Arguing that noncitizens could be on state voter rolls — something that is illegal under federal law — the Trump administration is escalating its campaign to obtain registration data ahead of the 2026 midterms, despite a string of federal court setbacks.

The strategy has unfolded on three fronts: cooperation from Republican-led states willing to share voter data, lawsuits against roughly two dozen blue and purple states that have refused, and a legislative push in Congress to tighten national voting requirements. Federal judges have so far rebuffed the administration’s legal demands, but the Justice Department is widening its campaign as Election Day draws near. 

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the conservative group Advancing American Freedom, said voter rolls are a central focus ahead of the midterms because of the Trump administration’s concerns that noncitizens are on them and could end up voting. It is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections.

‘The problem is, blue states, like Oregon, they have no interest in that kind of verification, so they’re not actually doing what they ought to be doing, which is running data-based comparisons with the [Department of Homeland Security],’ von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital.

The DOJ has made sweeping demands for not just publicly available voter roll data, but also sensitive information, such as voters’ partial Social Security numbers and dates of birth.

The latest state to successfully fight the DOJ’s request is Michigan, where Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said the federal government was not entitled to its 7 million voters’ personal information beyond what was already available.

The DOJ cited three federal laws, the Civil Rights Act, the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, that it said gave the Trump administration the right to the confidential information. Judge Hala Jarbou disagreed.

‘The Court concludes that (1) HAVA does not require the disclosure of any records, (2) the NVRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not records concerning the implementation of list maintenance procedures, and (3) the CRA does not require the disclosure of voter registration lists because they are not documents that come into the possession of election officials,’ Jarbou, a Trump appointee wrote.

Federal judges in Oregon and California have also thrown out the DOJ’s lawsuits. The DOJ could appeal the decisions. A department spokesperson declined to comment for this story.

But the DOJ has seen cooperation from red states, such as Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, who were among several to reach a ‘Memorandum of Understanding’ that led the states to hand over the information the department wanted.

In another maneuver, Attorney General Pam Bondi pressured Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, to provide the Midwest battleground’s voter rolls, saying in a warning letter that such action would help ease unrest in the state that stemmed from a federal immigration crackdown there. 

Democrats were enraged by the letter and have argued the Trump administration is infringing on states’ rights to conduct their own elections.

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Ct., argued the letter was a ‘pretext for Trump to take over elections in swing states,’ while a state lawyer described the letter as a ‘ransom note.’ The DOJ, at the time, told Fox News Digital Democrats were ‘shamelessly lying’ about the letter’s purpose. Bondi said that handing over the voter rolls was among several ‘simple steps’ Minnesota could take to ‘bring back law and order.’ A lawsuit is still pending in Minnesota over the voter rolls.

In Congress, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would make it a national requirement that people registering to vote provide in-person proof of citizenship, such as birth certificates or passports. The legislation also includes a new national requirement for photo ID at the polls.

The bill has widespread Republican support. The House passed the SAVE Act last week, and even moderate Republican senators like Sen. Susan Collins, R-Me., have said they are on board with it. The bill is still stalled in the Senate, however, because it needs 60 votes to pass, meaning several Democrats would need to support it. Currently, none do. 

Von Spakovsky noted that the SAVE Act had a key provision that would allow private citizens to bring lawsuits over it.

‘There’s no question in my mind that if the Save Act gets passed, there are election officials in blue states that will be reluctant to or may refuse to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement,’ von Spakovsky said. ‘The Save Act provides a private right of action, so that means that citizens in Oregon could sue those election officials if they’re refusing to comply with the Save Act.’

He said the private right of action provision would also provide recourse for citizens if Democrats take over the DOJ in the next administration and refuse to enforce the SAVE Act.

Trump has repeatedly argued that noncitizen voting poses a threat to election integrity and has pressed Republican lawmakers to tighten federal requirements. Last week, he floated attempting to impose identification requirements through executive order if Congress does not act.

