Birth tourism in the U.S. remains notoriously difficult to measure, but Solicitor General John Sauer on Wednesday pointed the Supreme Court to what he called “striking” figures as the justices weighed President Donald Trump’s effort to curb birthright citizenship.

“Here’s a fact about it that I think is striking,” Sauer said. “Media reported as early as 2015 that, based on Chinese media reports, there are 500 — 500 — birth tourism companies in the People’s Republic of China whose business is to bring people here to give birth and return to that nation.”

Sauer’s response came after Chief Justice John Roberts asked him about the prevalence of birth tourism, which is the practice of traveling to the United States for the purpose of giving birth, so the child can automatically receive U.S. citizenship. 

Sauer acknowledged that “no one knows for sure” about firm data in the industry before citing media figures estimating more than 1 million cases from China alone. 

NEARLY ALL REPUBLICAN AGS ADD FIREPOWER TO TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP PUSH

Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause so that children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily would not automatically receive U.S. citizenship. 

The administration has argued the amendment’s birthright citizenship provision incentivizes and rewards illegal immigration.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor stand on the House floor ahead of the annual State of the Union address in 2024.  (Shawn Thew-Pool/Getty Images)

Conservatives have long raised concerns about birth tourism. Senate Republicans wrote in a 2022 report that it was a lucrative industry that “short circuits and demeans the U.S. naturalization process.” But the scale of birth tourism remains elusive, and proponents of birthright citizenship have downplayed it, contending it occurs infrequently.

The GOP senators noted in the report that they could not calculate birth tourism numbers because the U.S. government does not have a way to track them. Existing visa data cannot distinguish between birth tourism and other categories of traveling to the United States, such as medical travel, they said.

Sauer, however, rattled off a string of statistics in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the issue.

“There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to [the Department of Homeland Security] saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over a million, or 1.5 million, from the People’s Republic of China alone,” Sauer said. 

“The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hot spots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies.”

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SUPPORTERS GET THE LAW WRONG BY IGNORING OBVIOUS EVIDENCE

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Although the numbers remain unclear, prosecutors have secured convictions for birth tourism businesses. In 2024, Michael Liu and Phoebe Dong were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy and money laundering for running a birth tourism operation that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. Prosecutors said the couple coached clients to deceive immigration officials.

Sauer noted in his opening remarks to the Supreme Court that the United States’ nearly unconditional birthright citizenship policy has “spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism, as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States.”

HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S INJUNCTION RULING ADVANCES TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FIGHT

A demonstrator outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected arrival on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara to determine if President Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. (Al Drago/Getty Images)

At issue in the case before the Supreme Court is the language in the amendment that says anyone born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen. Trump said the provision was a relic of the Civil War. 

“It had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump said Tuesday as he announced he planned to attend the oral arguments, making him the first sitting president to do so. “It didn’t have to do with the protection of multimillionaires and billionaires wanting to have their children get American citizenship. It is the craziest thing I’ve ever seen.”

Sauer argued that illegal immigrants and temporary visitors lacked the ability to establish a “domicile” in the United States, meaning they were subject to the jurisdiction of another country.

Roberts questioned the relevance of Sauer’s birth tourism claims, asking him to confirm that it had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.”

Modern-day implications of the amendment, including birth tourism, “could not possibly have been approved by the 19th century framers,” Sauer replied.

“We’re in a new world now, as Justice Alito pointed out, where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen,” Sauer added.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Roberts made his skepticism of Sauer’s argument apparent.

“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution,” Roberts said.

“Breakfast Club” host Charlamagne tha God said Tuesday he saw ICE agents picking up the slack of TSA agents so efficiently and friendly that he suspected there was a government “psy-op” at play.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order over the weekend to pay Transportation Security Administration officers who had been impacted by the recent government shutdown. Though complications from hundreds of TSA agents quitting or calling out of work are likely to continue, the effects of the resumed paychecks could be seen almost immediately.

While some TSA agents have begun to receive pay, ICE agents are still filling the gap, as Charlamagne and his co-hosts discussed.

BORDER CZAR TOM HOMAN RIPS CONGRESS FOR PAID VACATION AS TSA AGENTS STRUGGLE WITHOUT PAY

Radio host Charlamagne tha God said he was baffled by how professional and cordial ICE agents were during his recent air travel experience. (Derek White/Getty Images for iHeartMedia and The Black Effect Podcast Network)

“When I flew out of LaGuardia Friday, I ain’t see no TSA agents. ICE was doing everything,” Charlamagne recalled.

