates government. Despite these large sums, the public knows little about the majority of Trump’s crypto investors, raising concerns about transparency and potential efforts to curry favor with the administration.

White House Response: Dismissal and Attacks on Media

The White House maintains that Trump “only acts in the interests of the public, not for himself,” asserting that his sons run the business and that he is not involved. Officials have attacked the media for raising ethical questions, calling it “a disgrace” to continue pressing on the issue.

Conclusion

President Trump’s reversal on cryptocurrency, combined with the removal of previous ethical restrictions and the influx of foreign money, has sparked outrage among watchdogs and critics. The lack of transparency around the sources of this billion-dollar windfall and the administration’s dismissive response to ethics concerns leave many questions unanswered about the intersection of presidential power and personal profit.

Source article

Source: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/01/nx-s1-5877483/trumps-crypto-earnings-far-outpace-the-businesses-he-spent-decades-building

Trump sees bond with ‘great he-man’ Theodore Roosevelt at lavish library opening | Donald Trump

US politics | The Guardian — 2026-07-01 19:41:00 — www.theguardian.com

Donald Trump Downplays Roosevelt’s Conservation Legacy, Makes Dubious Claims at North Dakota Library Dedication

Donald Trump, speaking at the dedication of a $450 million library and museum honoring Theodore Roosevelt in Medora, North Dakota, delivered a speech that drew sharp contrasts with the 26th president’s environmental achievements while making several questionable claims and exaggerations about both his own record and Roosevelt’s.

Trump’s Remarks and Historical Distortions

During his address, Trump focused on Roosevelt’s legacy, stating, “I’m honoring Theodore Roosevelt – that is, the man I have long admired. I don’t admire too many people, I have to tell you – not a lot of people out there.” He praised Roosevelt as “a great he-man” and “a proud man,” and attempted to draw parallels between himself and Roosevelt, both privileged New Yorkers accused of imperialism and warmongering.

However, Trump notably downplayed Roosevelt’s renowned conservation efforts. While the nearby museum highlighted Roosevelt’s record of busting 44 trusts and protecting 230 million acres of land, Trump and North Dakota’s Doug Burgum, who have both sought to roll back protections for wildlife and public lands, gave little attention to this aspect of Roosevelt’s presidency. Instead, Trump told the audience, “He did some incredible things – a lot of people will say the parks; people point to different elements of his success. Incredible. But he built the Panama canal.” This statement misrepresents Roosevelt’s role, as the construction of the Panama Canal was a complex international project, and Roosevelt did not personally “build” it.

False Claims and Exaggerations

Trump also repeated a misleading claim about the Panama Canal, recalling a conversation with a digitally animated Roosevelt: “How do you feel about the fact that the Democrats gave the Panama canal away for one dollar to Panama?” This assertion distorts historical facts. The transfer of the Panama Canal to Panama was negotiated and signed by President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, but the process was the result of decades of international diplomacy and was not a simple “giveaway” for one dollar.

In another exaggeration, Trump insisted, “I’m proud that two years ago we had a country that was a laughing stock all over the world, and now we have the hottest, most respected country anywhere in the world.” This sweeping claim is not supported by international opinion data, which has shown fluctuating views of the United States during Trump’s tenure.

Trump’s Legacy and Response to Criticism

Now in his second term, Trump appears increasingly preoccupied with his own legacy. He previewed plans for his own presidential library in Miami, stating, “We’re going to build a museum in Miami – they gave me a lot of ideas.” Trump also cited other presidents he admires, including Andrew Jackson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln, and Dwight Eisenhower, but continued to focus on Roosevelt as a model.

Despite the patriotic pageantry and attempts to link himself to Roosevelt, critics and historians have pointed out the stark differences between the two men, especially on environmental issues. Roosevelt’s famous quote, “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president,” was left unaddressed by Trump, who has often equated loyalty to the country with loyalty to himself.

Conclusion

Trump’s speech in North Dakota was marked by historical distortions, exaggerations about his own record, and a conspicuous omission of Roosevelt’s environmental legacy. As Trump seeks to shape his place in history, his attempts to align himself with figures like Roosevelt are met with skepticism, particularly when his statements misrepresent the facts and downplay the very achievements that made Roosevelt a celebrated American president.