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW!’ Trump wrote on Truth Social. ‘If we can’t get it through Congress, there are Legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted. I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’

A much broader bill called the Make Elections Great Again Act is still moving through the House and faces a steeper uphill climb to passage.

In addition to national documented proof of citizenship requirement, the MEGA Act would end universal mail voting, eliminate ranked-choice voting and ban ballots postmarked by Election Day from being accepted after that day, which would outlaw postmark rules in 14 states and Washington, D.C.

The House Oversight Committee is hearing from a billionaire on Wednesday who was named one of Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirators by a 2019 FBI document.

Les Wexner is the latest person to be deposed in the House’s investigation into the federal government’s handling of Epstein’s case. 

Unlike most previous depositions, however, committee staff and potentially some lawmakers are traveling to Ohio on Wednesday morning to depose Wexner in his home state.

A spokesperson for Wexner declined to comment on the deposition and on whether he would invoke his Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering questions.

But if he cooperates with the committee’s questioning, Wexner’s insight is likely to be key to unlocking information on just how Epstein obtained his vast wealth before dying by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019.

The 88-year-old businessman is the founder of L Brands, formerly called The Limited, through which he acquired well-known companies Victoria’s Secret, Bath & Body Works, Express, and Abercrombie & Fitch, among others.

He was also one of Epstein’s first major clients as a financial advisor, with Epstein being granted power of attorney over Wexner’s vast wealth.

Wexner also sold his Manhattan townhouse to Epstein, which was later discovered to be one of the locations where federal authorities accused Epstein of abusing young women and girls under 18.

But Wexner has never been criminally accused nor charged in relation to the late pedophile’s crimes.

A letter from Wexner to his Wexner Foundation charity dated Aug. 7, 2019, said he ended his relationship with Epstein sometime after the first federal investigation into his crimes emerged nearly 20 years ago.

Wexner also accused Epstein of misusing his vast wealth.

‘As the allegations against Mr. Epstein in Florida were emerging, he vehemently denied them. But by early fall 2007, it was agreed that he should step back from the management of our personal finances. In that process, we discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family,’ read the letter, obtained by Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

‘This was, frankly, a tremendous shock, even though it clearly pales in comparison to the unthinkable allegations against him now. With his credibility and our trust in him destroyed, we immediately severed ties with him. We were able to recover some of the funds.’

Wexner is the fourth person appearing before the House Oversight Committee in its Epstein probe.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., previously oversaw the panel through the depositions of former Trump administration Attorney General Bill Barr, ex-Trump Labor Secretary Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. attorney in Florida who signed off on Epstein’s infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement, and convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell’s deposition lasted less than an hour after she invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions unless she was granted clemency by President Donald Trump.

The U.S. is preparing to expand the deployment of advanced missile systems in the northern Philippines, placing additional long-range strike capability within range of key Chinese military assets and reinforcing Washington’s effort to counter Beijing’s growing assertiveness across the Indo-Pacific.

U.S. and Philippine officials announced plans to increase deployments of ‘cutting-edge missile and unmanned systems’ to the treaty ally, as both governments condemned what they described as China’s ‘illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities’ in the South China Sea.

The move comes as confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels have intensified in disputed waters and as Beijing continues to pressure Taiwan, raising the stakes across the region’s most sensitive flashpoints.

It builds on the deployment of the U.S. Army’s Typhon missile system in northern Luzon, Philippines, a ground-based launcher capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles that can travel more than 1,000 miles.

Tomahawks can travel more than 1,000 miles — a range that, from northern Luzon, Philippines, places portions of southern China and major People’s Liberation Army (PLA) facilities within reach. The positioning also allows the U.S. and Philippine militaries to cover large swaths of the South China Sea and key maritime corridors connecting it to the broader Pacific.

The U.S. first deployed the Typhon system to Luzon, Philippines, in April 2024. An anti-ship missile launcher known as the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System was deployed in 2025 to Batan Island in the northernmost Philippine province of Batanes.