“And how was it? How was your experience?” co-host DJ Envy asked.

“I mean, they were great to be honest with you,” Charlamagne said. “Like to be honest, I’m just like, they were, and for that particular terminal I was flying out of LaGuardia, I forgot what terminal it was, but yeah, they were being extra nice like Chick-fil-A workers.”

Chick-fil-A, founded and operated by Christians, is broadly known for having friendly and professional staff to the point it has become something of a meme for being the gold standard of good customer service. 

SEE IT: TRAVELERS SOUND OFF AS ICE AGENTS DEPLOYED TO AIRPORTS AS SHUTDOWN DRAGS PAST 40 DAYS

Charlamagne tha God has blasted President Donald Trump’s administration in recent months, saying that after he is gone, there will be a de-MAGA-ification like the postwar purges of Nazi collaborators and sympathizers in Germany. (David Dee Delgado/Getty Images for The New York Times; Doug Mills – Pool/Getty Images)

Charlamagne, has not been shy about condemning ICE agents and the DHS in recent months, to the point where he said there will be de-MAGA-ification like the government crackdown against Nazi collaborators and ideology after World War II. He struggled to believe that this same agency he had condemned in the past turned out to be professional in-person.

“I was saying to myself, I’m like, ‘There is no way in hell this is the same ICE agents that was on the streets of places like Minnesota with the masks on.’ Like they not wearing masks, like they being super nice,” he said.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE

ICE agents help pick up trash at Houston’s George Bush Intercontinental Airport. (Peter Pinedo/Fox News Digital)

“I think it’s a psy-op for the midterms, right?” Charlamagne said, referring to the concept of a government-staged operation to sway public opinion through deceptive means.

“Because if you put them in the airports, and they’re super nice, and they’re helpful, and they got things running efficiently, when he says we’re going to have them at the polls in November, nobody going to think twice about it,” he said.

Fox News Digital reached out to ICE and did not receive an immediate reply.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News’ Peter Pinedo and Brooke Taylor contributed to this report.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case that could dramatically test the bounds of citizenship in America and reshape immigration policy. 

At issue was President Trump’s executive order ending automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of parents who are here illegally. In an historical first, the president attended the first part of the hearing as the named party being sued by roughly two dozen states. 

Trump watched as his solicitor general, John Sauer, presented a credible and defensible argument that the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant universal citizenship to the progeny of those who broke the law by coming here fraudulently or illegally.

SCOTUS TO REVIEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Sauer was an impressive advocate with a masterful command of the law and history. However, he faced a level of skepticism from a majority on the court which suggests that, in the end, Trump’s executive order may be struck down.

Granted, divining an outcome based solely on oral arguments can be equivalent to reading tea leaves. The dynamic could change behind closed doors and upon further deliberations. But it cannot be overlooked that even conservative justices at the hearing posed penetrating questions that seemed to manifest their doubt.  

ACLU Attorney Cecilia Wang argued in defense of broad birthright citizenship. She, too, faced challenging questions, albeit with a far more conciliatory tone that appeared to betray the eventual result.     

As expected, much of the discourse centered on the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 three years after the Civil War ended. The central objective was to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their children:

TRUMP SAYS HE WILL ATTEND SUPREME COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CHALLENGE

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

But what did the framers intend when they inserted the operative phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” Those five words consumed a good deal of the high court’s discussion on Wednesday.

Exhibiting his knowledge of the 1866 debate, Sauer referred back in time to the sponsors of the amendment, who explained that it meant full and complete allegiance to the U.S. and “not owing allegiance to any foreign power.”

The solicitor general argued that illegally present aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. because they presumptively maintain political fealty to another sovereign as citizens of that foreign power. The mere act of setting foot on American soil does not necessarily constitute loyalty or otherwise subject an individual to absolute jurisdiction.

Sauer quoted Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a moving force behind the 14th Amendment, who specifically stated that the Citizenship Clause does not encompass individuals still subject to any foreign power or “owing allegiance to anybody else.” 