Source article

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/01/trump-theodore-roosevelt-north-dakota

Trump’s $2B income in 2025 raises fresh questions about profiting off presidency

PBS NewsHour – Politics — 2026-07-01 17:55:00 — www.pbs.org

Trump’s Financial Windfall in Office Raises Conflict of Interest Questions

President Donald Trump has claimed that his investments are managed independently, stating, “You know, you saw the cash, and you report the different things. And what they do is, we gave it, I think it’s called a blind account, but they basically — they take it. And I purposely — I never speak to any of the people that run the money, but they’re at big institutions, and they invest in whatever they invest in.” Trump insists he does not communicate with those handling his finances, asserting a separation between his presidential duties and personal wealth.

However, a closer look at Trump’s latest financial disclosure reveals a dramatic surge in income—more than $2 billion in 2025, triple the previous year’s reported total. The most significant gains came from the Trump family’s cryptocurrency ventures. According to investigative journalist Eric Lipton, Trump’s meme coin, launched just days before his inauguration, initially soared in value, enriching early investors but ultimately crashing and leaving hundreds of thousands at a loss. Trump himself made hundreds of millions from this venture, which he actively promoted to his followers, many of whom suffered financial losses.

Another major revenue source was World Liberty Financial, a stablecoin company founded by Trump and his sons in late 2024. Half of this company was secretly purchased by the United Arab Emirates as Trump was sworn in, and the UAE invested $2 billion into its stablecoin. This arrangement has raised concerns about the president profiting directly from foreign government investments while simultaneously negotiating U.S. foreign policy with those same governments.

Beyond cryptocurrency, Trump’s income was bolstered by new real estate deals in the Middle East, Vietnam, Romania, and the Maldives, including agreements with foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Additional millions came from lawsuit settlements and media deals, including payments from Amazon and Jeff Bezos for a documentary involving Melania Trump.

When pressed about the structure of his finances, Trump’s comments were specifically about his stock trades, which are reportedly managed by professional investors without his input. Nonetheless, the scale of stock trading in his name while in office is unprecedented for a sitting president.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly has denied any conflicts of interest, stating, “Neither the president nor his family has ever engaged or will ever engage in conflicts of interest. All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people.”

Yet, experts note that Trump’s financial success appears closely tied to his presidency. Lipton points out that it is difficult to imagine Trump’s meme coin or stablecoin ventures achieving such profitability without the leverage of his office. The intertwining of Trump’s business interests and presidential status is unlike anything seen in American history. Previous presidents have taken steps to avoid conflicts—Jimmy Carter placed his peanut farm in a trust, and George W. Bush sold his stake in the Texas Rangers—while Trump has expanded his business dealings, creating new ethical concerns.

Conclusion

President Trump’s record-breaking income during his first year back in office, driven by cryptocurrency and international business deals, has reignited debate over conflicts of interest and the boundaries between presidential power and personal profit. His claims of financial separation are contradicted by the unprecedented scale and nature of his business activities while serving as president, setting a new—and controversial—precedent in American political history.

Source article

Source: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-2b-income-in-2025-raises-fresh-questions-about-profiting-off-presidency

Trump Finds His Presidential Alter Ego, the ‘He-Man’ Teddy Roosevelt

NYT > U.S. > Politics — 2026-07-01 20:37:00 — www.nytimes.com

Trump Opens Theodore Roosevelt Library With Political Attacks and False Claims

President Trump arrived in Medora, North Dakota, on Wednesday to oversee the opening of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library, turning what could have been a unifying national event into a platform for political attacks and self-promotion. During his speech, Trump disparaged environmentalists, calling people opposed to oil drilling “environmental lunatics,” and used the occasion to complain about his Supreme Court losses and launch vicious attacks on Democrats.

Political Rhetoric at a Historic Event

Instead of focusing on Roosevelt’s conservation legacy, Trump filled his remarks with political invective. He mocked those who disagree with his pro-oil stance and dismissed environmental concerns, despite the library honoring a president renowned for protecting public lands. Trump’s speech was peppered with personal anecdotes and exaggerations, including the claim, “I know more about that museum than the people that built it.”

