BROOKINGS Research - How the Iran war benefits China’s global ambitions - Ryan Hass - June 8, 2026

 BROOKINGS 

Research

How the Iran war benefits China’s global ambitions

Ryan Hass

June 8, 2026

China is benefiting from America’s setbacks in Iran by helping countries weather the energy crisis, strengthening its lead in clean energy technologies, and creating a narrative contrast between itself as a reliable steward of the international order and America’s recklessness.

The Iran war has provided China with a powerful propaganda tool to cast doubt on Washington’s capacity to uphold commitments to Taiwan and other Asian allies.

America has structural advantages vis-à-vis China, but it cannot translate them into effective global leadership without strategic discipline.

China’s accrual of influence

Psychological risks for Taiwan

Restoring discipline

Toggle section navigation

Sections

Blowback: How the Iran war may change the world

An Iranian national flag is placed by the rubble of a collapsed building following strikes at Sharif University of Technology in Tehran on April 7, 2026.

Read more from

Blowback: How the Iran war may change the world

Follow the authors

Ryan Hass 

Center

Center for Asia Policy Studies Center for Middle East Policy John L. Thornton China Center

Editor's note: This piece is part of the “Blowback: How the Iran war may change the world” series, which features original analyses and policy recommendations by experts on the immediate and prospective long-term fallout from the 2026 Iran war.

The United States and Israel fought Iran, and China won. America’s setback with Iran has widened a lane for China to assert greater influence and leadership on the world stage. The conflict has ratified Beijing’s judgment that it need not confront Washington in a climactic showdown for global leadership. Instead, China’s leaders can afford to steadily accrue power and influence while Washington flounders. The more America depletes itself dealing with Iran and deepening its own political divisions at home, so the thinking in Beijing goes, the quicker China will arrive at the center of the world stage.

China’s ascent is not what America’s architects and advocates for striking Iran had in mind. Rather, they argued that America would emerge from victory over Iran stronger while China would be weakened. In this telling, if Iran’s government fell, then China’s anti-West coalition of partners would be diminished. China would lose access to discounted Iranian oil, which accounted for roughly 13% of its overall oil imports. More intangibly, China would be exposed as a bystander, stuck reacting to U.S. President Donald Trump’s bold gambits rather than a shaper of global events itself.

Events of the past several months have disproven such blinkered assumptions. To the contrary, as Robert Kagan has argued, Iran will emerge stronger and more influential from the conflict. This is because Tehran will enjoy leverage over every major economy in the world through its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

China also will gain on a relative basis from America’s setback against Iran. Beijing sees the United States wearing itself down while China preserves its strength and keeps its resources concentrated on what it views as the defining geopolitical contest: the battle for technological leadership. For China, hegemony in the Persian Gulf region would carry more burdens than benefits. China is content to remain a friend to all and an enemy to none without having to assume the burdens of becoming a security guarantor in the region.

To be clear, not all aspects of the Iran war will redound to China’s benefit. Disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, higher energy prices, and a broader global economic downturn would impose real costs on China’s economy. Yet, on balance, the strategic ledger tilts in Beijing’s favor. The conflict has opened opportunities for China to strengthen its economic centrality and displace America as a provider of public goods to countries in need.

China’s accrual of influence

Already, Beijing is assisting American allies such as Thailand and the Philippines in meeting shortfalls for jet fuel and other energy imports. By coming to the aid of countries in crisis, China is filling a role that America long had used to its own advantage. Longer term, Beijing will profit from the war-induced demand destruction for oil. China is in pole position to cement global market share for the renewable energy technologies it dominates, such as solar, wind, electric vehicles, and batteries.

Beijing also will take relief from the toll the Iran war has taken on America’s relationships with its allies, particularly in Europe and the Middle East. The open divergences between Washington and its partners over the war’s legitimacy, execution, and fallout have exposed fissures that risk metastasizing to other issue areas over time.  

For China, these fissures offer comfort. Beijing has long viewed America’s alliance network as a risk point for its rise. Any weakening of alliance cohesion reduces the possibility of coordinated pushback on Chinese advances, whether in Asia, technological competition, or global governance.   

China also will relish the visible reminder of America’s difficulties in securing strategic objectives in Iran. Chinese officials will ask their counterparts across Asia, foremost in Taiwan: If America cannot handle a second-rate regional military power like Iran, do you really think the United States will risk war with China to come to your defense? China also will seek to build a narrative contrast between itself as a reliable steward of the international order versus America as a violent and reckless pursuer of its own interests.

Psychological risks for Taiwan

Partly for these reasons, Beijing is unlikely to alter its approach toward Taiwan as a result of the Iran war. Any arguments that China may quickly strike Taiwan during a moment of American distraction rest on a superficial understanding of China’s strategic thinking. China has not been deterred from invading Taiwan because of America’s missile inventories. Rather, Beijing’s aim is to compel the Taiwan people to accept that their best bet for security and prosperity is to integrate with the mainland.

China’s strategy for Taiwan relies upon creating a sense of inevitability. To foster this feeling, China’s propaganda efforts in Taiwan will dial up narratives about a worn-out America lacking the appetite for a struggle with China. Chinese officials will urge Taiwan’s leaders to adjust to America’s decline by becoming more positive about cross-Strait collaboration. At the same time, Beijing will continue its massive military buildup to ensure options if its project of persuasion fails. 

Restoring discipline

As troubling as the trendlines for American global leadership feel in the current moment, it is essential that American policymakers maintain composure. The United States has a greater margin for error in its foreign policy than any other power, particularly given its energy abundance, deep and liquid capital markets, unique technological ecosystem, dollar dominance, and its democratic institutions, which enable course correction. America has rebounded from dire setbacks before, notably Vietnam. The American people also have shown resilience in healing political wounds throughout their history.