That island faces the Bashi Channel, a strategic waterway just south of Taiwan that serves as a critical transit route for commercial shipping and military vessels moving between the South China Sea and the Western Pacific. Control of that channel would be vital in any potential Taiwan contingency.

Beijing has urged Manila to withdraw the U.S. systems from its territory, but officials under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have rejected those demands.

‘China has consistently stated its firm opposition to the United States’ deployment of advanced weapons systems in the Philippines. The introduction of strategic and offensive weapons that heighten regional tensions, fuel geopolitical confrontation, and risk triggering an arms race is extremely dangerous. Such actions are irresponsible to the people of the Philippines, to Southeast Asian nations, and to regional security as a whole,’ Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu told Fox News Digital.  ‘The United States is not a party to disputes in the South China Sea and has no standing to intervene in maritime issues between China and the Philippines.’

‘The Taiwan question lies at the very heart of China’s core interests. China’s determination to defend its national sovereignty, security, and territorial integrity is unwavering. Any provocation that crosses red lines on Taiwan will be met with resolute countermeasures, and any attempt to obstruct China’s reunification is doomed to fail,’ Liu continued. 

Neither side detailed how many additional systems would be sent or whether the deployments would be permanent, but Philippine Ambassador to Washington Jose Manuel Romualdez said U.S. and Filipino defense officials discussed deploying upgraded missile launchers that Manila may eventually seek to purchase.

‘It’s a kind of system that’s really very sophisticated and will be deployed here in the hope that, down the road, we will be able to get our own,’ Romualdez told The Associated Press.

Romualdez stressed that the deployments are intended as a deterrent.

‘It’s purely for deterrence,’ he said. ‘Every time the Chinese show any kind of aggression, it only strengthens our resolve to have these types.’

China repeatedly has objected to the missile deployments, warning they threaten regional stability and accusing Washington of trying to contain its rise.

In a joint statement following annual bilateral talks in Manila, the U.S. and the Philippines underscored their support for freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce in the South China Sea — a vital global trade artery through which trillions of dollars in goods pass each year.

‘Both sides condemned China’s illegal, coercive, aggressive and deceptive activities in the South China Sea, recognizing their adverse effects on regional peace and stability and the economies of the Indo-Pacific and beyond,’ the statement said.

China claims virtually the entire South China Sea despite an international tribunal ruling in 2016 that invalidated many of its sweeping claims. In recent years, Chinese coast guard and maritime militia vessels have clashed repeatedly with Philippine ships near disputed shoals, including Second Thomas Shoal.

The expanded missile deployments also come as the Pentagon balances rising tensions in multiple theaters. In recent weeks, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group — which had been operating in the Indo-Pacific — was redirected toward the Middle East as the U.S. moved to bolster its posture amid escalating tensions with Iran. 

The deployments also reflect a broader U.S. effort to strengthen its military posture along the so-called ‘first island chain’ — a string of territories stretching from Japan through Taiwan and the Philippines that forms a natural barrier to Chinese naval expansion into the Pacific.

Washington has deepened defense cooperation with Manila under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, expanding U.S. access to Philippine bases, including sites in northern Luzon close to Taiwan.

China in May released a national security white paper criticizing the deployment of an ‘intermediate-range missile system’ in the region — widely viewed as a reference to the U.S. Typhon launcher in the Philippines. The document accused unnamed countries of reviving a ‘Cold War mentality’ and forming military ‘small groups’ that aggravate regional tensions.

For U.S. planners, dispersing mobile, land-based missile systems across allied territory complicates Beijing’s military calculus. Instead of relying solely on ships and aircraft, the U.S. can field ground-based systems that are harder to track and capable of holding Chinese naval and air assets at risk.

For Beijing, however, such deployments reinforce its long-standing claim that the United States is encircling China militarily.

As tensions simmer in both the South China Sea and around Taiwan, the positioning of long-range U.S. missile systems on Philippine soil underscores how the strategic competition between Washington and Beijing is increasingly being defined by geography — and by which side can project credible deterrent power across it.

