Fox News Poll: Voters oppose action in Iran but give US military positive marks
Voters are split on what role the United States should play in the world, while attitudes on the military action in Iran reflect sharp partisanship, according to a new Fox News national survey. Forty-two percent support the current U.S. military action against Iran, and 58% oppose it, including nearly 4 in 10 who are strongly opposed. The partisan divide is stark: 77% of Republicans support the effort compared to 12% of Democrats and 28% of independents. Within the GOP, support ranges from 90% among MAGA supporters to 52% of non-MAGA Republicans. FOX NEWS POLL: VOTERS EXPECT AI TO TRANSFORM OUR LIVES — BUT TODAY IS NOT THAT DAY The gender divide is less pronounced, with support at 38% among women and 45% among men. Support is tempered by doubts about the long-term outcome, as more voters believe it will make the United States less safe rather than safer (44% vs. 33%). Another quarter think it won’t make much difference. On the broader question of what U.S. foreign policy should be, half (50%) say the U.S. should be more engaged and take the lead in world events, while 48% prefer a less engaged, more reactive approach. Republicans favor engagement (72%), while Democrats prefer a less-engaged posture (64%). MAGA supporters are the most pro-engagement (80%), followed by voters who have served in the U.S. military (70%). FOX NEWS POLL: SOCIALISM GAINING GROUND AMONG VOTERS Voters largely agree that the most important U.S. objectives in Iran should be reducing its ability to support terrorism in the region (70%), ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program (69%), and protecting the flow of oil from the region (66%). A slim majority says the same about bringing about regime change (53%). Some 64% of voters disapprove of how President Trump is handling Iran, up from 57% disapproval in January. On foreign policy, 62% disapprove, up from 60% last month. Trump’s overall job rating stands at 41% approve and 59% disapprove. For comparison, former President Barack Obama’s job rating at this same point in his second term was 40% approve vs. 53% disapprove (March 2014). The president’s 59% disapproval rating is the highest for either term. Nearly half, 47%, strongly disapprove. Last month, his rating was 43% approve vs. 57% disapprove. A year ago, his marks were underwater by only 2 points: 49% vs. 51%. Approval of Trump among Republicans has slipped to a second-term low of 84%, down from 92% last March. At the same time, an all-time high 16% of Republicans disapprove. This shift can be attributed, at least in part, to declining support among non-MAGA Republicans, as approval dropped 11 points in the last year among this group (70% in March 2025 to 59% today). Virtually all MAGA Republicans continue to approve of Trump, with 98% approving a year ago and 97% now. Among Democrats, 95% disapprove — marking the fourth time this term disapproval of Trump reached a record high. Among independents, 25% approve, 75% disapprove. Evaluations of the U.S. military’s performance in the Iranian conflict are more positive than negative: 58% rate it as excellent or good, but a substantial 41% say only fair or poor. When asked how things are going in Iran, 47% of voters say the effort is going well, while a larger 52% disagrees. Only one in five say things are going “very” well (19%). Most Democrats say things are going badly in Iran (79%) and rate the military negatively (63% only fair or poor), while most Republicans say things are going well (81%) and rate U.S. forces positively (86% excellent or good). “Historically, foreign policy attitudes have been notoriously context dependent,” says Republican Daron Shaw, who conducts Fox News polls with Democrat Chris Anderson. “Today, it seems many partisans rate the Iranian conflict based on their broader perceptions of Trump. Facts on the ground are interpreted to conform to partisan predispositions.” As the conflict enters its fourth week, few expect the swift conclusion Trump predicted. Only 13% believe it will be over in a matter of weeks, while 37% expect it to last months, and 15% anticipate a full year. Some 35% think the end is more than a year away. Republicans are more likely to expect a quick resolution, while Democrats think it will be a long haul. On specific goals of the operation, half or more voters gave the U.S. positive marks for disrupting Iran’s leadership structure (55% excellent/good), reducing its ability to develop nuclear weapons (53%), and limiting U.S. troop casualties (50%). At the same time, majorities