By a similar measure, it would be a failure of imagination to project China’s strategic moment into an indefinite future. Sparkling news headlines about China’s dominance of emerging technologies such as solar and electric vehicles obscure the fact that the country remains beset with economic challenges. Among the myriad challenges, China’s leaders confront record youth unemployment, sagging domestic demand, and mounting debt. None of this is intended to whitewash America’s own challenges, which are profound, but rather to observe that China will need to cross many hurdles of its own in the years ahead. The future does not belong to China any more than it does to America. Global leadership will be contested.

If America is serious about contesting China’s vision of global leadership, it will need to rediscover strategic discipline, reinvest in alliances, and concentrate on technological advancement as the principal measure of national power.

Strategic discipline will require a combination of process and prioritization. It will not be achievable so long as America’s foreign policy remains an extension of Trump’s whims. Trump is the most manipulable and incurious president of the modern era. Discipline only will return if senior advisors muster courage to insist on conducting a policy process that rigorously examines options and weighs second- and third-order effects before presenting choices for presidential decision. Congress also will need to claw back its constitutional prerogative to exercise oversight of foreign policy. The House of Representatives’ June passage of a resolution to limit U.S. military involvement in hostilities with Iran was a positive initial step, but much more oversight will be needed to fulfil the role the Founding Fathers envisioned for Congress as the Article I branch of the U.S. government. If the current cohort of congressional leaders is uncomfortable performing their duties, they should get out of the way for others to step forward. And if this proves infeasible, then candidates to succeed Trump in 2028 should be measured in part by their discipline and capacity to correct for Trump’s erraticism.  

Overall, the Iran war has exposed the limits of American power, sharpened divisions between America and its allies, and created an opening for China to assume a more central role in the international order. Whether these Chinese gains become permanent or prove illusory will depend in no small measure on whether America learns lessons and regains discipline, or whether it doubles down on dysfunction.

Author

Ryan Hass, Fellow, Foreign Policy, John L. Thornton China Center, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution

Ryan Hass

Director - John L. Thornton China Center, Senior Fellow - Foreign Policy, Center for Asia Policy Studies, John L. Thornton China Center, Chen-Fu and Cecilia Yen Koo Chair in Taiwan Studies

GREEK REPORTER - Erdogan Fires Back at Israel: “In Our History, There Is No Genocide” -- By Tasos Kokkinidis July 1, 2026

 

GREEK  REPORTER

Erdogan Fires Back at Israel: “In Our History, There Is No Genocide”

ByTasos Kokkinidis

July 1, 2026

“In our history, there is no genocide, no massacre, no oppression, and no colonialism,” Erdogan claimed. Credit: Halden Crog / EPA via AMNA

In remarks following a Turkish Cabinet meeting, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey launched a fierce verbal attack against Israel after its official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

“We do not take seriously, even in the slightest, the slanders of a criminal gang that has the blood of 73,000 innocent Gazans—the majority of them women and children—on its hands,” Erdogan declared, responding to the Israeli government. “In our history, there is no genocide, no massacre, no oppression, and no colonialism. Throughout our thousands of years of history, there is only justice and compassion. We offer support to all the oppressed, regardless of their religion, origin, or identity.”

He added: “Those who slander Turkey and the Turkish nation to cover up their own barbarism in Gaza know this best if they look at their own history. We are a people who conduct politics not in areas of conflict and tension, but around the shared values of humanity.”

Erdogan and Israel’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide

In a unanimous vote on Sunday, the cabinet of Israel officially recognized the Armenian genocide, a decision expected to further strain relations with Turkey. While it has accused Israel of genocide in Gaza, Turkey steadfastly denies that the Ottoman Empire’s mass killing of Armenians during World War I fits the definition.

For decades, successive Israeli governments actively avoided formally recognizing the 1915–1917 mass killings of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire as a “genocide.” This hesitation was driven by geopolitics, as Israel historically maintained a close, strategic partnership with Turkey and feared that formal recognition would sever diplomatic and trade ties.

Following the vote, Israel joined over thirty other nations in officially recognizing the genocide. Greece, Cyprus, and most EU members recognize the Armenian Genocide, as does the United States. In 2021, Joe Biden became the first sitting US President to officially use the word “genocide” in his Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day address.

Related: Erdogan Threatens Military Action Against Israel

Carnegie - Q&A Emissary - Published on Jul 1, 2026 - Ahead of the Ankara Summit, NATO’s Mood Has Changed - European allies are less focused on appeasing Trump and more focused on smoothing the transition to a Europe-led alliance.transition to a Europe-led alliance.

 Carnegie Global logo

NATO defense ministers in Brussels on June 18, 2026. (Photo by JOHN THYS / AFP via Getty Images)

Q&A

Emissary

Ahead of the Ankara Summit, NATO’s Mood Has Changed

European allies are less focused on appeasing Trump and more focused on smoothing the transition to a Europe-led alliance.

By Sophia Besch, Alper Coşkun, Nate Reynolds, Stephen Wertheim

Published on Jul 1, 2026

Emissary

Blog

Emissary

Emissary harnesses Carnegie’s global scholarship to deliver incisive, nuanced analysis on the most pressing international affairs challenges.

---------------

At the 2025 summit, NATO eked out an agreement to keep the alliance afloat. Since then, we’ve seen multiple crises shake the alliance, especially over Greenland. How have expectations changed?

Stephen Wertheim: Last year, NATO allies still held out a trace amount of hope that they could appease U.S. President Donald Trump by making an eye-popping pledge to devote 5 percent of GDP to defense and defense-related expenditures by 2035. That illusion is gone.

This time, it should be clear not only that Trump will remain aggrieved at his North Atlantic allies for as long as he is president, but also that NATO is undergoing a structural adjustment rooted in diverging transatlantic perceptions of interests and threats. In Washington’s lexicon, “burden-shifting” has supplanted “burden-sharing.” The Pentagon has moved forward, however unevenly, to make Europe lead its own conventional defense. The trend is bigger than Trump and will outlast him.