A senior U.S. official offered new details Tuesday night about an alleged nuclear bomb test conducted by China in June 2020.

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Yeaw spoke at a Hudson Institute event in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, and said evidence of the explosion came from a seismic station in Kazakhstan. The station detected a magnitude 2.75 explosion located at China’s Lop Nur test grounds on June 22, 2020.

‘I’ve looked at additional data since then. There is very little possibility I would say that it is anything but an explosion, a singular explosion,’ Yeaw said, adding that data was not consistent with mining detonations.

‘It’s also entirely not consistent with an earthquake,’ he added. ‘It is … what you would expect with a nuclear explosive test.’

China’s embassy in Washington has rejected the Trump administration’s claim, telling NBC News that the report is ‘political manipulation,’ and the U.S. is ‘evading its own nuclear disarmament responsibilities.’

‘China urges the U.S. to reaffirm the five nuclear-weapon states’ commitment on refraining from nuclear tests, uphold the global consensus against nuclear tests, and take concrete steps to safeguard the international nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime,’ spokesperson Liu Pengyu told the outlet.

U.S. officials warned that Beijing may be preparing tests in the ‘hundreds of tons’ range — a scale that underscores China’s accelerating nuclear modernization and complicates efforts to draw Beijing into arms control talks.

Thomas DiNanno, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said recently that the United States has evidence China conducted an explosive nuclear test at its Lop Nur site.

‘I can reveal that the U.S. government is aware that China has conducted nuclear explosive tests, including preparing for tests with designated yields in the hundreds of tons,’ DiNanno said during remarks at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament.

He added, ‘China conducted one such yield-producing nuclear test on June 22 of 2020.’

DiNanno also accused Beijing of using ‘decoupling’ — detonating devices in ways that dampen seismic signals — to ‘hide its activities from the world.’

China’s foreign ministry has denied the allegations, accusing Washington of politicizing nuclear issues and reiterating that Beijing maintains a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing.

The accusation has sharpened questions about verification, deterrence and whether the U.S. stockpile stewardship program — which relies on advanced simulations rather than live detonations — remains sufficient in an era of renewed great-power nuclear competition.

The NAACP formally asked a federal judge to protect voter information seized by the FBI from an election warehouse in Atlanta on Sunday.

The NAACP and other organizations say the documents contain ‘sensitive personal information,’ and asked the judge to impose limits on how the FBI can use the data. Their motion argues the seizure from the Fulton County elections building ‘infringed constitutional protections of privacy, and interfered with the right to vote.’

The motion asks the judge to ‘order reasonable limits on the government’s use of the seized data’ and to prohibit the government from using the data for purposes other than the criminal investigation cited in the search warrant affidavit.

That request includes prohibiting any efforts to use it for voter roll maintenance, election administration or immigration enforcement.

They also requested that the judge order the government to disclose an inventory of all documents and records seized, the identity of anyone who has accessed the records outside of those involved in the criminal investigation, any copying of the records and all efforts to secure the information.

The FBI arrived to the elections warehouse on Jan. 28 with a search warrant for documents relating to the 2020 election, including all ballots, tabulator tapes from the scanners that tally the votes, electronic ballot images created when the ballots were counted and then recounted, and all voter rolls.

Sunday’s motion was filed by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of the NAACP, Georgia and Atlanta NAACP organizations, and the Georgia Coalition for the Peoples Agenda. It notes that the seizure happened as the Justice Department has been seeking unredacted state voter registration rolls.

Fulton County officials told reporters this month that FBI agents were seen carrying some 700 boxes of ballots from a warehouse near the election hub and loading them into a truck.

Fulton County has also separately sued the FBI in an effort to have the elections documents returned.

Fox News’ Breanne Deppisch and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

A House GOP lawmaker has become the first member of his party to support a Democrat-led effort to limit presidential pardon power.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., signed on in support of legislation led by Rep. Johnny Olszewski, D-Md., to establish a congressional review process for presidential pardons.