are more negative on setting clear goals for the operation (54% only fair/poor), limiting civilian casualties (55%), and gaining support from key countries (61%). Veterans are more supportive than voters overall. They back the current action in Iran (61%), say it is going well (67%), and more of them think it will make the country safer (45%) than less safe (31%). Veterans are also more likely to approve of the president’s job performance overall (55%) and on Iran (53%). Poll-pourri How do voters view the White House’s current approach to world affairs? By a 20-point margin, more say it is focused on issues outside of U.S. security than on U.S. national security. Concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons stands at 66%, back to where it was in April 2025, after rising to 78% following the U.S. strikes on Iran in June 2025. For comparison, more voters are worried about attacks in the U.S. by non-Islamic (70%) and Islamic terrorists (73%). Even larger numbers are concerned about political divisions within the country (80%), gas prices (80%), and healthcare (81%). And of course, inflation remains the biggest worry, with 86% expressing concern about high prices. CLICK HERE FOR CROSSTABS AND TOPLINE Conducted March 20-23, 2026, under the direction of Beacon Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R), this Fox News survey includes interviews with a sample of 1,001 registered voters randomly selected from a national voter file. Respondents spoke with live interviewers on landlines (104) and cellphones (641) or
Melania Trump welcomes humanoid robot to White House for historic AI summit
First lady Melania Trump on Wednesday was escorted by a walking, talking humanoid at the White House as she met with her counterparts at a children’s technology summit. The robot accompanied Trump on the final day of the Fostering the Future Together global initiative, which focused on the role of artificial intelligence and education. Officials from nine countries—including the United States, France, Poland, the United Arab Emirates and Morocco—presented national strategies for integrating technology into education systems. WHITE HOUSE UNVEILS ITS FIRST FEDERAL AI FRAMEWORK, PUSHES CONGRESS TO ACT ‘THIS YEAR’ “The future of AI is personified,” the first lady said. “It will be formed in the shape of humans. Very soon, artificial intelligence will move from our mobile phones to humanoids that deliver utility. Since our environment is designed for people, humanoid systems are uniquely suited to navigate and operate within our world. They fit well.” “Imagine a humanoid educator named ‘Plato,” she added. “Access to the classical studies is now instantaneous – literature, science, art, philosophy, mathematics, and history – Humanity’s entire corpus of information is available in the comfort of your home.” Trump and the humanoid walked side by side in the White House East Room before the robot walked around a table with panelists. TRUMP BRINGS BIG TECH EXECUTIVES TO WHITE HOUSE TO CURB POWER COSTS FOR AMERICAN HOUSEHOLDS AMID AI BOOM “Thank you, first lady Melania Trump, for inviting me to the White House,” it said. “It is an honor to be at Fostering the Future Together’s global coalition inaugural meeting.” “I’m Figure 03, a humanoid built for the United States of America,” it continued. “I am grateful to be part of this historic movement to empower children with technology and education.” It then offered similar greetings in 10 languages and thanked everyone before walking back down a red carpet. The robot was introduced in October by Sunnyvale, California-based Figure AI, a robotics startup. The firm said the humanoid was its third-generation humanoid robot for people to use at home to help with everyday household tasks, according to its website. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Trump boosts GOP war chest as House Republicans gear up for high-stakes midterm fight