Alper Coşkun: Turkey’s stake in NATO membership and in keeping the alliance afloat is high, given NATO’s enduring centrality to Ankara’s security, defense, and deterrence interests and the way it anchors Turkey in the transatlantic security debate. Turkey’s contributions to NATO and its long-standing desire to host a summit reflect this calculus.

Yet Ankara is also adapting to a changing U.S. posture and evolving security landscape, including a reordering in the Middle East. As Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan noted, no one, including Turkey, can operate on autopilot any longer with a single alliance, namely NATO, as its sole organizing principle. Similarly, Defense Minister Yaşar Güler recently argued that the era of absolute reliance on a single alliance is over. So for Turkey, this is increasingly an era of supplementing NATO with other security mechanisms.

Sophia Besch: What a difference a year makes. Expectations were low in 2025, but the hope in Europe back then was that a mix of flattery, pageantry, burden-sharing pledges, and procurement deals might keep transatlantic tensions to a minimum and get the alliance through a second Trump term.

At The Hague, the European allies, led by then-Trump-whisperer-in-chief Mark Rutte, rallied behind a massive spending pledge that bought them . . . one good press day. What followed was a bad year. Last year, Europeans still hoped to stop this administration from shrinking its role in Europe. This year, they hope to work with it to keep the damage of the transition to a minimum.

NATO is more than the American commitment to European defense and deterrence of Russia, but it isn’t yet worth much without it. Europeans want to change that.

How will U.S. interest in drawing down troops and assets in Europe factor into summit discussions?

Stephen Wertheim: The summit provides an opportunity for the United States to specify what it plans to pull out of Europe and consult with allies on how capability gaps can be filled. The question is whether the Trump administration is prepared to do that. After forgoing a global force posture review last year, the Pentagon just recently announced it will take up to six months to review U.S. force posture and bases in Europe. The allies need clarity from Washington on what will stay, what will go, and when. And for that to happen, Washington needs to make up its mind.

Sophia Besch: Europeans have known for a while that force posture changes would be coming. They are already responding by deploying troops to the Baltics, for instance, and investing in deep-precision-strike capabilities. What they really need is NATO’s force planning mechanism to reflect what U.S. capabilities will be available to the alliance in the future, so that they can coordinate to fill the gaps.

The problem is the capriciousness. Pentagon officials have been fairly clear in their push for burden-shifting and a so-called NATO 3.0. But when U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently announced a Europe-specific force posture review akin to a report card, he implied that drawdowns would be driven by a system of reward and punishment for “good” and “bad” allies, rather than by shifts in the U.S. threat assessment (or even just cost considerations).

What makes a good ally, however, appears determined by politics and not defense spending alone (or Germany would not be on the naughty list). The civilizational bent of the National Security Strategy, the Western Hemisphere focus of the National Defense Strategy, Washington’s recent reliance on European bases and logistics for the Iran war, and the presidential flip-flop over troops in Poland—none of it helps Europeans parse out a predictable direction for U.S. strategic thinking on Europe. They may hope the summit brings clarity. They will probably be disappointed.

Alper Coşkun: The possibility of a more EU-centered security architecture that leaves Turkey on the margins is a serious concern for Ankara. Persistent objections from several EU member states to institutional cooperation with Turkey on EU-led security and defense initiatives, such as the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) program, corroborate these concerns in Turkish eyes.

Ironically, such snubs contradict a widening recognition among European actors of the need to tap into Turkey’s military capabilities and burgeoning defense industry. Turkey almost certainly sees the Ankara summit as an opportunity to leverage its credentials as a pivotal defense and security actor and to retain a leading role in transatlantic security.

How might the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran factor into the summit?

Nate Reynolds: The NATO summit comes at a pivotal moment in Russia’s war against Ukraine. Moscow’s offensive has stalled, and Ukraine is using drones to disrupt Russian logistics, threaten Crimea, and strike energy and industrial infrastructure hundreds of miles from the front. But Russian President Vladimir Putin is not relenting, and no one should expect the war to end soon. Strikes on Kyiv and other cities are intensifying, exposing Ukraine’s critical shortfall in ballistic missile defense.

European leaders will again try to persuade Trump that squeezing Moscow is the way to end the war. Trump seems impressed with Ukraine’s battlefield success but remains skeptical of increasing pressure on the Kremlin.

Alper Coşkun: Turkey is at the epicenter of these conflicts, which have brought widespread attention to Turkey’s geostrategic relevance and have rekindled the Turkish political leadership’s appreciation for NATO membership. The same holds true for the Turkish public, which witnessed NATO-integrated air and missile defense assets intercept Iranian missiles.

Turkey will cite these conflicts to raise awareness of the complex and challenging security environment it faces, to highlight its contributions to Euro-Atlantic security, and to ensure NATO allies recognize the distinct challenges affecting Turkey from adjacent regions to the east and south of alliance territory. Ankara will also have its growing rivalry with Israel in mind and will hope to send a strong message that it remains firmly embedded in the collective defense organization.

What are alliance members hoping to take away from this summit? What will Russia and Ukraine each be looking for?

Nate Reynolds: Ukraine wants to build on the positive momentum from the G7, keep allied attention on pressuring Russia, and shore up its air defenses. President Volodymyr Zelensky’s meeting with Trump on the sidelines of the G7 was encouraging, especially given their rocky relationship. But Ukraine needs air defense interceptors, especially heading into winter. Allied stocks are stretched thin after the war in Iran, but Kyiv will push hard for concrete commitments.

Russia wants a weakened NATO, and it probably still hopes Trump will deliver it. The Kremlin will magnify any evident tensions between Europe and the United States on troop levels and collective security. Stoking transatlantic divisions is a perpetual Russian goal, but the war in Ukraine makes it more urgent. Moscow believes Europe has been a driving force behind the Trump administration’s continued support for Ukraine—and it wants to break that dynamic.

Sophia Besch: Europeans expect very little from the Trump administration these days. They have given up on restoring the alliance-based trust of decades past.

