A federal appeals judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally or temporarily. 

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration’s effort to end birthright citizenship that he issued earlier this year and that was granted to more than a dozen states can stand. 

Sorokin said the ruling was an exception to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that limited lower courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions. The issue is expected to return to the Supreme Court.  

Trump and the administration ‘are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,’ Sorokin wrote in his ruling. ‘But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.’

The Trump administration has argued that children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally and temporarily are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 

Trump signed the birthright citizenship executive order, along with a slew of other orders, on his first day in office in January. 

On Wednesday, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the lower court’s nationwide injunction, and, earlier this month, a New Hampshire federal judge issued a ruling prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit.

Sorokin disagreed with the Trump administration’s argument that the Supreme Court’s ruling warranted a narrower ruling. 

The plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit argued that Trump’s executive order is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship, and it also threatens millions of dollars in state funding for ‘essential’ health insurance services contingent on citizenship status. 

Reuters and the Associated Press contributed to this report. 

European diplomats met with Iranians on Friday face-to-face for the first time since Israel and the U.S. bombed the country last month. 

The ‘serious, frank and detailed’ meeting in Istanbul, Turkey, lasted for around four hours and the officials all agreed to meet again for continued negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program. 

Sanctions that were lifted on Iran in 2015 after it agreed to restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program could be reimposed if Iran doesn’t comply with requirements. 

One of Europe’s E3 nations – Britain, France and Germany, who held the talks with Iran – could bring back sanctions under the ‘snapback’ mechanism, which allows one of the European countries to bring back U.N. sanctions if Iran violates the conditions. 

European leaders have also said that sanctions will start being reinstated by the end of August if there is no progress on reining in Iran’s nuclear program. 

‘A possible delay in triggering snapback has been floated to the Iranians on the condition that there is credible diplomatic engagement by Iran, that they resume full cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and that they address concerns about their highly-enriched uranium stockpile,’ a European diplomat said on condition of anonymity before the talks on Friday. 

The diplomat added that the snapback mechanism ‘remains on the table.’ 

Iran said that the U.S. needs to rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal – after President Trump pulled America out of it in 2018 – saying Iran has ‘absolutely no trust in the United States.’

The U.S. bombed Iran’s nuclear sites on June 22, a little over a week after Israel had bombed the country over national security concerns about its nuclear program. 

Iran responded by attacking Israel and a U.S. Army base in Qatar. 

Isreal and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on June 24. 

The IAEA issued a concerning report in May that said that Iran’s stockpile of near-weapons-grade enriched uranium had grown by nearly 50% in three months. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Donald Trump did better with American young people last fall than any Republican candidate in decades. He won men under 30, won men of college age, and even won the youth vote in the swing state of Michigan. American young people were widely assumed to be uniformly liberal, and expected to remain so forever and ever. But the reality was anything but. I saw this trend playing out in real time as I toured the country speaking on college campuses to crowds of three, four, and even five thousand strong.  Young Americans were not happy with Joe Biden’s America or Kamala Harris’ vows to continue it, and they were ready to return to the president they associated with a more prosperous pre-COVID time.

It was a big win. But it was also impermanent. It could be a one-off. It could easily be explained by the aftermath of COVID or the incredible political charisma of Donald Trump himself. The youth vote of 2024 wasn’t so much a win as it was an opportunity: A clear demonstration that conservatives actually can compete to win the votes of American young people, rather than writing them off. 

The challenge for Republicans now is seizing this Gen Z opportunity. Because Gen Z won’t become lifelong conservatives thanks to a good campaign or slick online memes. They’ll only become lifelong supporters if we’re able to deliver for them on the big issues that matter.

Experts expend a lot of effort and ink explaining what Gen Z ‘wants.’ But between my campus visits and my work running Turning Point USA, I talk to as many Gen Z’ers as anyone in the country. They want basic economic success and security like the generations before them. They want a home, they want a family, they want to feel like they are building something and that they are a part of something. 

And right now, on that front, Gen Z has a lot of problems. Economically, things are dire. In 1984, the median American home cost about three and a half times the median income in America. Today, the median house costs almost six times the median income. Rent isn’t much better, and has risen more than 50% in real terms since the 1970s. 

