Senate is expected to take up the SAVE America Act this week. Here’s what to know
President Donald Trump speaks as Vice President JD Vance listens in the Oval Office of the White House, March 16, 2026, in Washington. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Senate is expected to take up the SAVE America Act this week after President Donald Trump earlier this month thrust the bill into focus with a threat to withhold his signature on all other legislation until the GOP voting reform bill hits his desk.
Debate on the bill could kick off in the Senate as soon as Tuesday, but on Monday the president seemed doubtful that it would get to his desk.
“I think it’s imperative that it gets done. I’m not sure it is,” Trump said when asked about the bill’s outlook.
“I hope [Senate Majority Leader] John Thune can get it across the line. He’s trying. I mean, he told me this morning. I spoke to him, he’s trying,” Trump said. “I think it’ll be a very, very bad thing for our country if they don’t. We’re just asking for basic things,” Trump said.
Things could get quite heated on the floor, but ultimately the legislation, despite having a passionate base of GOP supporters, will almost certainly fail.
Here’s a look at what to know about this bill as it takes center stage this week:
What is the SAVE America Act?
The SAVE America Act is a Republican-led election reform bill that would require photo ID at polling places and mandate that states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election.
Trump has said that passing the SAVE America Act is a top priority. The president has also tacked additional provisions onto the list of things he would like to see in the law: restricting mail-in ballots, banning transgender women from playing in women’s sports and gender-affirming surgeries for minors.
Will the bill the Senate is considering include Trump’s additional demands?
The Senate is expected to consider amendments to the SAVE America Act aimed at adding Trump’s demands. But those amendments would need 60 votes to pass, and are not expected to get enough support to ultimately be tacked onto the bill.
What do Democrats think of the bill?
Senate Democrats have been clear they intend to oppose this legislation, which they say would make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote.
During a press call on Sunday, Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer called the bill “one of the most despicable pieces of legislation I’ve come across in the many years I’ve been a legislator.”
Democrats have been quick to underscore that the bill does more than require voters to show ID at the polling place. They say it amounts to an effort to nationalize elections and could lead to many people being turned away at their polling place.
What can be expected on the Senate floor this week?
The Senate is expected to hold a potentially lengthy debate on the floor this week as they consider the bill.
It will be a contentious couple of days during which the floor will be open for nearly unlimited debate on the bill. This debate could stretch into this weekend, but the result is already baked. When lawmakers run out of steam to keep debating, there will be a vote to move forward with the bill that requires 60 votes to advance. Democrats will almost certainly block it, and the bill will fail.
Will the SAVE America Act pass?
It is highly unlikely that the SAVE America Act will pass the Senate.
Though there’s going to be a lot of debate on the bill, the Senate rules that require 60 votes to pass most legislative matters will remain intact. That means that even if every Senate Republican were to cast a vote in favor of this legislation, at least seven Democrats would need to support it for it to pass.
Democrats have vowed to block the bill. Without their support, it will fail.
Could senators change the rules?
Yes, they could. But they won’t.
The Senate filibuster rule requires 60 votes to pass most legislative matters into law. Senators have the ability to change their rules with a simple majority of votes, and they’ve faced considerable pressure from Trump and others to do so.
But Thune has been consistent throughout his time as party leader about the lack of support within the Republican conference to change the Senate’s rules. Thune is a supporter of the Senate filibuster, and he has been clear there are not the votes to change the filibuster rule.
Senators are not expected to make modifications to the threshold of votes necessary to pass this bill. Without those changes, its hard to see how this would pass.
If the Senate fails to pass it, what happens?
Then it’s back to the drawing board.
This week’s actions amount to a good-faith effort by Senate Republicans to demonstrate that they are trying to make good on Trump’s priority. But this is largely a messaging vote unlikely to get the support it needs.
The House could take further action to try to revive the bill. But Democratic opposition in the Senate makes it unlikely that any renewed efforts will see a different outcome.
What’s less clear is whether this will be enough to back Trump off of his threat to withhold his signature on all other bills.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect the elements of the House-passed bill.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith (C) arrives to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Former special counsel Jack Smith, testifying Thursday before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee, was unequivocal about who caused the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused Jan. 6, that it was foreseeable to him and that he sought to exploit the violence,” Smith testified. “We followed the facts and we followed the law — where that led us was to an indictment of an unprecedented criminal scheme to block the peaceful transfer of power.”