The one thing they still dare hope for is greater predictability. They have accepted that the American commitment to Europe is changing; what they want is a more orderly version of the transition. The fear behind this is well-founded: A botched handover from a U.S.-led to a Europe-led NATO opens up a deterrence and defense gap. Yet they are likely to be let down.

Predictability takes both a clear strategic direction and the bureaucratic machinery to execute it coherently, and neither is likely from an internally divided and highly personalized administration organized around the mercurial nature of one man. This means that Europeans should proactively offer a transition plan to Washington and hope that it sticks. But U.S. defense officials have spent recent months attempting to recast their leader’s volatility as a virtue, arguing that it keeps Europeans on their toes and anxious enough not to slip back into old habits, so who knows. The best Europe can hope for at the summit is that Trump trusts that his officials have sufficiently scared Europeans, gives in to the feel-good pageantry of the NATO photo op, keeps up his recent warmth toward Ukraine, and does not use Ankara to dwell further on the slight he feels over Iran.

Stephen Wertheim: What the Pentagon wants is progress toward NATO 3.0, meaning an alliance focused on deterring attacks on European territory, with European countries taking the lead in conventional defense while the United States continues to extend its nuclear umbrella.

What Trump wants is whatever Trump decides he wants at the time of the summit. As the president says, “We’ll see what happens.”

Alper Coşkun: As the host nation, Turkey’s overriding goal will be to make the summit a success, which will be defined, first and foremost, by ensuring NATO-skeptic Trump’s presence. To Ankara’s credit and thanks to the intriguing chemistry between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, this seems to have been secured.

The next step will be to ensure a smooth summit, which could prove more difficult given Trump’s unpredictable nature and inclination to chastise NATO and allies.

Finally, at this critical juncture for NATO and Euro-Atlantic security, Turkey will want to bolster its standing as a pivotal actor and strengthen its hand in shaping the security architecture of Europe and its immediate neighborhood.

Turkey has had a complicated relationship with NATO, and much of the discourse around the summit will likely focus on Ankara’s positioning, both in the alliance and outside it. Is that warranted, and why?

Alper Coşkun: A sense of mutual frustration driven by persistent policy misalignments has built up between Turkey and many of its NATO allies over the years. These feelings have been accompanied by concerns over Turkey’s drift from NATO and deep resentment in Ankara toward several NATO allies.

However, this decidedly negative atmosphere has lately reversed, thanks to some policy recalibrations by Ankara and renewed mutual appreciation between Turkey and many of its allies, including the United States. Under these circumstances, the Ankara summit will be less about Turkey and more about a disengaging United States and its role in NATO and European security.

What will you be watching for at the summit?

Stephen Wertheim: The unusually brief declaration that came out of last year’s summit contained a single mention of Russia. Will the allies display greater alignment this year on the threat Russia poses, given that Trump has so far failed to get Putin to stop his war in Ukraine, much less to reshape U.S.-Russia relations?

In addition, although many will focus on how Trump treats European leaders, I am curious to see how European leaders treat Trump. He began his term unpopular in Europe and has now alienated even the right-wing populists who have an ideological affinity with MAGA. His handshake (or not) with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni will be one to watch, given the recent public spat between the two.

Sophia Besch: Arms deals. This is Europe’s most reliable pro-NATO pitch, even to Americans who are skeptical of alliances or soft on Russia: NATO ties mean contracts for U.S. defense firms, which mean jobs in U.S. factories. The American defense industry is overstretched, and Europeans have steadily lost faith that money can buy them love American arms can buy them a security guarantee. But U.S. firms want their share of the gold rush as Europe rearms, and NATO wants to highlight transatlantic defense industry ties to defuse tensions. U.S. sales are at record highs.

In the background, the dynamics are shifting, however. The more Europeans spend, the more they will demand design authority and intellectual property rights. The NATO summit line is that the pie is big enough for everyone. But in the future, European firms will want the recipe, too.

Alper Coşkun: Turkey’s improved relations with Washington and its strong desire to retain a decisive role in the European pillar of transatlantic security could potentially represent a strategic dilemma for Ankara. European actors, increasingly wary of America’s posture and intentions, will look at deepening ties between Turkey and the United States with suspicion. The United States, for its part, will prefer a less compliant Turkish posture vis-à-vis Europe, especially under the fraught conditions in which Washington’s ties with Europe find themselves. I will be closely watching how Turkey navigates this delicate balancing act, both at the Ankara summit and beyond.

What would you like to see come out of the summit?

Stephen Wertheim: I beseech NATO to stop holding a summit every year. Summits create pressure for new deliverables that might not make sense. They give allies a public platform for arguing with one another. And the food is variable.

The practice of annual summitry started only after the Cold War. NATO 3.0 demands more action and fewer meetings. In particular, France and Italy should lead on cuisine while America stays laser-focused on bringing the Diet Coke.

Sophia Besch: This summit is an opportunity for Rutte to show European allies that he can lead not only the effort of keeping the United States in, but also the push to create a more European NATO. The mood music from last year has changed: European allies are less worried about writing a self-fulfilling prophecy (where taking responsibility for their own defense makes it more likely for the United States to leave) and more worried about the considerable challenge of changing NATO’s DNA from a U.S.-led to a Europe-led defense alliance. Rutte should lead the charge.

Get more news and analysis from

Emissary

The latest from Carnegie scholars on the world’s most pressing challenges, delivered to your inbox.

About the Authors

Sophia Besch

Senior Fellow, Europe Program

Sophia Besch is a senior fellow in the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Her research focuses on European foreign and defense policy.

