A reminder that my colleagues are covering the latest developments out of the Middle East, particularly Donald Trump’s comments to The Telegraph that he is considering pulling the US out of Nato.

“I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration,” Trump said in an interview. “I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”

The president has been levelling insults at allies in recent weeks for not helping to reopen the strait of Hormuz, which has been effectively shut down by Iran as the Middle East war rages on.

As we noted earlier, Donald Trump will be in Washington today. After he attends oral arguments in the blockbuster birthright citizenship case at the supreme court, he’ll be back at the White House for closed door meetings.

We won’t hear from the president again until 9pm ET, when he addresses the nation with “an important update” on the war on Iran.

A former video editor and field producer for Alex Jones’s Infowars has said his work for the notorious conspiracy theorist was “nonsense” and “lies”, but he kept at it for four years in his 20s because the far-right media company’s founder was a magnetic presence and it earned him good money.

Josh Owens made those revealing remarks in an NPR interview published on Tuesday promoting his new memoir about once having been an employee of Jones and Infowars – a conversation that also detailed the hand he said he had in fabricating a video of an operative of the Islamic State (IS) terror group sneaking into the US from Mexico immediately after a beheading.

“In Jones’s world, it was all about making things look cinematic,” Owens, who left Infowars in 2017, said to NPR. Likening the aesthetic to that seen in pieces by Vice News, he continued: “We would go out there, we would shoot videos … like we were in the weeds, we were showing what was really going on.

“But it was nonsense. It was lies.”

To illustrate the point to the outlet, Owens recounted how Infowars deployed him to El Paso, Texas, after a conservative website alleged that IS had erected a training base right on the other side of the US-Mexico border, specifically in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua.

President Trump cannot unilaterally overturn a constitutional amendment; that requires congressional action.

But the administration is arguing not that they’re overturning the amendment, but rather interpreting it according to its intended meaning.

The Trump administration wants the supreme court to reinterpret the amendment and allow the order to be enforced, overriding more than 125 years of legal precedent.

The landmark decision on birthright citizenship, United States v Wong Kim Ark, made clear that a child born to parents of Chinese descent who had permanent “domicile” in the US would be a US citizen at the time of birth under the 14th amendment.

The Trump administration argues “domicile”, meaning a permanent residence, is a critical part of the interpretation, despite the word not appearing in the amendment itself.

“Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the ‘SUCKERS’ that we are!” the president wrote on Truth Social last year.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.

The court last year gave Trump an initial victory in the birthright citizenship context in a ruling restricting the power of federal judges to curb presidential policies nationwide.

Though arising from early-stage judicial rulings declaring Trump’s directive unconstitutional, the court’s ruling did not resolve its legality.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has backed Trump on other major immigration-related policies since he returned to the presidency.

It let Trump expand mass deportation measures on an interim basis while legal challenges play out, such as ending humanitarian protections for migrants or allowing them to be deported to countries where they have no ties.

The administration has said that granting citizenship to virtually anyone born on US soil has created incentives for illegal immigration and led to “birth tourism,” by which foreigners travel to the United States to give birth and secure citizenship for their children.

An eventual ruling by the supreme court endorsing the administration’s view could affect the legal status of as many as 250,000 babies born each year, according to some estimates, and require the families of millions more to prove the citizenship status of their newborns, Reuters reported.

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States, and overturned a notorious 1857 supreme court decision that had declared that people of African descent could never be US citizens. Concord, New Hampshire-based US district judge Joseph Laplante last July let the challenge to Trump’s order by these plaintiffs proceed as a class, allowing the policy to be blocked nationwide.

The challengers have said the supreme court already settled the question of birthright citizenship in an 1898 case called United States v Wong Kim Ark, which recognized that the 14th amendment grants citizenship by birth on US soil, including to the children of foreign nationals.

The administration contends that the 1898 precedent supports Trump’s order because, according to the court’s ruling in that case, at the time of his birth, Wong Kim Ark’s parents had permanent domicile and residence in the United States.