It comes after President Donald Trump pardoned five ex-NFL players guilty of various charges including perjury, drug trafficking and counterfeiting. 

‘Across multiple administrations, we’ve seen legitimate questions raised about how this authority has been used at the same time, the ability of Congress to provide oversight has weakened,’ Bacon said in a statement. ‘Frankly, it is clear to me the pardon authority has been abused.’

And while Bacon did not mention Trump directly, Olszewski made clear that the Republican commander in chief is the main impetus for his push for a new constitutional amendment.

‘The announcement follows the Trump Administration’s decision earlier this week to pardon five former NFL players whose charges ranged from perjury to drug trafficking,’ said Olszewski’s press release announcing Bacon’s support on Monday. 

‘The pardons are part of what Olszewski describes as a disturbing pattern of abuses of the presidential pardon power benefiting the wealthy and well-connected.’

The amendment, if adopted, would give Congress the right to initiate a review process for presidential pardons if called for by 20 House members and five senators.

The review process would end with a vote on whether to nullify the pardon, needing two-thirds’ support in both the House and the Senate to succeed. 

The president would then be barred from issuing that same pardon to the same recipient again.

Former President Joe Biden notably took heat from Republicans and even some Democrats when he issued preemptive pardons for his family members and other allies, including son Hunter Biden, shortly before leaving office.

Bacon, a moderate Republican and retired Air Force brigadier general, has already announced he is not seeking re-election in November. 

He’s one of several GOP lawmakers in Congress who have been willing to buck Trump on a variety of issues, including the separation of powers.

For instance, Bacon was one of a handful of House Republicans who voted with Democrats to terminate Trump’s emergency declaration at the northern border, which the president had used to justify imposing tariffs on Canada without congressional approval.

Bacon told Fox News Digital at the time, ‘It is time for Congress to make its voice heard on tariffs.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response.

Some of President Donald Trump‘s top Democratic critics who may run for the White House in 2028 used appearances at a high-profile European conference this past weekend to blast the Republican president’s agenda and try to beef up their foreign policy chops.

But for some of these Democrats with national ambitions, the international stop at the prestigious Munich Security Conference may have backfired.

Meanwhile, a highly anticipated address by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who may be on the GOP’s 2028 ticket, won positive reviews for his charm offensive with European allies bruised by Trump’s aggressive second-term moves towards some of America’s oldest and closest allies.

Eight Democrats considered potential 2028 contenders — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona, Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and former Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo — all descended on Munich.

‘I think they hurt themselves badly,’ Hugh Hewitt, the popular conservative radio talk show host and Fox News contributor, said of the Democrats during an appearance on ‘Fox and Friends.’

But it was Ocasio-Cortez, the progressive champion who has long been laser focused on affordability and other domestic issues, who scored the worst reviews.

‘We are seeing our presidential administration tear apart the transatlantic partnership, rip up every democratic norm,’ Ocasio-Cortez said as she took aim at Trump. ‘I think many of us are here to say we are here, and we are ready for the next chapter, not to have the world turn to isolation, but to deepen our partnership … and increase our commitment to integrity to our values.’

But Ocasio-Cortez was heavily criticized for her gaffe when asked during a panel discussion whether the U.S. should send troops to defend Taiwan from a possible invasion by China.

The four-term lawmaker appeared to stall for nearly 20 seconds before offering that the U.S. should try to avoid reaching a clash with China over Taiwan.

‘AOC is like a parade of clichés. A model U.N. student that didn’t get enough sleep,’ Hewitt argued.

Social media posts by others on the right weren’t as kind, slamming her for offering up a world salad.

But it wasn’t just Republicans who critiqued Ocasio-Cortez.

A veteran Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely told Fox News Digital, ‘it is abundantly clear that AOC is not ready for prime time given her remarks in Europe.’