Distortions and Exaggerations

Trump attempted to draw parallels between his own presidency and Roosevelt’s life, at one point pausing to comment that “Spain was not a very good NATO ally,” while recounting the Battle of San Juan Hill—a statement that distorts historical context, as Spain has only been a NATO member since 1982, long after Roosevelt’s era. He also claimed, “Speaking of Cuba, after many, many decades, it’s coming our way,” without providing any factual basis for the assertion.

Further, Trump described Roosevelt’s adventures with questionable accuracy, telling the crowd Roosevelt “scaled the Matterhorn” and “sailed the Atlantic,” and suggesting he “would get extremely sick” in the Amazon, adding, “Maybe he shouldn’t have been there.” These remarks, delivered in Trump’s signature style, often blurred the line between fact and embellishment.

Attacks and Culture War Themes

Trump’s speech included attacks on his political opponents and the judiciary, as well as disparaging remarks about environmental advocates. His use of the term “environmental lunatics” to describe those who oppose oil drilling is a clear example of his tendency to use inflammatory language to belittle critics.

Contrasts With Roosevelt’s Legacy

Many conservationists and Roosevelt descendants have objected to Trump’s role in the library’s opening, citing his environmental record and promises to oil executives to roll back environmental protections. Trump’s approach stands in stark contrast to Roosevelt’s conservation achievements. As historian Douglas Brinkley noted, Trump missed an opportunity to honor Roosevelt’s legacy of protecting over 230 million acres of wild America, instead focusing on political grievances and personal aggrandizement.

Conclusion

President Trump’s appearance at the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library opening was marked by false claims, distortions, and political attacks, overshadowing the intended celebration of one of America’s greatest conservationists. Rather than uniting the nation around Roosevelt’s legacy, Trump used the occasion to further his own political narrative, drawing criticism from historians and conservationists alike.

Source article

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/us/politics/trump-north-dakota-roosevelt-library.html

Trump allies blame birthright citizenship for ‘birth tourism.’ How often does it happen?

PolitiFact – Rulings and Stories — 2026-07-01 16:10:00 — www.politifact.com

Trump Attacks Supreme Court Birthright Citizenship Ruling With Misleading Claims About “Birth Tourism”

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold birthright citizenship, Donald Trump criticized the ruling and appeared to link it to so-called “birth tourism.” In a post, Trump stated he wanted to “congratulate President Xi, and the Great Country of China, on their massive Birthright Citizenship WIN!”—a comment seemingly aimed at the notion that foreign nationals, particularly from China, travel to the U.S. to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.

Fact-Checking the Birth Tourism Narrative

Despite Trump’s suggestion that the Supreme Court’s ruling is a major victory for foreign birth tourism, available data and research show that the phenomenon is a very small fraction of total U.S. births. Estimates from researchers and policy institutes place the number of babies born annually to so-called “birth tourists” between 5,000 and 26,000—a tiny slice of the 3.6 million births expected in the U.S. in 2025. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated about 9,500 births in 2024 to parents with a non-U.S. address, but this figure includes women who may not have intended to give birth in the U.S. for citizenship purposes.

Further, demographic evidence contradicts the narrative that birth tourism is dominated by wealthy Asian families. The majority of such births are to Hispanic mothers, particularly from Mexico, and these mothers tend to have above-average education levels, challenging the claim that they are seeking public benefits.

Trump Administration Actions and Legal Context

While giving birth in the U.S. as a foreigner is not a crime, it becomes illegal if it involves visa fraud or other violations. The Trump administration did take steps to prevent birth tourism, including a 2020 State Department regulation allowing consular officers to deny visas for suspected birth tourism applicants. However, the law already prohibited granting tourist visas for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child.

Conclusion

Trump’s response to the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship ruling exaggerates the scale and impact of birth tourism in the United States. Fact-checks and federal data show that birth tourism accounts for a minuscule proportion of U.S. births, and the demographic reality does not match the rhetoric. The Supreme Court itself largely ignored the issue in its ruling, and experts emphasize that citizenship policy should not be based on this small, misunderstood group.

Source article

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jul/01/birth-tourism-birthright-citizenship-Supreme-Court/