Alper Coşkun

Senior Fellow, Europe Program

Alper Coşkun is a senior fellow in the Europe Program and leads the Türkiye and the World Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

Nate Reynolds 

Nate Reynolds

Senior Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Program

Nate Reynolds is a senior fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Stephen Wertheim

Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program

Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

BBC NEWS - Trump loses Supreme Court battle to end birthright citizenship - 30 June 202

 BBC NEWS 

Trump loses Supreme Court battle to end birthright citizenship

30 June 202

Summary

The US Supreme Court has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship

The president says on social media that the ruling is "too bad for our country" and suggests Congress can legislate an end to the Constitutional law

In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld a 150-year-old precedent giving automatic American citizenship to babies born in the US - how it works

Trump earlier issued an order to end automatic citizenship for babies born to parents who are in the country illegally or on temporary visas

The ruling definitively slams the door on Trump's efforts, and there is little the president can do to reverse it, our correspondent writes

The court has also ruled that states can ban transgender athletes from women's sports in schools and struck down a ban on how campaign spending is coordinated

20:51 30 June

Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu

Live reporter

A view of the US Supreme Court exterior in Washington, DC.

Image source,Bloomberg via Getty Images

The US Supreme Court has issued several important decisions during its 2025-2026 term culminating in today's landmark decision upholding birthright citizenship and striking down President Donald Trump's attempts to limit it. Today, the court also ruled that states can ban transgender women from competing in female school and college sports.

Chief Justice John Roberts has indicated today will be the last day for opinions, so it's a good time to look back at some of the monumental rulings over the course of the term.

In February, the court voted in a 6-3 majority decision to invalidate most of President Donald Trump's global tariffs, dealing a major blow to the president's trade agenda.

In March, the court struck down Colorado's state law banning so-called conversion therapy - a practice which seeks to change the sexual orientation and gender identity of gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

In April, the justices restricted the ability of state lawmakers to take race into account when drawing electoral maps, a decision that has spawned new voting maps in Republican-led states that could impact the midterm elections in November.

Yesterday, the court blocked Trump's attempts to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, saying she had not been given due process to contest allegations of mortgage fraud.

But it has also handed several wins for the Trump administration. It allowed the government to end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians living in the US.

The court also allowed Trump to remove officials from some independent federal institutions.

We are closing our coverage of the Supreme Court for now. You can read more about today's rulings below:

US Supreme Court upholds bans on transgender women in female school and college sports

US Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship in blow to Trump

Share

Trans sports case is a legal ruling with cultural shockwaves

published at 20:48 30 June

20:48 30 June

Gary O'Donoghue

Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC

This trans sports case decision is a legal ruling — but its cultural shockwaves will reverberate far beyond the gleaming marble columns of this Supreme Court.

In upholding state laws in West Virginia and Idaho barring transgender women and girls from female sports teams in schools and universities, it has handed down one of the most consequential decisions of Donald Trump's second term.

The ruling is squarely in line with Trump's direction of travel on the issue. Its reach goes well beyond two states. Two dozen others have similar laws on the books; today's decision validates all of them — and confirms a pattern from the court.

This is a court that has already backed Trump's ban on transgender people in the military and blocked passport applicants from listing their gender identity.

It marks a striking reversal of trajectory, in recent history. The court's own 2020 ruling protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination felt, at the time, like a watershed. Today makes clear the position of transgender people in US society is far from settled.

Share

Trans sports case ruling praised and rebuked

published at 20:44 30 June

20:44 30 June

The Supreme Court issued other rulings today besides the one on birthright citizenship.

In on decision, the court upheld state bans on transgender women from competing in female sports in schools and colleges.

The attorney general for West Virginia - one of the two states which was being challenged - lauded the ruling as a "landmark win for female athletes and the future of women's sports".

In a statement on X, Attorney General JB McCuskey said the decision would give "all states, not just West Virginia, the clarity and confidence to ensure fairness and safety for female athletes today and for generations to come".

The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), which advocates for the LGBT community, criticised the court's decision.

“This ruling is heartbreaking for transgender student athletes who are being forced to sit on the sidelines simply for who they are,” said HRC President Kelley Robinson.

Share

What were Trump's arguments for his order limiting birthright citizenship?

published at 20:34 30 June

20:34 30 June

Sakshi Venkatraman

US reporter

Today's Supreme Court ruling on birthright citizenship stemmed from an executive order signed by Donald Trump last year. Challenges to the order made their way to the Supreme Court earlier this year, with oral arguments focused on the text of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

This is the section of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution that the Supreme Court heard argument earlier in April:

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.

The Trump administration honed in one one particular phrase: subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

That phrase has previously been believed to only exclude children of foreign diplomats or occupying armies from having birthright citizenship.

But Trump said it should exclude children of people who are not in the country permanently or lawfully.

The president argued that it should exclude immigrants who do not have a "permanent domicile" here.

People "who are domiciled elsewhere, and are only temporarily present in the United States, owe primary allegiance to their parents' home countries, not the United States", the administration argued.

Many constitutional and civil rights law experts take issue with this.

"People who are here out of status, that doesn't change that they are residents here," says Margo Schlanger, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

The court today appeared to agree with that assessment in their decision.

Share

Democrats celebrate court's landmark ruling

published at 20:26 30 June

20:26 30 June

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) speaks during a dedication ceremony of the Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule in Emancipation Hall at the U.S. Capitol Building. He is wearing a navy blue suit and there are four flags behind him

Image source,Getty Images

Image caption,

Hakeem Jeffries

Democrats have praised today's Supreme Court ruling.

"The Supreme Court finally affirmed, by applying the law and being guided by the Constitution, that all persons born in the United States are American citizens," Hakeem Jeffries, who leads Democrats in the US House of Representatives, says. "There is, and shall be, no question."

Those sentiments were echoed by Chuck Schumer, the US Senate's minority leader.

"Despite Trump’s best efforts to bully them, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that if you are born in America, you belong in America... The Supreme Court confirmed today that those born in America are American."

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren says there was still more work to be done.

"Even Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court knows that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution," Warren says in a statement. "The fight to defend immigrant rights from Trump's cruelty is not over, but today the Court upheld the law."

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani also hailed the decision.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling affirms a promise that was written into our Constitution more than 150 years ago: if you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen," he says. "This should never have been in doubt."

Read more of Republicans' responses here and here.