House Republicans are expecting a major boost from President Donald Trump on Wednesday as they build resources to defend their razor-thin congressional majority in November’s midterm elections. Rep. Richard Hudson, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) chair, is expected to announce a major haul at the group’s annual fundraising dinner in the nation’s capital, which will be headlined by Trump. The fundraising is much needed, with Republicans aiming to not only defend but expand their current 218-214 House majority in the midterms. SCOOP: HOUSE CAMPAIGN ARM LAUNCHES ‘MAGA MAJORITY’ TO BOOST TRUMP-ALIGNED CANDIDATES Republicans are battling stiff political headwinds as the party in power in the nation’s capital traditionally loses seats in the midterms, and a rough political climate fueled by economic concerns over persistent inflation, an unpopular war with Iran and Trump’s underwater approval ratings. CASH SURGE: HOUSE GOP SHATTERS FUNDRAISING RECORD And public opinion polling suggests the economy and immigration, winning issues for Trump and Republicans in the 2024 elections, may be liabilities now. The NRCC is neck and neck with the rival Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) as it raked in $117.2 million last year, its best-ever off-election year haul other than 2021, when Democrats controlled the White House and Congress. While the DCCC out-raised the NRCC last month by nearly $4 million, both committees had roughly the same amount of cash in their coffers. HOUSE DEMOCRATS EXPAND REPUBLICAN TARGET LIST IN MIDTERM SHOWDOWN “We know Republicans have seemingly infinite money that they have been raising,” DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene of Washington State told Fox News Digital. “We’re neck and neck with our Republican counterparts, and it’s because people know how important it is that we take back the House and that we have a check on this administration. “I think that we have an incredible opportunity because the American people understand we have great candidates, and we’re going to have the resources to get their message out.”
Florida AG warns NFL: Drop affirmative action ‘Rooney Rule’ or face legal consequences
FIRST ON FOX: Florida’s chief law enforcement officer announced Wednesday he will warn NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell that the NFL’s longstanding “Rooney Rule” mandating interviews for minority and ethnically diverse candidates is illegal in the Sunshine State. The rule, named for late Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, who chaired the NFL’s Diversity Committee, went into effect in 2003 after Black coaches Tony Dungy and Dennis Green were fired the previous season despite strong win-loss records. Attorney General James Uthmeier’s state hosts three teams — the Jacksonville Jaguars, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Miami Dolphins — and the AG invoked the latter. INVESTIGATION OF NIKE’S DEI PRACTICES COULD HAVE MAJOR NATIONWIDE IMPACT ON HIRING, SAYS ALAN DERSHOWITZ “As a Floridian, I wish the Miami Dolphins well with their new head football coach. As Florida’s chief legal officer, however, I write with a word of caution to the NFL on its race-and-sex-based hiring policies,” he wrote in a letter to Goodell obtained by Fox News Digital. Goodell must, in turn, confirm no later than May 1 that the NFL will no longer enforce the Rooney Rule or any variation of it or face civil rights enforcement actions. “As applied in Florida, the NFL’s ‘Rooney Rule,’ which governs the hiring of certain team executives and coaches, brazenly violates Florida law. So, too, do the NFL’s related ‘diversity’ initiatives,” the letter adds. Uthmeier told Fox News Digital the NFL drafts players based on merit and should do the same in the front office. “NFL teams are not going to hire an offensive lineman based on his race. So, why should hiring for positions off the field be based on illegal DEI quotas?” he said. “DEI is discriminatory and illegal. The NFL doesn’t get special treatment, and any business operating in Florida is required to comply with Florida law. Good coaches are judged on wins, not the color of their skin.” WATCHDOG GROUP EXPOSES IDAHO COLLEGES’ ALLEGED SCHEME TO SIDESTEP NEW DEI LAW Uthmeier noted in his letter that expansions of the Rooney Rule now include women as a categorized qualifying minority and criticized provisions awarding third-round draft picks to teams that develop minority talent into GMs or head coaches as well as requiring the employment of a female or minority coach as an offensive assistant. Uthmeier argued that Florida law bars employers from making hiring or workplace decisions based on protected characteristics such as race or sex, including any practices that could limit opportunities for certain groups. “The Rooney Rule and its offshoots require precisely what Florida law forbids. They require teams to limit, segregate, and classify applicants for certain employment and training opportunities because of race and sex. And they do so in a way that tends to deprive applicants of opportunities for employment,” he wrote. Uthmeier told Goodell, “The Rooney Rule and its offshoots are illegal in Florida.” Fox News Digital reached out to the NFL for comment.