His colleague, Sen. Jacob Howard, further defined the limits of citizenship by stating that “this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens…” 

However, the justices seemed unmoved by the notion that citizenship should not apply to the children of people who broke the law coming here and have no permission to be in the U.S. 

The Justices revisited at length an important precedent in the 1898 ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.S. 649) involving a son born in the U.S. But his parents, originally from China, were here lawfully and domiciled permanently. They were not evading the law. Back then, the Supreme Court’s decision pivoted on that distinguishable fact.   

Nevertheless, the justices expressed reservation that the Ark case could be used as a primary basis for excluding citizenship to the offspring of unlawfully present parents who are subject to deportation.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

For at least a century, our government has been granting citizenship based on a perception of the 14th Amendment that Sauer described as “a long-enduring misconception.” Forgotten over the years was the original intent of the authors and the vital context of the congressional debate. No one who helped craft the amendment argued that citizenship should be given to children of illegal immigrants.

Yet, the current case may be one of those instances in which an established norm or accepted practice compounded by the complexity of reversing course creates too great an obstacle. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered how an endless array of cases would be adjudicated if the court upheld Trump’s order. Still another Justice raised the thorny question of a humanitarian dilemma.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A decision is expected before the end of the current Supreme Court term in June. If Trump does not prevail, there still remains an avenue of recourse. Congress always has the ability through legislation to set explicit parameters by newly defining birthright citizenship.  

But given the chronic stasis that persists on Capitol Hill, no one should be optimistic that it could happen anytime soon. 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GREGG JARRETT

President Donald Trump made an extraordinary appearance Wednesday for Supreme Court arguments — an American presidential first — as his administration seeks to unwind birthright citizenship during two hours of dramatic oral arguments.

The Supreme Court voiced strong pushback against efforts to restrict who can be called an American, a politically divisive case over automatic citizenship for some children born in the United States to foreign nationals.

Trump, wearing a red tie and dark suit, entered the courtroom around nine minutes before the court gaveled into session and did not speak during the session, per court rules.

He closed his eyes for brief times during the session, but looked alert and focused throughout his time in the courtroom, staying for the entire oral presentation by his Solicitor General John Sauer, which lasted about 65 minutes.

THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO GIVE PRESIDENT TRUMP A MAJOR OPENING ON IMMIGRATION

President Donald Trump became the first sitting president to listening live to Supreme Court oral arguments Wednesday in Washington, D.C. (Kent Nishimura / AFP)

Chief Justice John Roberts did not acknowledge the president’s appearance.

Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Attorney General Pam Bondi were in the front row of the public section and passed some notes to one another before Trump left the courtroom around 11:19 a.m. ET, seven minutes or so into the ACLU lawyer Cecilia Wang’s oral presentation. Trump left without commenting.

Trump later issued a Truth Social post saying, “We are the only Country in the World STUPID enough to allow ‘Birthright’ Citizenship!”

Trump heard a majority of justices taking turns expressing varying levels of skepticism at the administration’s claim that the citizenship “privilege” has been historically abused and wrongly granted to those whose mother gave birth while in the country illegally or temporarily.

At issue is the executive order the president signed on his first day back in office to redefine birthright citizenship, part of a broader crackdown on immigration that has led to increased deportations and decreased admittance of refugees and asylum seekers at the border.

JOHN YOO: SUPREME COURT SHOWDOWN EXPOSES SHAKY CASE AGAINST BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

In the first Supreme Court argument appearance by a sitting president, most of the bench appeared to agree with the post-Civil War’s 14th Amendment — and subsequent congressional laws and Supreme Court precedent — all support the idea of making citizens of everyone born in the country, regardless of immigration status.

Roberts, appointed by Republican George W. Bush, questioned the government’s legal position when it came to the 14th Amendment’s limited exceptions to citizenship.

“The examples you give to support that strike me as very quirky,” Roberts said. “You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships — and then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens who are here in the country.

“I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny, and sort of idiosyncratic, examples.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wondered how determining citizenship would be applied in practical terms if immigrant mothers gave birth.

SUPREME COURT’S SHOWDOWN ON BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP DECISION COULD RESHAPE AMERICA

“How does this work?” Jackson asked U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer. “Are you suggesting that when a baby is born, people have to have documents present? Documents? Is this happening in the delivery room?

“How are we determining when or whether a newborn child is a citizen of the United States under your rule?”