Whitmer, the term-limited governor of the key Great Lakes battleground state, was also criticized.

Asked what victory would look like for Ukraine, Whitmer said Ocasio-Cortez and U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker, who were sitting with her on the panel, were ‘much more steeped in foreign policy than a governor is.’

‘Ukraine’s independence, keeping their land mass and having the support of all of the allies, I think, is the goal,’ Whitmer added.

Newsom repeatedly took aim at the president during his appearances.

‘Donald Trump is temporary,’ he said Friday during a climate change discussion. ‘He’ll be gone in three years.’ And he hammered Trump over climate policy, arguing the president is ‘doubling down on stupid.’

‘Never in the history of the United States of America has there been a more destructive president than the current occupant of the White House in Washington, D.C.,’ Newsom charged. ‘Donald Trump is trying to turn back the clock.’

Matt Mowers, a longtime Republican strategist and State Department veteran during Trump’s first administration who later was a 2020 GOP congressional nominee in swing state New Hampshire, gave the Democrats low scores.

‘What we saw on the Democratic side were a bunch of folks who were not ready for prime time,’ Mowers told Fox News Digital. ‘I think the American people are going to look at the circus group that showed up there and wonder if they can trust any of them to be in a position of power and lead America forward.’

But longtime Democratic strategist Joe Caiazzo, pointing to the Democrats at the conference, told Fox News Digital that ‘speaking in Munich serves to bolster their foreign affairs credentials, especially under the backdrop of the looming 2028 presidential campaign.’

‘It’s unclear which strategy is going to work, but I think regardless of who is successful, they will need a clear and cogent foreign policy to return our position at the global table,’ Caiazzo said.

Rubio’s speech came a year after Vice President JD Vance, the perceived 2028 Republican front-runner, delivered a scathing attack on Europe during his 2025 speech at the security forum.

America’s top diplomat, speaking a month after Trump took a sledgehammer to Europe during remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was applauded for saying ‘in a time of headlines heralding the end of the trans-Atlantic era, let it be known and clear to all that this is neither our goal nor our wish, because for us Americans, our home may be in the Western Hemisphere, but we will always be a child of Europe.’

Striving to ease tensions fueled by Trump’s push to take control of Greenland and the president’s threats of further tariffs on European nations, Rubio emphasized that ‘the United States and Europe, we belong together.’

But while softer in tone, Rubio’s underlying message was as uncompromising as those of Trump and Vance, that Europe needed to join America’s new reshaped vision for the world, or get out of the way.

And Rubio strongly criticized European nations over their immigration and climate agenda, and slammed the United Nations, saying the world body ‘played virtually no role’ in peace efforts in Ukraine and Gaza.

Pointing to what he called ‘the dynamic duo of JD Vance’s speech last year and Marco Rubio’s speech this year,’ Mowers said, ‘You needed more of a wrecking ball last year to wake everyone up.’

And he said this year, ‘You have someone who can try to bring together more unity based upon a shared framework. But I think the two of them together have done a great job at really explaining what a U.S.-European relationship can look like for the 21st century.’

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., is accusing Democrats of being hypocritical in their opposition to Republicans’ latest election integrity bill.

The No. 3 House Republican ripped the rival party after nearly all of them voted against the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act last week, specifically over its provision mandating federally accepted photo identification at the polls. It’s also sometimes referred to as the ‘SAVE Act.’

‘These guys are doing the same old broken record about voter suppression,’ Emmer told Fox News Digital. ‘Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs at the airport? Why aren’t they screaming about photo IDs when you check out a book at the library?’

Emmer pointed out that a photo ID was required for attendees to watch former Vice President Kamala Harris accept the Democratic Party’s nomination for the White House in Chicago last year.

‘By the way, if they think it’s voter suppression, why do they require photo IDs at the Democrat National Convention to get in?’ Emmer said.

‘I mean, I think Americans are so much smarter than these people can understand, can let themselves understand,’ he said.

