US and Iran exchange strikes after Strait of Hormuz ceasefire collapse

Left-leaning coverage is absent in the coverage we reviewed, so the biggest gap is not a left-right clash but uneven legal context inside the right-leaning coverage. Right-leaning coverage reports the same targets — Trump’s rehearing push, birth tourism, and a GOP bill to codify his order — but only the bill-focused account squarely says the Supreme Court majority treated citizenship as a 14th Amendment guarantee and that a statute would almost certainly face constitutional challenges. Without that caveat, the story can read like a procedural fight over rehearing or congressional drafting, rather than a fight over whether Congress can legislate around a constitutional holding. The striking emphasis pattern is that right-leaning coverage often leads with the abuse frame: “birth tourism,” “SCAM,” citizenship “for sale,” and billboards offering delivery packages. The constitutional barrier is present in some coverage, but it competes with a much louder fraud-and-border-security frame. Unasked question: How exactly would McGuire’s bill survive the Court’s stated view that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born in the U.S. to temporarily or unlawfully present parents?