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Sameul Alito — both confirmed to the bench before Trump’s first administration — sounded mostly likely to back Trump’s position.

“How much of the debates around the 14th Amendment had anything to do with immigration?” Thomas asked early in the argument, saying it was designed to give newly freed slaves citizenship, and does not necessarily apply to children of newly arrived immigrants.

All lower federal courts that have heard various challenges to the birthright citizenship order have ruled against the administration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

An expected definitive high-court ruling against Trump by early summer could have sweeping national implications — and possibly slow momentum — for Trump’s get-tough immigration agenda, which has become a defining feature of his second White House term.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday pressed the lawyer for the Trump administration on so-called “birthright citizenship” protections in the U.S., part of a landmark court challenge that could upend more than a century of legal precedent and executive branch policy. 

The questions come as justices weighed the legality of the executive order Trump signed on his first day back in office. The order in question seeks to end automatic citizenship — or “birthright citizenship” — for nearly all persons born in the U.S. to undocumented parents, or to parents with temporary non-immigrant visas in the U.S. 

As oral arguments kicked off, justices appeared somewhat skeptical of the Trump administration’s arguments, including its view of the 14th Amendment, and pressed the Trump administration’s lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on the administration’s reading of the citizenship clause.

Chief Justice John Roberts told Sauer that he viewed one of the key arguments made by the Trump administration in its case as “quirky.”

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

A demonstrator is seen outside the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of U.S. President Donald Trump’s expected arrival on April 1, 2026, in Washington, D.C.  (Al Drago/Getty Images)

“You obviously put a lot of weight on [the] ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ issue,” Roberts told Sauer. He noted the administration cited “children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships. And then you expand it to a whole class of illegal aliens here in the country,” Roberts said. “I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples.”

Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also expressed skepticism during early questions, and pressed Sauer on key issues of precedent, enforcement, and the text of the citizenship clause itself.

“We’re in a new world now,” Sauer said, noting that “some 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

“It’s a new world, but it’s the same constitution,” Roberts said in response.

Trump’s executive order was immediately met with a flurry of federal lawsuits last year, and to date, no U.S. court has sided with the administration on the issue.

Trump himself attended Supreme Court oral arguments, making him the first sitting U.S. president to do so. Other administration officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, were also in the audience. 

TRUMP TO BEGIN ENFORCING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP ORDER AS EARLY AS THIS MONTH, DOJ SAYS

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other justices on the high court are seen during President Donald Trump’s 2026 State of the Union address.  (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

 SUPREME COURT SIGNALS IT MAY LIMIT KEY VOTING RIGHTS ACT RULE

A ruling in Trump’s favor would represent a seismic shift for immigration policy in the U.S., and would upend long-held notions of citizenship that Trump and his allies argue are misguided.

It would also yield immediate, operational consequences for infants born in the U.S., putting the impetus on Congress and the Trump administration to immediately act to clarify their status. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

A decision from the high court is expected by late June. 

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration unlawfully terminated the legal status of thousands of migrants who had been allowed to temporarily live in the U.S. after using an app expanded by the Biden administration to schedule appointments with immigration officials.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston ordered the administration to reverse its move last year to revoke the legal status of migrants who used the CBP One app.

The app was used under former President Joe Biden starting in 2023 to address the crisis at the border by allowing some migrants to make appointments to seek asylum, with many paroled into the country for up to two years, but President Donald Trump moved to shut down the app when he returned to the White House last year.

Burroughs found that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security acted unlawfully in April of last year when it sent mass emails to many of the roughly 900,000 people who entered the country using the app, informing them that it was “time for you to leave the United States.”

VENEZUELAN MIGRANTS, PROGRESSIVE GROUP SUE TRUMP AFTER NOEM NIXES BIDEN-ERA ‘PROTECTED STATUS’

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ordered the Trump administration to reverse its move last year to revoke the legal status of migrants who used the CBP One app. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

“The regulations do not give the agency unfettered discretion to terminate parole,” Burroughs wrote.

“When Defendants terminated the impacted noncitizens’ parole without observing the process mandated by statute and by their own regulations, they took action that was ‘not in accordance with law,'” the judge added.

The Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, one of the plaintiffs in the case, celebrated the ruling, saying it “brings long-awaited relief after months of fear and uncertainty.”

Democracy Forward, another group that helped bring the legal challenge, also praised the judge’s decision.