In 1980, tuition at the average public college was about $2,800 in today’s dollars. Today it’s around $10,000, and, unsurprisingly, that means the average college student leaves school with a debt burden that previously could have bought them a car, provided the down payment on a house, or helped them start a family. 

Financially, young people aren’t just facing more expensive necessities, but also a more predatory economic reality. Millions of Gen Zers are buying everything from concert tickets to groceries to Chipotle burritos through buy now, pay later (BNPL) setups from companies like Klarna and Affirm. Some polls indicate Gen Z prefers BNPL to traditional credit cards. Taking on debt for purchases may make sense when buying a house or a car, but once a person is paying for their groceries with 4 monthly payments at 10% interest, something has gone awry. 

Of course, America hasn’t become a poor nation. In fact, we’re as spectacularly wealthy as ever. Yet this wealth doesn’t reach young Americans (unless it’s by way of inheritance). Instead, over and over, policy decisions have ensured that elderly Americans grow wealthier and wealthier. Never in American history has so much wealth been concentrated in those who are already retired from the labor force. This reality became even more pronounced during COVID and the rampant inflation that followed. Older Americans with equities and assets in their portfolio saw their net worth skyrocket, while younger Americans just saw those assets become even more unaffordable.

It wasn’t always like this. When the baby boomers of today were growing up, government policy routinely favored young people. Jobs were easier to get, with far fewer credentialing hurdles. Houses were built far faster. Wages were higher instead of being suppressed through sky-high legal and illegal immigration. Today, though, America is a country built for those who are already owners, and those too young to buy are finding themselves stuck becoming borrowers and renters. The median age of first-time home buyers is now pushing 40, about a decade higher than the 1980s when the average age was just 29!

This isn’t because Gen Z is lazy — a common retort I hear — it’s because they are contending with structural disadvantages older Americans didn’t experience. If this continues, something will break, and young people will lead the way in breaking it. 

Zohran Mamdani has become a celebrity for Gen Z with his slick promises of a New York City rent freeze, state-owned grocery stores, and free daycare as stepping stones to eventually seizing the means of production. Mamdani’s political surge is not a passing fad or pure TV news fodder. 

It should be a giant flashing red alarm. There are millions of Americans who feel cut off from any meaningful economic progress or stability. Eventually, if they can’t obtain prosperity the old-fashioned way, they will simply try to vote themselves prosperity, and there will be plenty of demagogues promising this can be done easily by simply expropriating those with more than them.

Most of Gen Z is ideologically fluid. They’re happy to give Republicans a shot, then turn around and elect a Marxist two years later.

America will have a reordering of its economy. The only question is what that reordering will look like. There are two paths before us. We will either have stabilizing reforms like those of Theodore Roosevelt a century ago and those espoused by nationalist, populist conservatives, or we will have revolutionary, destructive ‘reforms’ like those that have already ruined once-prosperous countries like Cuba or Venezuela. If we succeed in the next three years, or if we fail, will determine which.

President Donald Trump arrived in Scotland late Friday for a working trip where he is expected to meet with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer amid ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and the U.K., as well as visit several of his properties there. 

‘We’re meeting with the prime minister tonight,’ Trump told reporters Friday before departing for Scotland. ‘We’re going to be talking about the trade deal that we made, and maybe even improve it.’

‘We want to talk about certain aspects, which is going to be good for both countries,’ Trump said. ‘More fine-tuning. Also, we’re going to do a little celebrating together, because, you know, we got along very well. U.K.’s been trying to make a deal with us for like, 12 years, and haven’t been able to do it. We got it done, and he’s doing a very good job, this prime minister. Good guy.’

In May, the U.S. and the U.K. announced the two countries had agreed to a major trade deal, which marked the first historic trade negotiation signed following Liberation Day, when Trump announced widespread tariffs for multiple countries April 2 at a range of rates.

Trump, who is slated to remain in Scotland until Tuesday, is also scheduled to visit his golf courses in Turnberry and Aberdeen while abroad. 

Here’s also what happened this week:

Federal Reserve visit 

Trump visited the Federal Reserve headquarters Thursday, as he has ramped up digs at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell. 