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges in both cases, before both cases were dropped following Trump’s reelection due to the Justice Department’s long-standing policy barring the prosecution of a sitting president.
The former special counsel said that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump in his two investigations.
“Some of the most powerful witnesses were witnesses who, in fact, were fellow Republicans who had voted for Donald Trump, who had campaigned for him and, who wanted him to win the election. These included state officials, people who worked on his campaign and advisors,” Smith said of his election interference probe.
In seeking to challenge the results of the 2020 election, Trump was “looking for ways to stay in power,” Smith testified.
Trump was not “was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election. He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him, things that conflicted with him staying power, he rejected them or he chose not even to contact people like that,” Smith told committee members.
Smith told legislators that he would not be intimated by President Trump’s statements calling for him to be investigated.
“The statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made, as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up,” Smith said. “I’m not going to be intimidated. We did our work pursuant to Department policy. We followed the facts, and we follow the law.”
Asked about the sweeping pardons Trump granted those who were charged with attacking the Capitol on Jan. 6, Smith said, “I do not understand why you would mass pardon people who assaulted police officers. I don’t get it. I never will.”
Republican Rep. Troy Nehls, who is retiring from the House, addressed the Capitol Police officers who were in the chamber.
“I would like to quickly address the police officers from Jan. 6, ” Nehls said. “I’m a member of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day, and I can tell you gentlemen that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with … the U.S. Capitol leadership team. We know, we know they had the intelligence, and there was going to be a high propensity for violence.”
Under questioning from Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Smith discussed the witnesses his team had interviewed in his election interference probe.
“There were witnesses who I felt would be very strong witnesses, including, for example, the secretary of state in Georgia who told Donald Trump the truth, told him things that he did not want to hear and put him on notice that what he was saying was false,” Smith said. “And I believe that witnesses of that nature, witnesses who are willing to tell the truth, even if it’s going to impose a cost on them in their lives — my experience as a prosecutor over 30 years is that witnesses like that are very credible, and that jurors tend to believe witnesses like that, because they pay a cost for telling the truth.”
Smith said that he got the phone toll records for some members of Congress because his office was investigating the conspiracy to stop the peaceful transfer of power.
“We wanted to conduct a thorough investigation of the matters, that were assigned to me, including attempts to interfere with the lawful transfer of power. The conspiracy that we were investigating, it was relevant to get toll records, to understand the scope of that conspiracy, who they were seeking to coerce, who they were seeking to influence, who was seeking to help them,” Smith said, arguing that it was a normal piece of an investigation.
In a back-and-forth with Republican Rep. Darryl Issa, Smith said he didn’t target then-President Joe Biden’s political enemies.
“Maybe they’re not your political enemies, but they sure as hell were Joe Biden’s political enemies, weren’t they? They were Harris’ political enemies. They were the enemies of the president and you were their arm, weren’t you?” Issa asked.
“No,” Smith said. “My office didn’t spy on anyone.”
He said that the decision to bring charges against Trump was solely his decision and that he was not pressured by any Biden official.
“President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold,” Smith said. “Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned.”
In his introductory remarks, Smith also said the president illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
“After leaving office in January of ’21, President Trump illegally kept classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Social Club and repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents. Highly sensitive national security information withheld in a ballroom and a bathroom,” Smith said.
Smith said that the facts and the law supported a prosecution, and that he made decisions not based on politics, but the facts and the law.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity. If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said.
“No one, no one should be above the law in this country, and the law required that he be held to account. So that is what I did,” Smith said. “To have done otherwise on the facts of these cases, would have been to shirk my duties as a prosecutor and as a public servant, of which I had no intention of doing.”
He also criticized what he said was the retribution carried out by the president and his allies against agents and prosecutors who investigated the cases.
“My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted,” he said. “The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what test and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country.”
In his opening statement, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan blasted Smith for what he called a partisan investigation into President Trump and other Republicans.
“Democrats have been going after President Trump for ten years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did,” Jordan said.
Jamie Raskin, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said that Smith proved that Trump “engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power.”