FEDERAL JUDGE UPHOLDS TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR HAITIAN IMMIGRANTS

The app was used under former President Joe Biden to address the crisis at the border by allowing some migrants to make an appointment to seek asylum, with many paroled into the country for up to two years. (Sandy Huffaker/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Today’s ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button,” the group’s president, Skye Perryman, said in a statement.

“Our clients followed the law: they waited, registered, were inspected, and were granted parole under the law. The Trump-Vance administration’s effort to tear that status away overnight was unlawful and cruel — and today, the court rejected that harmful and destabilizing policy,” the statement added.

A DHS spokesperson said the ruling was an example of “blatant judicial activism” that interfered with Trump’s authority to determine who remains in the country.

“Canceling these paroles is a promise kept to the American people to secure our borders and protect our national security,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

The judge found that DHS acted unlawfully in April of last year when it sent mass emails alerting many of the roughly 900,000 people who entered the country using the app that it was “time for you to leave the United States.” (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The ruling came after a class-action lawsuit filed in August by three individuals from Venezuela, Cuba and Haiti who argued the Trump administration’s effort to remove them from the country represented an abrupt, unlawful move to pull parole status and work authorization from migrants.

The Trump administration had argued that Biden overstepped parole authority by broadly awarding the status instead of granting it on a case-by-case basis.

Burroughs said when DHS sent out termination notices to migrants, it failed to comply with requirements to provide a record showing an official had determined that the purposes of parole had been served.

“Accordingly, the parole terminations exceeded the agency’s statutory authority and contradicted the procedures set forth in its own regulations,” the judge wrote.

Reuters contributed to this report.

I’ve had no intention of piling on Kristi Noem.

She did a terrible job, especially with ICE and FEMA, seemed obsessed with promoting herself–whether at a Salvadoran prison or on horseback at Mount Rushmore–and President Trump fired her. He probably waited too long, but he did oust her as secretary of Homeland Security. End of story.

Until now.

300-PLUS ANGEL FAMILIES JUMP INTO MARKWAYNE MULLIN’S DHS NOMINATION FIGHT IN UNEQUIVOCAL TERMS

I know this reeks of gossipy tabloidism, but it directly involves the ex-secretary and, what makes it dead serious, it raises the prospect of blackmail. And it follows the romantic rumors that she has dismissed.

The Daily Mail, which has amassed a ton of evidence, reports on the “secret life,” to use that headline-grabbing cliche, of her husband, Bryon Noem.

There are several photos of Bryon Noem, sporting pink hotpants and enormous fake breasts. 

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem testifies in a hearing in Washington in March 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Mail reporters interviewed several “fetish” models who claim to have had an online relationship with Noem, tied to women fantasizing about becoming Barbie dolls with gigantic curves (far eclipsing the actual skinny dolls). It’s called “bimbofication.”

The piece says Mr. Noem is said to have paid these women thousands of dollars for their services, sometimes making salacious requests. I’ll spare you the unsettling  details.

Kristi’s reps told the New York Post: “Ms. Noem is devastated. The family was blindsided by this, and they ask for privacy and prayers at the time.”

The president told the Daily Mail he was surprised to hear the Noem family confirmed the shocking report into his lewd online behavior.

“They confirmed it? Wow, well, I feel badly for the family if that’s the case, that’s too bad,” Trump said in a phone call.

But here’s the key part. Noem, says the Mail, made little attempt to conceal the extracurricular activities, giving women her husband’s phone number with a voicemail message that identified his business.

The main concern, and the reason this is newsworthy, is that Kristi could have been subjected to blackmail. 

NOEM THANKS TRUMP FOR NEW SHIELD OF THE AMERICAS SPECIAL ENVOY ROLE AFTER DHS OUSTER

Former CIA officer Marc Polymeropoulos told the paper, “If a media organization can find this out, you can assume with a high degree of confidence that a hostile intelligence service knows this as well.”

An editor at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze said, “The entire GOP is full of degenerates, at this point probably more than Dems. And in this case, all of this was known long before she was appointed. It was an insane appointment.”

All right, I think we’ve all had enough of that.

Bryon Noem, husband of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, watches as Kristi Noem testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Let’s turn to the new DHS secretary, former senator Markwayne Mullin.