Trump accompanied other administration officials for a tour of the headquarters, following $2.5 billion in renovations to the building. The massive project has attracted scrutiny from lawmakers and members of the Trump administration, including the president, who suggested the huge renovation could amount to a fireable offense. 

‘I think he’s terrible … I didn’t see him as a guy that needed a palace to live in,’ Trump said July 16. ‘But the one thing I would have never guessed is that he would be spending two and a half billion dollars to build a little extension onto the Fed.’

On Thursday, the two briefly sparred over the cost of the renovation, but Trump told reporters afterward that the two had a ‘good meeting’ and that there was ‘no tension.’ Trump also shut down speculation he might oust Powell, claiming such a move would be unnecessary. 

The Federal Reserve, the United States central bank, oversees the nation’s monetary policy and regulates financial institutions. 

Trump historically has railed against Powell, calling him names like ‘numskull’ and ‘too late.’ Likewise, Trump has expressed ire toward Powell for ignoring requests to lower interest rates. 

‘Well, I’d love him to lower interest rates, but other than that, what can I tell you?’ Trump said Thursday. 

Trump signed into law Thursday his roughly $9 billion rescissions package to claw back already approved federal funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting. 

The rescissions measure revoked nearly $8 billion in funding Congress already approved for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a formerly independent agency that provided impoverished countries aid and offered development assistance.

The rescissions package also rescinds more than $1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which provides federal funding for NPR and PBS.

The White House is claiming that Russia was attempting to sow ‘distrust and chaos,’ even as reports from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence suggest the Obama administration ‘manipulated’ Russian interference to undercut Trump’s win in 2016. 

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked about whether Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s position when he led the Senate Intelligence Committee fell in line with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence’s new findings. 

‘He said what they found is troubling,’ Leavitt said, while standing beside Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard at a Wednesday White House press briefing. ‘We found irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling, which the director of national intelligence just confirmed for all of you that Russia was trying to sow distrust and chaos.’ 

‘What’s the outrage in this – that Secretary Rubio did not say at the time, the Democrats were saying at the time – is the fact that the intelligence community was concocting this narrative that the president colluded with the Russians, that the president’s son was holding secret meetings with the Russians, all of these lies that were never true,’ she continued. 

In 2020, the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Sen. Rubio, released a report finding ‘irrefutable evidence’ of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, Gabbard claims Obama officials manipulated intelligence to undermine Trump’s victory by playing up Russia’s actions during the 2016 election. 

But, Rubio said at the time, ‘We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election.’

He added that the report had found ‘deeply troubling actions’ on behalf of the FBI, ‘particularly their acceptance and willingness to rely on the ‘Steele Dossier’ without verifying its methodology or sourcing.’

The Steele dossier was funded by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie.

Documents recently released by Gabbard found intelligence showing Russian actors did not impact the 2016 election had been ‘suppressed.’ 

The Obama administration ‘manufactured and politicized intelligence’ to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise, Gabbard claimed.

Gabbard also said the declassified documents have been shared with the Department of Justice and the FBI so those agencies can evaluate if any criminal implications stemming from the materials are warranted. 

Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush responded to the DNI claims: ‘Out of respect for the office of the presidency, our office does not normally dignify the constant nonsense and misinformation flowing out of this White House with a response. But these claims are outrageous enough to merit one. These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction.’

‘Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes. These findings were affirmed in a 2020 report by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Marco Rubio,’ he added. 

Rubio’s office referred Fox News Digital to Leavitt’s comments. 

Documents stated that intelligence officials had found Russia was ‘probably not trying… to influence the election by using cyber means.’

One instance was on Dec. 7, 2016, weeks after the election. Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s talking points stated: ‘Foreign adversaries did not use cyberattacks on election infrastructure to alter the U.S. presidential election outcome.’

A presidential daily brief prepared for President Barack Obama in 2016 assessed: ‘Russian and criminal actors did not impact recent US election results by conducting malicious cyber activities against election infrastructure.’

But, the brief found, ‘Russian Government-affiliated actors most likely compromised an Illinois voter registration database and unsuccessfully attempted the same in other states.’

The brief stated that it was ‘highly unlikely’ the effort ‘would have resulted in altering any state’s official vote result.’ 