Share

Immigrant advocacy group 'relieved' by ruling

published at 20:20 30 June

20:20 30 June

Paul Christian Namphy, the policy director for Family Action Network Movement (FANM), an immigrant advocacy organisation, says the group is "relieved" by today's ruling.

"This could have been an absolute absolute nightmare," he says of if the majority of justices had ruled in favour of Trump.

But, Namphy adds, he was "shocked that [three] justices would rule in the way that they ruled, given that there is absolutely zero legal ground for taking that position".

"The very fact that Justice Clarence Thomas really lunged at the court in a 91 page dissent, it’s just crazy," he says.

In his dissent, Thomas argues the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the US Civil War in the late 1800s to secure rights for freed slaves, is now being "repurposed for political projects".

Share

The biggest legal defeat of Trump's second term?

published at 20:12 30 June

20:12 30 June

Gary O'Donoghue

Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC

This birthright citizenship ruling is probably the biggest defeat of President Trump’s term in the White House. He also lost the case on foreign tariffs, but this is a pretty big one because he made it a big one.

He made this executive order on day one of his second term. He said he was ending birth tourism, he said it was abuse, a waste of resources, and that it should have been done years ago.

He said no other country in the world has this right which isn’t true – Mexico and Canada both have versions of birthright citizenship, along with more than two dozen others.

After he came to the Supreme Court and sat listening to oral evidence – the first president to ever do that – he started to talk about expecting a defeat, so he clearly did expect a defeat and he got it.

And he got it pretty resoundingly. It wasn't close in any particular way. The upholding of this right reaffirms the status quo, but for the president, it's a huge blow.

And if he wants to try and change it, he has to try and change the constitution. And that, in modern-day America is virtually impossible.

Share

Ruling 'should be very reassuring' - legal expert

published at 19:51 30 June

19:51 30 June

Kwasi Gyamfi Asiedu

Live reporter

Legal experts have been reading over the decision on birthright citizenship handed down today by Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the majority's opinion.

David Leebron, professor of legal studies at Rice University and former dean of Columbia University's law school, says Roberts "issued an excellent opinion that faithfully interprets the history of the 14th amendment, and the understanding of the 14th amendment."

The 6-3 decision was supported by the three liberal justices and three conservative justices - even though one supported the ruling on different grounds.

Leebron says despite disagreements, that composition of justices shows that court is more complex than its six conservatives versus three liberals make up might suggest.

"We have seen many unusual coalitions on the court," he says. "Here are six justices of the court, affirming some principles of interpretation in a very important and controversial matter and have said the president cannot exceed the bounds of the Constitution. That part should be very reassuring to people."

Share

Court's ruling 'too bad for our country', Trump says in initial reaction

published at 19:35 30 June

19:35 30 June

Breaking

President Donald Trump has now made his first comments following today's Supreme Court ruling striking down his executive order limiting birthright citizenship.

"The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country," Trump says in a post on social media platform Truth Social.

His statement goes on to suggest Congress will be able to limit birthright citizenship through legislation, despite the court's ruling.

Quote Message

...We can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!

Donald Trump, US President

Share

Ruling 'one of the most destructive' in court's history, Stephen Miller says

published at 19:25 30 June

19:25 30 June

Stephen Miller wearing Aviator sunglasses and pointing upwards

Image source,Getty Images

We have not still not heard President Donald Trump's reaction to the court's decision to strike down his execuitive order limiting birthright citizenship.

But we can bring you comments from Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy and the official often described as the architect behind the executive order and Trump's immigration policies.

Miller says in a statement, the ruling is "one of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court".

Quote Message

American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration.

Stephen Miller, White House's deputy chief of staff for policy

Share

Immigration advocates declare victory after court ruling

published at 19:14 30 June

19:14 30 June

Bernd Debusmann Jr

White House reporter

While today's Supreme Court ruling is clearly a defeat for the Trump administration, immigration advocates and lawmakers are declaring victory.

Since the ruling, my inbox and phone have been buzzing with statements and messages from the organisations that have long condemned Trump's immigration policies as being too harsh.

"Today, the Fourteenth Amendment proved once again that it is stronger than the forces trying to hollow it out," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, President and CEO of Global Refuge.

Dariely Rodriguez, chief counsel at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said that the ruling "solidifies what we have known to be true for over a hundred years".

"Anyone born on American soil, regardless of the legal status of their parents, is born an American citizen," she added. We have endured an incredible test of our collective will as a nation and have prevailed.

A Democratic lawmaker and frequenty critic of Trump's, Illinois represesentative Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, described Trump's attempt to end birthrighrt citizenship as "a cruel and racist attempt" to render millions without legal citizenship.

"Even right-wing justices like Roberts and Barrett wouldn’t buy it," he added.

Share

US House Speaker 'disappointed' by court's ruling

published at 19:03 30 June

19:03 30 June

Mike Johnson in a suit and tie

Image source,Reuters

House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, was holding a press conference when he heard about the Supreme Court's ruling on birthright citizenship.

As a reporter read out the court's decision in which the majority of justices ruled against Trump, Johnson growled and other Republicans standing nearby shook their heads.

The House Speaker said he was "disappointed" in the ruling and noted it is a "textualist, originalist view" under the 14th amendment.

"I do think this has been grossly abused in recent years," Johnson said of birthright citizenship.

Share

Kavanaugh voted to strike the birthright order - but also said it was constitutional

published at 18:48 30 June

18:48 30 June

Lisa Lambert

BBC News

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined five others in voting against Trump's executive order, but his reasoning was all his own.

"In my view, the Executive Order does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment," he wrote in an opinion explaining his divergence. "The constitutional issue is not straightforward, much as we might want it to be."

Basically, Kavanaugh's problem with the executive order stems from immigration legislation passed early in the 20th century - the Nationality Act of 1940 and Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Lawmakers used language from the 14th amendment and also parts of the Court's Wong Kirk Ark decision in 1898 that created four exceptions to the amendment (such as someone born to a foreign sovereign is not a citizen) in their legislation.