Dems block DHS funding after GOP rejects their counter, Thune says Schumer ‘going in circles’
Senate Democrats blocked a last-minute attempt by Republicans to end the Homeland Security shutdown after the GOP rejected their “unserious” counteroffer. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., forced a vote on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill after swiftly killing Democrats’ offer earlier Wednesday afternoon. He accused their latest counter as “not even close to being real.” “They know better,” Thune said. “They’re asking for things that have already been turned down. So it just seems like they’re going in circles.” The spur-of-the-moment test vote on Wednesday was designed to see whether Republicans could splinter any support from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats’ unified front to support their own framework to reopen the agency, which Democrats already rejected on Tuesday. DHS DEAL IN LIMBO AS DEMOCRATS DEMAND TOUGHER ICE CRACKDOWN DESPITE GOP COMPROMISE But like the five times prior, the latest attempt was blocked by nearly every Senate Democrat. Republicans are sticking by their initial offer, which would carve out Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) funding in exchange for reopening other agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), among others. Republicans were already fuming that Democrats did not take the deal, noting that sidelining immigration enforcement funding was one of their key demands. They also charged that Schumer and his caucus were backing away from previously negotiated positions. Still, Senate Democrats are pushing for stringent reforms to ICE, including requiring judicial warrants for agents and banning DHS agents from wearing masks. Those provisions were among nine total demands added to the GOP framework. Those asks, in particular, have been firm red lines for Republicans throughout the shutdown. SENATE REPUBLICANS MOVE TO REOPEN DHS WITH NEW PLAN, WAIT FOR DEMOCRATIC BUY-IN Republicans have also consistently argued that if Democrats want reforms, they must be willing to fund immigration enforcement. Schumer pushed back on the Senate floor shortly after announcing he had sent Republicans the latest offer, calling their accusations “bad faith” that “will only slow things down.” “In fact, over the weekend, Democrats had constructive conversations in person with our Republican colleagues,” Schumer said. “They — the Republican colleagues — conceded that some of the reforms, verbally, that we have been looking for, they said these make sense.” “We thought there might be a path forward on some of the ways to reform ICE and to get some of the things everybody knows ought to be in federal legislation,” he continued. “We thought there had been some progress. But then Republicans sent us their offer yesterday, and it contained none of what had been talked about.” But Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, who was part of the White House meeting that produced the DHS framework, accused Democrats of “backing up.” CORNYN TARGETS LAWMAKERS’ AIRPORT FAST PASS AS TSA LINES GROW DURING DHS SHUTDOWN “If you really want to cut to the chase — take all the [expletive] aside — here’s where we’re at,” Moreno said. “Democrats made an offer. Want to know what the offer is? They don’t want us to deport anybody who entered this country illegally or overstayed their visa unless that person committed a serious crime. That’s what they want. That’s obviously insane, because that’s the base that they deal with.” Thune also argued that Republicans and the Trump administration have given Democrats much of what they wanted, including replacing former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem with newly confirmed Secretary Markwayne Mullin, ramping down immigration operations in Minnesota, and providing several other reforms. Some Democrats want additional guardrails on how funding in the GOP framework would be handled — specifically to prevent money from being shifted within the agency and redirected to immigration operations. Thune said there could be some room for that concession but reiterated that Democrats’ other demands were “unserious.” He also said there was “no point” in Republicans offering another counterproposal. “This is, honestly, retreading ground that we’ve been treading for weeks,” Thune said.