‘Criminal activity also failed to reach the scale and sophistication necessary to change election outcomes,’ it stated. 

The brief said the office of the Director of National Intelligence assessed Russian activities ‘probably were intended to cause psychological effects, such as undermining the credibility of the election process and candidates.’ 

Obama officials then ‘leaked false statements to media outlets,’ according to Gabbard’s office, claiming, ‘Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election.’

Fox News Digital’s Brooke Singman contributed to this report. 

Former White House chief of staff Ron Klain is cooperating with congressional investigators seeking information into former President Joe Biden’s mental health during his time in office, a pair of lawmakers suggested Thursday.

Klain, who ran Biden’s White House for the first two years of his term, is currently sitting down with staff on the House Oversight Committee as part of Chair James Comer’s probe into whether top administration aides covered up signs of decline in the former president while he was in office.

Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told reporters roughly an hour into the session that Klain ‘answered every question’ that Republicans put forward.

‘I found Mr. Klain to be very credible. He answered every single question. He was fully cooperative. There are times where he was asked about personal conversations he had with the president, and he was forthcoming,’ Khanna said.

‘I really appreciate his candor and the comprehensive way he had answered every question.’

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told Fox News Digital minutes later when asked if Klain was credible, ‘Yeah – when I say credible, I think he is telling what he knows accurately. I mean, he’s trying to be accurate. So that’s what I’d say.’

‘In my opinion, he is not trying to avoid answering the questions. He’s answering the questions carefully. He’s saying the things that I kind of expected him to say,’ Biggs said. ‘But he’s been answering the questions, I think, forthrightly and in the way he sees the world.’

Comer, R-Ky., echoed the positive feedback to reporters when the session temporarily broke for lunch.

‘I think we’re having a very good transcribed interview. Mr. Klain is being fairly responsive to our questions,’ Comer said, adding that it would likely ‘go late into the afternoon.’

While he declined to give specifics on the back-and-forth, Comer told reporters, ‘We’ve asked specific questions. Obviously, evidence emerges on a daily basis that would suggest Joe Biden wasn’t mentally fit to be President of the United States.’

In closed-door transcribed interviews, it’s common for Republican and Democratic committee staff to each get an hour of questioning at a time, trading off until no more questions remain.

The two lawmakers spoke to reporters after the first hour of GOP questioning was finished.

That means Klain’s interview could go on for several hours.

Comer is investigating whether Biden’s top White House aides concealed signs of mental decline in the then-president, and if that meant executive actions were signed via autopen without his knowledge.

Biden maintained he ‘made every decision’ in a recent interview with The New York Times.

The United States has withdrawn its delegation from Doha, where it was participating in ceasefire negotiations this week, according to United States Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff.

The announcement came the same day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office also announced that its negotiators in Doha would also be leaving in light of the response from Hamas. Witkoff also met with Israeli and Qatari officials in Rome Thursday, according to reports.  

‘We have decided to bring our team home from Doha for consultations after the latest response from Hamas, which clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire in Gaza,’ Witkoff said in a statement Thursday. 

‘While the mediators have made a great effort, Hamas does not appear to be coordinated or acting in good faith. We will now consider alternative options to bring the hostages home and try to create a more stable environment for the people of Gaza.’

Witkoff added that it was a ‘shame’ Hamas has acted in such a ‘selfish way,’ adding the U.S. stands resolute in its efforts to bring permanent peace to the region.

According to Israeli media reports, Hamas is now demanding the release of 200 Palestinians serving life sentences for murdering Israelis and an additional 2,000 Palestinians detained in Gaza after Oct. 7. 

The demand significantly exceeds the previous mediator-backed framework reportedly accepted by Israel, which included the release of 125 life-term prisoners and 1,200 other detainees.

At a State Department briefing Thursday, principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott would not elaborate on any details pertaining to the ‘alternative options’ the U.S. was considering in its effort to bring home hostages and create a more stable environment in Gaza.

‘At this point, (there’s) nothing to preview,’ Pigott told reporters. 

Pigott was also asked whether the U.S. would ever work within the Doha framework to advance negotiations again, a framework that has included representatives from Egypt, Qatar, Hamas, Israel and the United States, but he similarly did not share any details on that front. 