For Kavanaugh, that means creating further exceptions for the children of illegal immigrants or people in the US temporarily should be an act of Congress - not a presidential order.

Then Kavanaugh lays a possible case at to why Congress should pass a law on those two exceptions.

The Constitution is applied "to modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers", and the crafters of the 14th amendment after the Civil War could not have foreseen current issues with immigration, he argues.

They could not have anticipated - or even intended - the US would grant citizenship to children whose parents break the law in coming to the country, but deny citizenship to people "who follow US immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States".

It also would have been hard to imagine people traveling to the US temporarily to give birth to babies, and thereby make them citizens, given how different travel and immigration laws were when the amendment was ratified in 1868, he says.

Brett Kavanaugh behind a microphone wearing a blue tie with his hands up

Image source,Getty Images

Share

Trump attended oral arguments for this case

published at 18:29 30 June

18:29 30 June

The motorcade carrying US President Donald Trump departs the Supreme Court after President Trump attended oral arguments.

Image source,AFP via Getty Images

Image caption,

Trump's motorcade outside the Supreme Court

President Donald Trump has yet to respond to his loss in a case in which he has shown a strong personal interest. He signed the executive order seeking to prohibit birthright citizenship on his first day back in the White House for his second term.

But more extraordinarily, he attended oral arguments for the case in April. He sat in the audience as his Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued on behalf of the Trump administration.

Critics said his appearance was an improper effort to influence the court on a decision with major repercussions for his domestic policy.

The president left after Sauer's presentation, which was subjected to intense scrutiny from the justices, suggesting that a majority of the court was unconvinced by Trump's justifications to end birthright citizenship.

Afterwards, Trump berated the justices in public remarks saying that judges who he appointed but vote against him are "stupid people."

Share

Supreme Court slams door on Trump's effort to deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented migrants

published at 18:15 30 June

18:15 30 June

Anthony Zurcher

North America correspondent

By citing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, the Supreme Court definitively slams the door on Donald Trump’s efforts to deny birthright citizenship to the children of undocumented migrants and most temporary foreign residents.

According to Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, the language of the amendment – passed shortly after the end of US civil war – is clear: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

Trump and his legal team had argued that undocumented migrants were not “subject” to US jurisdiction. Roberts and the court majority emphatically disagreed.

Because the court’s majority held that the US Constitution is explicit in this regard, there is little that Trump can do to reverse its ruling – and deny birthright citizenship – short of amending America’s founding document. That is an arduous task that has only been accomplished 27 times in US history.

Share

Trump comments on court's transgender case ruling

published at 18:12 30 June

18:12 30 June

We're waiting to hear from the president about the birthright decision, a defeat for him and his administration.

In the meantime, he's posted on social media platform Truth Social about the transgender athletes case we reported on earlier.

"The United States Supreme Court just RULED AGAINST MEN PLAYING IN WOMEN’S SPORTS. Wow! That takes that ridiculous situation off the table!!! President DONALD J. TRUMP," he wrote.

Share

Which justices dissented from the court's majority opinion?

published at 18:02 30 June

18:02 30 June

People waliking into the US Supreme Court

Image source,EPA

Three justices dissented from today's decision to uphold birthright citizenship: Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.

The three justices cite several reasons for disagreeing with the majority decision.

Justice Thomas argues in his dissent that the 14th Amendment is now being "repurposed for political projects" that go beyond its "sad history" of securing equal right for freed slaves, whom he argues were entitled to citizenship because "they were Americans" with no other homeland or allegiance to another foreign power.

Justice Alito used more dramatic language in his dissent, saying the ruling was "one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court, and in my judgment, the Court has made a serious mistake".

He says Tuesday's ruling "confers citizenship on virtually everyone who happens to be born in this country, including the children of 'birth tourists,' women who come here solely for the purpose of giving birth to a child and then promptly return home".

Alito argues that "careful analysis" of the 14th Amendment gives citizenship to "only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country".

Share

Silence so far from President Trump after court defeat

published at 17:56 30 June

17:56 30 June

Bernd Debusmann Jr

White House reporter

We've yet to President Trump, who is likely to be furious at being handed a defeat by the Supreme Court.

Trump has, for years, made ending birthright citizenship a corner of his immigration policies. As far back at 2015, Trump - then still a candidate - called for an end to the practice, describing it as "the biggest magnet for illegal immigration".

His executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship was signed within hours of his return to the White House last year, and the topic is one he has brought up frequently in both public remarks and on Truth Social.

Just a few weeks ago, for example, he posted that the US "cannot live with the shackles" of birthright citizenship.

"It is not economically, or otherwise, sustainable and no other country in the world, of consequence, does it," he added.

The US president has reacted angrily in past instances in which the Supreme Court thwarted his policy objectives, such as tariffs. We are likely to hear more of that today.

Donald Trump sitting behind the desk in the Oval Office

Image source,Getty Images

Share

A ruling that will be studied in constitutional law classes for years to come

published at 17:53 30 June

17:53 30 June

Gary O'Donoghue

Chief North America correspondent, reporting from Washington DC

This is a ruling that will be studied in constitutional law classes for years to come. The Supreme Court — a bench reshaped by Trump himself — has delivered a clear message: the 14th Amendment guaranteeing birthright citizenship can't simply be annulled with the stroke of the Presidential pen.

The personal and political dimension for Trump cannot be underestimated. This is a court he fundamentally reshaped — and one that has now ruled against one of the signature promises of his political career. That is not merely a legal setback — it is a pointed institutional rebuke — a slap in the face — from a bench he genuinely believed would serve not just as an ally, but as an instrument of his will.

This is right up there with the defeat the court has already handed out on the President's attempts to impose hefty tariffs on foreign imports. That drew some searing words from Donald Trump who said two of his own appointees "sickened him" after the decision; adding they were an embarrassment to their families and disloyal to the constitution.