Iranian missiles could have hit DC from Venezuela before Trump move, Burgum warns
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said Iran could have hit Washington, D.C., and other major U.S. cities with intermediate-range ballistic missiles through proxies in Venezuela if the administration had not intervened in both countries. Speaking at the CERAWeek oil and energy conference in Houston on Wednesday, Burgum pushed back on the narrative that Iran and Venezuela do not represent an imminent threat to the U.S. and global supply chains. He said the threat was demonstrated by Iran’s attempt to strike the U.S. military base Diego Garcia in the central Indian Ocean, more than 2,000 miles from the Middle Eastern country. “That means, you know, Venezuela was a hotbed of Iranian-funded terror groups, including Hamas. If there was an Iranian ballistic missile placed in Venezuela, it could not just reach Houston; it can reach Washington, D.C.,” said Burgum. “So, again, the actions that the United States is taking to make the world safer is lowering the risk premium that I think was missing from the [oil and energy] market. Because, maybe, the market wasn’t recognizing the risk.” WHITE HOUSE WARNS IRAN AGAINST BALKING AT DEAL: TRUMP READY TO ‘UNLEASH HELL’ Burgum accused Iran, whose government he said is in shambles following intense U.S.-Israeli bombardment, of lying to the world about its missile capability. “They said during negotiations last year, they told the international agencies, they said it right before the negotiations broke down, ‘Oh, don’t worry, we could only go 1,200 miles.’ And then they launched two missiles at Diego Garcia at 2,400 miles. That means they can hit London,” he explained. The Islamic Republic of Iran escalated its conflict with the U.S. by launching two intermediate-range ballistic missiles Friday toward Diego Garcia, a key U.S.-U.K. military base in the Indian Ocean. Targeting Diego Garcia, roughly 2,500 miles from Iran, suggests Tehran’s missile capabilities may exceed previously acknowledged limits. IRAN-LINKED INFLUENCE CAMPAIGN PUSHES ANTI-ISRAEL MESSAGING DISGUISED AS US VOICES: REPORT Houston, where Burgum was speaking, is roughly 2,200 miles from Venezuela, while the nation’s capital is just over 2,000 miles away, placing both cities within range of intermediate-range ballistic missiles fired from Venezuela. Other major U.S. cities within range include Miami, roughly 1,300 miles away; New York City, about 2,100 miles; and possibly Chicago, slightly more than 2,600 miles. On Jan. 3, Trump launched a covert military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the arrest of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Burgum said that, because of the administration’s military action, Venezuela is no longer a serious missile threat to the U.S. and is now a potentially significant oil and energy partner. TRUMP ENERGY CZAR SAYS IRAN CONFLICT GAS SPIKE IS ‘TEMPORARY BLIP’ AS DRILLING PUSH RAMPS UP The secretary said that during a recent trip to Venezuela with oil executives, interim President Delcy Rodríguez signaled the country has the capacity and is eager for U.S. investment in developing its oil and gas reserves. “The resources there are quite amazing,” he said. “And from that trip we did… we were able to bring home $100 million of gold, physically, the gold, to bring back for U.S. refiners for commercial and consumer purposes. So, the level of cooperation is going.”