‘Ultimately, the special envoy statement speaks for itself, but I think the broader context here is also important. The fact that we have seen Hamas first break that ceasefire that existed on Oct. 7, then break another ceasefire, and then, here, as the special envoy makes clear, not acting in a way in order to achieve a ceasefire again,’ Pigott said Thursday. ‘So, to reiterate, the question has never been our commitment to a ceasefire. It has been Hamas’. They have shown that again and again and again and have just shown it once again.’

‘Israel has long accepted a deal on the table, and Hamas has long rejected it,’ he added.

During Thursday’s press briefing at the State Department, the agency also confirmed that the U.S. would not be participating in an upcoming United Nations conference discussing a potential two-state solution between Israelis and the Palestinians.

Fox News’ Efrat Lachter contributed to this report.

A Jewish-American national security group is sounding an alarm about how America and Israel’s enemies may exploit low missile stockpiles after the 12-day war with Iran.  

Defending Israel and the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar from Iranian counterstrikes cost the U.S. and Israel between $1.48 billion to $1.58 billion, according to an analysis by the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), and burned through a large portion of missile interceptor stockpiles. 

Both the U.S. and Israel now face an ‘urgent need’ to replace those stocks and sharply increase production rates. 

The U.S. had roughly 632 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors before June 13, the day Israel began its offensive in Iran. About 540 interceptors remain in its arsenal based on JINSA’s calculations of interceptor deliveries and use, according to the report. 

In addition, the two Patriot missile interceptor systems responsible for defending Al Udeid, the U.S.’s largest base in the Middle East that’s home to 10,000 soldiers, reportedly used roughly 30 Patriot interceptors against the 14 Iranian ballistic missiles targeting the site June 23, The interceptors cost about $3.7 million each, totaling $111 million.

Iran launched 574 medium-range ballistic missiles toward Israel and the U.S. airbase in Qatar after Tel Aviv and Washington conducted strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites between June 13 and June 24, when the conflict ended in Iran’s counterstrike in Qatar.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Bergeson, former chief of U.S. Central Command, said the U.S. and its allies needed to do more to invest in nonkinetic interception mechanisms,or systems that can neutralize a threat without explosive force, would be much cheaper in defending against future attacks. 

‘There’s any number of operational test and developmental testing going on with a cheaper bullet than a multibillion-dollar interceptor to shoot down a relatively inexpensive missile or UAS,’ he said. ‘Any electro-magnetic interference capability, a microwave laser EMP, whatever that can screw up, the guidance system or the proportion of that particular system is something that could be cheaper.

‘You can have literally hundreds if not thousands of rounds in one interceptor at very low cost.’

While the cost for the U.S. and Israel was high, the cost for Iran was greater — between $1.1 billion and $6.6 billion. Air defenses saved Israel about $13.5 billion in property damage.

Iran used up between a third and a half of its ballistic missile arsenal during the 12-day conflict, suggesting Iranian assertions it could have continued striking Israel for years if it wanted were overblown. 

Replacing its missile stockpiles will be even more costly given that Israel struck many of its launchers and production sites. 

But the U.S. used up 14% of its global stockpile of prized THAAD missile interceptors. America’s THAAD system accounted for nearly half of all interceptions due to ‘insufficient’ capacity of Israel’s Arrow interception system. 

It would take three to eight years to replenish the THAAD interceptors used in the 12-day war at current production rates. 

Patriot interceptor production is more robust than THAAD, according to the report, but the U.S. is providing a number of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine. So, it’s unclear how many remain in the stockpile. 

If the U.S. and Israel fail to urgently replenish their interceptor inventories — especially THAAD and Patriot systems — they risk entering the next crisis with dangerously thin defenses, according to the report. Adversaries may take note of the extended gap between munitions use and stockpile replenishment, which leaves U.S. bases across the world open to vulnerabilities. 

‘Iran’s large-scale missile campaign may have revealed vulnerabilities in Israeli and U.S. air defense systems, providing lessons that Iran or other U.S. adversaries could exploit in the future,’ the report said.

The Pentagon could not immediately be reached for comment on its plan to replenish missile interceptor stocks.