He expected to lose on tariffs; he expected to lose on birthright; that's unlikely to stop him from lashing out at those on whom, not long ago, he would have heaped on the adulation and praise. Loyalty is everything to this President, and any sign that it's anything other than total is usually met with bitter vitriol.

Share

Justice Roberts says 14th amendment extended 'right to have rights' to every free-born person

published at 17:50 30 June

17:50 30 June

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Image source,Getty Images

Today's Supreme Court decision was a 6-3 ruling in favour of upholding birthright citizenship.

The ruling was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who says that children born to parents who are in the US unlawfully or temporarily are "citizens at birth" under the US constitution.

In the ruling, he invokes the history of the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the US Civil War to settle the question of the citizenship of freed, American-born former slaves.

"Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights - to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to 'every free-born person in this land,'" Roberts writes. "We keep that promise today."

FOX NEWS - Trump's Turkey arms sale proposal sparks congressional questions before NATO summit - By Chris Massaro Fox News Published June 30, 2026 9:32am EDT

 FOX NEWS 

Trump's Turkey arms sale proposal sparks congressional questions before NATO summit

The package is seen as a major foreign policy win for President Erdogan ahead of the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara

By Chris Massaro Fox News

Published June 30, 2026 9:32am EDT

New report examines Turkey’s ties to Muslim Brotherhood, implications for NATO

FDD Senior fellow Sinan Ciddi explains why he believes Ankara’s policies are reshaping how terrorism is defined and raising concerns inside NATO.

The Trump administration is moving forward with a controversial arms sale worth $700 million to NATO ally Turkey despite apprehension over Ankara’s closeness with Russia and terrorist groups in the Middle East.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said the administration notified him of the State Department’s decision to bypass Congress and send Turkey the $700 million in defense articles, mostly fighter jet parts.

"In this case, the State Department did not even attempt to justify its decision. It did not invoke any emergency authority, did not present a written rationale, and for months refused to make a good-faith effort to brief me on implications of the sale for the U.S.-Turkey relationship, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system, and other regional security concerns," Rep. Meeks said in a statement shared with Fox News Digital.

TURKEY DETAINS OVER 200 SUSPECTS, INCLUDING ALLEGED ISIS MILITANTS, IN SWEEPING RAID AHEAD OF NATO SUMMIT

Erdogan

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan observes a military exercise in Izmir, Turkey, on June 9, 2022. (Xinhua via Getty Images)

Turkey signed a deal with Moscow in 2017 to purchase the Russian S-400 air defense system and acquired it in 2019, causing alarm within the NATO alliance. The U.S. and NATO considered the move an intelligence threat that undermines NATO cohesion and readiness.

The S-400 is designed to detect, track, and exploit stealth aircraft like the F-35.

"Turkey’s possession of both the S-400 and the F-35 is so dangerous because the two systems operating in proximity or networking together could give Moscow valuable intelligence for shooting down F-35s flown by Americans and our allies," according to a report from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The U.S. sanctioned Turkey in 2019 for the purchase and excluded Ankara from the F-35 fighter jet program. Congress also passed a law banning Turkey from the F-35 program while it continues to possess the S-400 air system.

The State Department dismissed concerns about the U.S.' arms sales and Turkey’s possession of Russian-made air defense systems.

TRUMP SQUEEZED BETWEEN ISRAEL AND TURKEY AS NETANYAHU, ERDOGAN ESCALATE FEUD

Helicopter during a military exercise

A military helicopter takes part in the press stage of Turkey's military exercise Sea Wolf (Denizkurdu) in Mugla, Turkey, on Jan. 12, 2024. The exercise, supervised by the Turkish navy, was conducted in the eastern Mediterranean, Aegean and Black Sea. (Orhan Cicek/Anadolu via Getty Images)

"The president has been clear; Türkiye is a strong member of NATO. Türkiye is a significant contributor to Alliance operations and missions," a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

The package is a major boon for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as he prepares to host the 2026 NATO summit in Ankara.

"The U.S. engine sale is critical for Turkey’s most important defense project, the KAAN fifth-generation fighter jet. Turkey is developing its own engine, but it won’t be ready for several more years. Without U.S.-made GE engines, KAAN would struggle to move from a prototype to a serially produced combat aircraft," Gonul Tol, senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital.

Tol, who’s in Ankara for the NATO summit, said the deal is more meaningful than just a defense sale for President Erdogan, it’s a cornerstone of his foreign policy and a major source of domestic political legitimacy.

President Donald Trump and Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan

President Donald Trump greets Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan during a summit to support ending the more than two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, Oct. 13, 2025, in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. (Evan Vucci AP Photo/ Pool)

"If the aircraft succeeds, Ankara believes it will not only expand Turkey’s defense exports but also strengthen NATO’s overall industrial capacity and reinforce Turkey’s strategic importance within the alliance," Tol said.

President Erdogan, who has a warm relationship and receives frequent praise from President Trump, has continued to aggressively lobby the United States to readmit Turkey to the F-35 program, despite pushback from Congress.

On Monday, four Republican allies of President Trump — Reps. Jimmy Patronis, R-Fla., Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., and Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., — released a joint statement over the proposed sales. "As Greek American Members of Congress, we are deeply concerned regarding reports of a proposed military sale of jet engines to Turkey. Turkey continues to be a destabilizing force in the region through its expansive and disputed maritime claims, continued illegal occupation of Cyprus, and rhetorical demonization of Israel."

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The statement continued, "The Eastern Mediterranean region holds significant potential to become a beacon of commercial opportunity, energy cooperation, and regional security, an effort we have actively supported through legislation and engagement, but Turkey’s rhetoric and actions increasingly threaten these efforts, key American allies, and regional stability. For example, Turkey's harboring of Hamas and position as the only NATO member to refuse sanctions against Russia is deeply troubling. We are actively engaging with the Administration and House leadership to obtain additional information regarding this reported sale and to express our strong opposition to any prospect of Turkey’s reintegration into the F-35 program without complete compliance with CAATSA requirements," their statement said.

A spokesperson for the Turkish government did not reply to a request for comment.