White House unleashes on Raskin for clinging to ‘deranged’ Jack Smith ‘lies’ in latest Trump docs flare-up
A new clash erupted Wednesday over records from the dismissed Trump classified documents case after Rep. Jamie Raskin accused the Department of Justice of improperly turning over sensitive material to Congress, drawing sharp rebukes from the White House and DOJ. “Democrats with zero credibility like Jamie Raskin are still clinging to deranged Jack Smith and his lies in 2026,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital when asked about Raskin’s claims. Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter on March 24 to Attorney General Pam Bondi alleging that the DOJ may have inadvertently sent his panel previously undisclosed materials showing Trump retained sensitive classified documents tied to his business interests and may have exposed them to others after his first administration. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the classified documents case for years, including when FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago in 2022 for materials he allegedly retained following his exit from the Oval Office, and when then-special counsel Jack Smith brought an indictment against him in 2023 accusing him of willfully retaining national defense information and obstructing efforts to recover it. JACK SMITH FACES PUBLIC GRILLING ON CAPITOL HILL ABOUT TRUMP PROSECUTIONS Raskin accused the DOJ of violating a court order requiring parts of the classified documents case to remain under seal, including Smith’s final report, which Democrats have long demanded the DOJ hand over to Congress. Raskin’s letter quickly drew pushback from the White House, which called it “pathetic” and pointed out that Smith was forced to drop his case against Trump when he won the 2024 election. Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who presided over the case, had tossed it out in July 2024 after finding Smith’s appointment by Attorney General Merrick Garland was unconstitutional. Smith was appealing her decision but withdrew his appeal after Trump’s victory, citing a DOJ policy that discourages prosecuting sitting presidents. “President Trump did nothing wrong, which is why he easily defeated the Biden DOJ’s unprecedented lawfare campaign against him and then won nearly 80 million votes in a landslide election victory,” Jackson continued in her statement. A DOJ spokesperson said Raskin was “blinded by hatred” of Trump and that the DOJ has been the “most transparent in history.” The spokesperson said the accusations leveled by Raskin were “baseless” and also refuted Raskin’s claims that the DOJ violated a court order by releasing the material to Raskin’s committee. “Judge Cannon’s protective order was not violated, and none of the documents produced by DOJ violated 6e [grand jury rules] as none of them disclosed matters occurring before a grand jury,” the spokesperson said. “The documents marked ‘6e’ contained redactions of any 6e material. As an attorney and law professor, one must assume Raskin understands this, and thus, reveals this letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team.” House Judiciary Committee Republicans said in a statement Raskin’s letter was another example of “manufactured outrage from the left.” “Once again, Democrats are more focused on targeting President Trump than working with Republicans to put America first,” a committee spokesperson said. JACK SMITH DENIES POLITICS PLAYED ANY ROLE IN TRUMP PROSECUTIONS AT HOUSE HEARING In his letter, Raskin alleged that the materials his committee received from DOJ showed that some classified documents in Trump’s possession were so sensitive that only six government officials had access to them and that Trump may have retained materials connected to his business dealings to enrich himself. The Maryland Democrat also cited a memorandum indicating Trump “may have shown” a classified map to individuals while on a private plane. Raskin also accused the DOJ of cherry-picking information about the case to release to Congress while continuing to withhold other information, including the second volume of Smith’s final special counsel report. Cannon had ordered that portion of Smith’s report to remain permanently sealed, though her order is being appealed. DEMOCRATS RAMP UP CALLS TO RELEASE JACK SMITH’S SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT ON TRUMP CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS CASE The sealed report has become a top focus for Democrats as no final reports produced by DOJ special counsels have been kept from the public before Smith’s. Democrats have claimed the report could shed new light on the case, while Republicans have argued the investigation was politically motivated, that the report is too prejudiced against Trump and that any disclosures at this stage must comply with Cannon’s order. A spokesperson for committee Democrats accused the DOJ of doing “legal gymnastics” to prevent the release of Smith’s report, accusing the department of wanting to “advance his corrupt business interests.” In August 2022, the FBI carried out a controversial search in which they seized 33 boxes from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, which included agents scouring Melania Trump’s wardrobe, Trump has previously said. Prosecutors defended the search in court, saying Trump withheld some boxes when they sought his voluntary compliance, leading them to resort to a search warrant. The president denied any wrongdoing throughout the investigation and prosecution, calling it a “scam” pushed by the Biden administration. Raskin in his letter demanded DOJ turn over a slate of documents related to the case and answer questions about who may have seen the classified materials.