“Special counsel Smith, you pursued the facts. You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity section. You acted based solely on the facts — the opposite of Donald Trump,” Raskin said.
Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell said that Republicans on the dais “are a joke.”
“They’re wrong. History will harshly judge them,” he said.
Smith’s appearance Thursday marked his second time before the committee, after he appeared behind closed doors in December. It is customary for former special counsels to appear before Congress publicly to discuss their findings.
In his closed-door testimony, Smith defended his decision to twice bring charges against Trump — telling lawmakers his team “had proof beyond reasonable doubt in both cases” that Trump was guilty of the charges in the 2020 election interference and classified documents cases, according to a transcript of the hearing.
And Smith fervently denied that there was any political influence behind his decision — contrary to allegations of Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, who requested the testimony — such as pressure from then-President Joe Biden or then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, the transcripts shows.
“No,” Smith responded continuously to those allegations, according to the transcript.
Just over an hour before his testimony on Dec. 17, the Department of Justice sent an email to Smith’s lawyers preventing him from discussing the classified documents case, according to the 255-page transcript of the deposition, released last year by the Judiciary Committee along with a video of the hearing.
This meant Smith was unable to answer most questions on that case and the deposition — intended to ask questions about the alleged weaponization of the DOJ against Trump and his allies — mainly focused on the 2020 election case instead.
His team also said Smith will comply with U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s order that blocked the release of the second volume of his report dealing with the classified documents case.
Smith’s counsel said the DOJ also refused to send a lawyer to advise Smith on whether his statements were in line with their determination of what he could or could not say regarding the cases, according to the deposition. Smith did say, however, that Trump “tried to obstruct justice” in the classified documents investigation “to conceal his continued retention of those documents.
Poll workers place a sign outside a polling station for the New Jersey Primary at a firehouse in Hoboken, N.J., June 4, 2024. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — Amid President Donald Trump’s repeated unsubstantiated accusations of rigged voting and calls to nationalize elections, an updated version of the GOP’s signature piece of election reform — now called the SAVE America Act — is set to reach the House floor for a showdown vote later Wednesday.
The original, called the SAVE Act, was sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, passed out of the House in April, but has stalled in the Senate since — attracting intense pushback from Democrats, who say the bill would damage voting accessibility and discriminate against low-income voters who are unable to get government ID.
Trump and top Republicans have argued the revised bill is necessary to protect the country’s election process before the 2026 midterm elections in November.
“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World,” Trump wrote on social media. “We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer. I am asking all Republicans to fight for the following: SAVE AMERICA ACT!”
There has been no credible evidence of widespread fraud or substantiated claims of U.S. elections being rigged.
What is the SAVE America Act?
Republican lawmakers tout the SAVE America Act as the next step in securing what they call “election integrity.” The bill would restrict mail-in ballots, require photo ID at polling places and mandate states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election.
Citizenship documents include:
A valid United States passport
A Real ID
A birth certificate
United States military ID card, together with a record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
Federal, state or tribal government ID card showing the applicants place of birth
A driver’s license without a Real ID stamp would not be accepted as proof of citizenship.
This process would include mail voter registration applications, requiring people to provide documented proof to an appropriate election official before being approved.
The bill would also require states to scrub noncitizens from their current voter records and create programs to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens by using data from various state agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.
On Election Day, voters would be expected to bring a valid photo ID which they would be required to present before getting access to the ballot box. If an ID does not have a photo, a voter would have to prove U.S. citizenship or provide the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number.
Along with ID requirements, Trump has called for restrictions on voting by mail, disallowing mail-in voting except for instances of illness, disability, military or travel.
Several high-ranking Republican leaders allege the bill would stop instances of noncitizens voting in elections, an issue they argue has damaged the credibility of election results.
Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal and state elections, though some cities allow noncitizens to vote on some local elections.
“A number of states deliberately don’t want to check whether or not somebody’s here legally when they register, and then they mandate in some states that they can’t show picture ID. That’s a recipe for voter fraud,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said during an interview on Fox News. “…one person, one vote only matters if you’re having these protections like the SAVE America Act.”
Experts have long insisted that noncitizen voting is a rare problem. Voter roll audits before the 2024 elections in Georgia found only 20 registered noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters statewide. Nine of those actually cast a ballot.