As the New York Times reports, “Mullin has worked toward a less flashy debut: briefing members of Congress on the effects of the government shutdown, attending White House meetings and doing a video talking up the people he now oversees. ‘I think I have the greatest employees working at DHS. ever — I mean that sincerely,’” he said in a video.

Mullin still has to manage a mass deportation program that has plummeted in public approval–especially after the killing of two American citizens in Minneapolis. And he largely agrees with Trump’s hardline views.

FIRED DHS CHIEF KRISTI NOEM FACES CRIMINAL REFERRAL FROM CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS

At his confirmation hearing, Mullin said: “My goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day. “My goal is for people to understand we’re out there, we’re protecting them and we’re working with them.”

It will be a difficult balancing act – especially since, for the moment, DHS funding is frozen – except for TSA workers, by presidential decree – as the two parties can’t agree on a way to resolve the partial government shutdown.

What’s clear is that the Kristi Noem era is over, with a new boss who wants to avoid headlines rather than seek them out.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is sworn in before she testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo)

Footnote: Jimmy Kimmel is taking heat for making disparaging remarks about Markwayne Mullin.

“Let me make this very clear, I’m not upset that the head of Homeland Security used to be a plumber. I’m upset that he isn’t still a plumber,” Kimmel said. “That’s right. We have a plumber protecting us from terrorism now. It worked for Super Mario. Why not Markwayne?”

This was widely criticized as denigrating the working class.

“Secretary Mullin represents the best of blue-collar America, and failed comedian Jimmy Kimmel chooses to ridicule him for it,” a DHS spokesperson told Fox. 

What’s more, Mullin took over the debt-ridden family company and expanded it into a major regional operation, including real estate and environmental services. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Kimmel doubled down, despite the criticism. “I wouldn’t put a plumber in charge of Homeland Security for the same reason I wouldn’t call a five-star general to pull a rat out of my toilet. OK? We all have our areas of expertise.”

Jimmy just has a tin ear on this one.

The Department of Homeland Security said that a man recently filmed dressed in what resembles a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement uniform being beaten next to a Honolulu street is not affiliated with the agency in any way.

A recent viral video showed a man wearing a tactical vest with the word “ICE” being punched and kicked on a street in Honolulu’s Waikiki neighborhood Saturday night.

The video caused an uproar on social media amid heightened concerns about rising assaults on ICE agents and debate over whether officers should wear masks to protect their identities.

The video shows the man confronting a small group that throws liquid at him. Three individuals grab him, pull him to the ground and begin punching and kicking him. He eventually goes limp as one individual continues to pound his face while two others hold him. The man later gets up and stumbles away, appearing to have a bloody nose.

A DHS spokesperson told Fox News Digital in an emailed statement that despite the vest, “this person is NOT an ICE agent and is not connected to DHS in any way.”

The spokesperson did not offer any details on the true identity of the man but emphasized that “anyone caught impersonating a federal immigration agent will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

They added that “impersonating a federal immigration officer endangers public safety and erodes trust in law enforcement.”

The Honolulu Police Department confirmed to Fox News Digital that a 15-year-old male is being charged with attempted assault in connection with the incident. The department shared a report that stated the suspect was originally arrested for second-degree assault, but that his charges were reduced to attempted assault.

The report lists the time of assault at 8:12 p.m. on Saturday. The age of the victim listed on the report is 52. Neither the suspect’s nor the victim’s identities are listed.

A spokesperson for the department noted they were not able to offer any additional information “as this investigation is active and ongoing.”

The attack occurred the same day a “No Dictators” protest opposing the Trump administration took place. The protest, held in conjunction with “No Kings” demonstrations across the continental US, occurred several miles from Waikiki in downtown Honolulu earlier that morning.

Local outlet Big Island Now reported that organizers changed the name of the Honolulu No Kings protest to No Dictators “out of respect for Hawaiʻi’s history of aliʻi (chiefs and kings).” 

Though the individual in this instance was not an ICE agent, DHS has reported a dramatic rise in assaults on its officers. Earlier this year, DHS reported a 1,300 percent increase in assaults against ICE officers and a 3,200 percent increase in vehicular attacks. The agency also said ICE officers have experienced an 8,000% increase in death threats.

During a No Kings protest in Los Angeles over the weekend, a protester was seen spray-painting a federal building with the message, “Kill your local ICE agent,” along with two targets.