Trump scores ‘massive court victory’ with appellate ruling on ICE detention
Illegal immigrants nabbed by ICE do not have to face bond hearings, a step that has become a potential legal impediment to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda, a second federal court found Wednesday. The case involved Mexican national Joaquin Herrera Avila, who was captured in Minneapolis in August and failed to produce legal credentials authorizing his admission to the U.S. He was detained without bond and faced removal proceedings. “Massive court victory against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said after the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling and deemed many captured illegal immigrants ineligible for such chances to be released. TOP US COURT HANDS TRUMP A WIN ON DEPORTATIONS AS SCOTUS CHALLENGE LOOMS A district court in Minnesota granted Avila’s petition for habeas corpus, or to challenge the legality of his detention, which the Trump administration challenged. “We reverse and remand [that ruling] for proceedings consistent with this opinion,” the Eighth Circuit ruled Wednesday in a split decision, with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Bobby Shepherd of Arkansas writing for the majority. Shepherd wrote that the district court relied on federal law allowing detention without bond for “an alien who is an applicant for admission [or] seeking admission…” while considering Avila to be no longer seeking formal admission because he had resided and worked in the U.S. for many years. But, Avila did not seek further residency status such as naturalization or asylum, according to the court, which ruled that aspect proved he was not “seeking admission” in a legal sense. “The Eighth Circuit has held that illegal aliens can be detained without bond — following a similar ruling from the Fifth Circuit last month. The law is very clear, but Democrats and activist judges haven’t wanted to enforce it. This administration will,” Bondi said. “Imagine how many illegal alien crimes could have been averted if the left had simply followed the law?” BORDER PATROL CHIEF BOVINO SAYS CHICAGO EFFORTS ‘VINDICATED’ AFTER COURT REVERSES ORDER RESTRICTING OPERATIONS The Eighth Circuit’s ruling concurs with a related ruling from the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, which found that noncitizens can be held without bond, according to Bloomberg Law. “If Congress wanted to make clear that ‘seeking admission’ was an independent requirement in the statute, it could have easily done so,” the court added. Right-wing commentator Gunther Eagleman tweeted that the decision was indeed a win against “activist judges.” “The Eighth Circuit just overturned an activist judge and upheld ICE’s mass detention policy in a 2-1 ruling,” he said, as a Trump appointee joined Shepherd in concurrence and another dissented. FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTS MINNESOTA REQUEST TO BLOCK ICE-LED OPERATION METRO SURGE “Key decision: Illegal aliens already inside the U.S. can be detained without bond during removal proceedings. This is a massive victory for the deportation mission. Leftist judges can no longer force DHS to simply release invaders into our communities to commit more crimes. Huge L for open borders,” Eagleman said. In his dissent, Trump-appointed Judge Ralph R. Erickson of Minnesota said that with the exception of a single DUI conviction, Avila had lived as a law-abiding resident for just under 20 years. “On August 29, 2025, he was stopped by deportation officers while driving on Cedar Avenue in Minneapolis, Minnesota. For the past 29 years, Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his removal proceedings,” Erickson wrote, noting that the court’s ruling means that Avila and millions of others are now “subject to mandatory detention” under federal law. “In doing so, the court does not rely on recent congressional action or a change in the regulations governing detention but rather engages in a novel interpretation of ‘alien seeking admission’ that eluded the courts and five previous presidential administrations,” he said. “Because the court’s interpretation is not supported by the plain meaning of ‘seeking,’ the context of the INA, or the history of the IIRIRA (an immigration reform law signed by Bill Clinton), I respectfully dissent.” Fox News Digital did not encounter any immediate negative responses from pundits or politicians within a few minutes of its release.