The president has suggested noncitizen voting has allowed Democrats to win elections when they otherwise shouldn’t have, including unfounded claims that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election.
“We need fair elections. We need elections where people aren’t able to cheat. And we’re going to do that, I’m going to do that, I’m going to get it done,” Trump said.
Why the controversy?
Implementing voter ID is not a novel idea in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks 36 states that require voters to show some sort of identification at the polls.
Sentiment over voter ID is also recorded as mostly positive, with a Pew Research Center poll citing 83% of the 3,554 Americans surveyed as in favor of requiring all voters to show government issued photo IDs before voting.
In that same survey, 58% of respondents said they were in favor of maintaining mail-in voting.
Still, key Democrats on Capitol Hill have been strongly opposed to the bill, arguing it makes voting more difficult and less accessible.
“Our elections are key to our democracy. The SAVE Act would make it harder for registered, legal voters to vote,” California Democrat Rep. Mike Thomson said. “At a time when the president is talking about nationalizing elections, we must protect our democracy and every voter’s choice.”
Though the bill made it through the House with a 220-208 vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate.
“The Republicans’ SAVE Act reads more like a how-to guide for voter suppression. It goes against the very foundations of our democracy,” Schumer said. “Mark my words: This will not pass the Senate.”
Others, such as Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), argue Republicans are deliberately timing the change in voter rules before consequential midterm elections.
“Republicans will stop at nothing to interfere with the 2026 midterms — including leveraging ICE to gain access to sensitive voter information or pass their anti-democratic SAVE Act,” Padilla said. “We’re not going to let them get away with their attempts to suppress the right to vote.”
In the Senate, the bill would need to garner support from some Democrats in order to overcome a 60-vote threshold to advance over an expected Democratic filibuster.
Demonstrators gather in Commons Park for the ‘No Kings!’ rally and march on October 18, 2025, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States. (Photo by Christopher Mark Juhn/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — “No Kings” protesters are expected to take to the streets in more than 3,000 cities and towns across the country Saturday to again call out President Donald Trump and his controversial polices, with organizers saying this one could be the biggest so far.
The “No Kings” protests are the latest since October and organizers said they are looking to send a message addressing what they call “the constant chaos of the Trump administration” since then.
From the use of federal troops for immigration enforcement, to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal law enforcement in Minneapolis, to Trump’s war with Iran, members of the National No Kings Coalition said Americans are looking to raise their voices in protest.
“The people coming out will be asked to show up on an ongoing basis for ICE watch, for mutual aid, for support of immigrant communities, for advocacy against this illegal and catastrophic war, for voter registration and all the work of building power locally,” Leah Greenberg, Co-Director of Indivisible, one of the coalition’s groups, said in a statement Thursday.
The organizers, from groups that include the ACLU, National Action Network and the United Federation of Teachers, said that they have over 3,200 events planned across cities and are expecting it to be bigger than the October event, which they say drew more than 7 million protesters.
Saturday marks the third “No Kings” demonstration since Trump returned office.
They have called for protesters to be peaceful just like last time, when there were no disturbances or reports of violence.
In New York City, the rally will begin in Columbus Circle, near Trump International Luxury Hotel, and march down over 20 blocks, according to protesters. It will include a who’s who of celebrities, including actor Robert de Niro.
In Minneapolis, which saw tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets in January and February following the Good and Pretti killings, Sen. Bernie Sanders and Bruce Springsteen are scheduled to speak at the event there, according to “No Kings” organizers.
The White House and other allies have not commented on this weekend’s events, but in the past they and some Republicans argued he protests were “hate America” rallies.
Trump himself dismissed the protests in October telling reporters, “I’m not a king,” prior to the rallies.
Afterward, the president re-posted an AI-generated video on his social media platform showing him piloting a fighter jet, appearing to dumping excrement on protesters.
The White House did not comment on the video. House Speaker Mike Johnson, however, came to Trump’s defense.
“The president uses social media to make the point. You can argue he’s probably the most effective person who’s ever used social media for that,” Johnson told reporters on Oct. 20. “He is using satire to make a point. He is not calling for the murder of his political opponents.”