Alito blasts lawyer’s word-salad blurring asylum law
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito pushed back Tuesday on an attorney defending migrants seeking asylum, challenging the argument that those stopped at the border have “arrived in” the United States — a key issue in an immigration case. The case stems from a Trump administration petition asking the Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that found migrants remain eligible for asylum even if stopped at a port of entry on the Mexico side, concluding they had still “arrived” in the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision could determine whether migrants blocked at the border can seek asylum and how officials will handle future surges. Kelsi Corkran, an attorney representing asylum seekers, argued that the phrases “arriving at” and “arriving in” a location carry the same meaning, and that the only difference between “at” and “in” is grammatical. Alito challenged that interpretation, repeatedly pressing whether migrants stopped at the border can be said to have “arrived in” the United States, a distinction that determines whether they qualify for asylum protection. SUPREME COURT AGREES TO REVIEW TRUMP ADMIN EFFORT TO LIMIT IMMIGRANT ASYLUM PROCESSING CLAIMS AT BORDER “So there’s been talk about knocking at the door. Do you think someone who comes to the front door and knocks at the door has arrived in the house? The person may have arrived at the house?” Alito asked, testing that logic. “No, but that’s past tense,” Corkran said. “Are they arriving in the house?” ‘BLANKIES,’ ICE TACTICS, AND LUXURY JETS: TOP MOMENTS FROM NOEM’S HOUSE TESTIMONY Alito pressed Corkran again, asking whether someone still knocking outside could be said to have arrived inside the house. “Yes, I think here the door is open,” Corkran said. JUSTICE JACKSON AUTHORS UNANIMOUS SCOTUS OPINION HANDING TRUMP AN IMMIGRATION WIN She said asylum seekers at the “threshold” should be treated as arriving. U.S. law allows migrants at the border to seek asylum by claiming fear of persecution, a process that can lead to legal status if approved. Critics argue the system is often abused, with some migrants filing weak claims and not appearing for hearings. An amicus brief filed by the HIAS Foundation affirmed Corkran’s point, asserting that denying asylum for refugees not physically on U.S. soil creates a “a legal no-man’s land.” “People are left in limbo in dangerous border towns, unable to access the process our laws guarantee to those who arrive at a port of entry and present themselves to U.S. officials standing on U.S. soil,” the brief stated. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in his brief that “arrive in the United States” does not include someone stopped in Mexico. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case may come as late as June.
Democrats rip Trump’s ICE airport move as shutdown nears 40 days: ‘no reason’
Democrats blasted President Donald Trump’s decision to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to airports across the country on Monday as travel centers struggle to maintain a security presence amid a partial government shutdown, which is now nearing the 40-day mark. “There’s absolutely no reason for him to do that,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas. “[Trump] has put a stop to it.” Instead of using ICE to meet security needs at airports, Escobar said that Congress should pass a proposal that separates funding for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) from the gridlock. HOUSE GOP TARGETING VULNERABLE DEMS OVER DHS SHUTDOWN, TSA CHAOS Fellow Democrat Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., echoed Escobar’s condemnation of the deployment. “I think it’s a horrible, horrible idea that’s just going to cause more problems,” Grijalva said. Like the rest of the agencies that operate under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), funding for TSA ran dry on Feb. 14 over Democrat-led demands to reform ICE, the agency at the heart of Trump’s immigration crackdown. Democrats have conditioned their support for DHS funding on a ban on masks for ICE agents, stiffer warrant requirements for apprehending suspects in public and a ban on roaming patrols, among other changes. LIZ PEEK: VOTERS TELL CONGRESS ‘DO YOUR JOB’ AND END THE DHS SHOWDOWN Republicans have rebuffed the demands, arguing they would handcuff Trump’s immigration enforcement goals. Republicans need at least seven Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold to break a filibuster in the Senate, where they hold just 53 seats. As the standoff reaches the 40-day mark, TSA agents have struggled to continue working while covering costs. Trump announced on Monday that he would deploy ICE in an effort to shore up airport security. However, Grijalva voiced concern that their immigration-focused work might clash with places of travel. “I think that their whole job is to try to pick people off that they think are not legally in the United States. That’s most of our big travel hubs,” Grijalva said. SENATE REPUBLICANS MOVE TO REOPEN DHS WITH NEW PLAN, WAIT FOR DEMOCRATIC BUY-IN She expressed concern that ICE agents wouldn’t have sufficient time to receive the training afforded to regular airport security. “So, if you think about it, I don’t know how they would be helpful in making people feel calm. If I were an international traveler, I wouldn’t want to come to the United States to deal with a rogue agency that is under-trained,” Grijalva said. According to DHS, more than 366 TSA agents have left the force. TSA agents missed their first full paychecks on March 13.