The SAVE America Act passed the House on Wednesday with support from all Republicans — an increasingly rare sight in the chamber — and just one Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

A previous iteration of the bill, just called the SAVE Act, passed the House in April of last year with support from four House Democrats.

Whereas the SAVE Act would have created a new federal proof-of-citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and imposed requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal election.

That photo ID would also have to denote proof-of-citizenship, according to the legislative text.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have both panned the bill, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries calling it ‘voter suppression’ and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., dismissing it as ‘a modern-day Jim Crow.’

Jeffries also specifically took issue with a provision that would enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to initiate removal proceedings if an illegal immigrant was found on a state’s voter rolls, arguing DHS would weaponize the information.

But voter ID, at least, has proven to be a popular standard in U.S. elections across multiple public polls.

A Pew Research Center poll released in August 2025 showed a whopping 83% of people supported government-issued photo ID requirements for showing up to vote, compared to just 16% of people who disapproved of it.

A Gallup poll from October 2024 showed 84% of people supported photo ID for voting in federal elections.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., is ready to put Senate Democrats to the test on voter ID legislation.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has earned the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, including Thune, which is enough to break through a key procedural hurdle.

Whether it can pass from the Senate to President Donald Trump’s desk is, for now, an unlikely scenario if lawmakers take the traditional path in the upper chamber. Still, Thune wants to put Democrats on the spot as midterm elections creep closer.

‘We will have a vote,’ Thune told Fox News Digital.

His comments came as he crisscrossed his home state of South Dakota, where he and Republicans in their respective states are out selling their legislative achievements as primary season fast approaches.

Thune viewed the opportunity of a floor vote as a way to have Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and his caucus explain to voters why they would block a legislative push to federally enshrine voter ID and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

‘We will make sure that everybody’s on the record, and if they want to be against ensuring that only American citizens vote in our elections, they can defend that when they have to go out and campaign against Republicans this fall,’ Thune said.

But the political makeup of the Senate will prove a tricky path to navigate if Republicans want to pass the bill.

Though the majority of the Senate GOP backs the bill, without at least a handful of Senate Democrats joining them, it is destined to fall victim to the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

And Schumer has time and again made clear that he and the majority of Senate Democrats view the legislation, which passed the House last week, as a tool of voter suppression that would unduly harm poorer Americans and minority groups.

So Senate Republicans are looking at their options.

One, which Thune already threw cold water on, is nuking the Senate filibuster. The other is turning to the talking, or standing, filibuster. It’s the physical precursor to the current filibuster that requires hours upon hours of debate over a bill.

Some fear that taking that path could paralyze the Senate floor. Thune acknowledged that concern, having previously made it himself, but noted another wrinkle.

‘A lot of people focus on unlimited debate, and yes, it is something that could drag on for weeks or literally, for that matter, months,’ Thune said. ‘But it’s also unlimited amendments, meaning that every amendment — there’s no rules — so every amendment will be 51 votes.’

He argued that there are several politically challenging amendments that could hit the floor that would put members in tough reelections in a hard spot and possibly cause them to pass, which ‘could also be very detrimental to the bill in the end.’

Thune didn’t shut down the idea of turning to the talking filibuster, especially if it ended in lawmakers being able to actually pass the SAVE America Act. But in the Senate, outcomes are rarely guaranteed on politically divisive legislation.

‘I think that, you know, this obviously is a mechanism of trying to pursue an outcome, but I don’t know that, in the end, it’ll get you the outcome you want,’ Thune said. ‘And there could be a lot of ancillary damage along the way.’

Senate Republicans now have enough support within their conference to pass Trump-backed voter ID legislation, but a major hurdle remains.

The Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act has secured the backing of 50 Senate Republicans, following a pressure campaign by the White House and a cohort of Senate conservatives over the past several weeks.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has led the charge in the upper chamber, ramping up his efforts last week as the bill moved through the House.

Lee told Fox News Digital that he was ‘ecstatic’ about the progress made in shoring up support for the legislation and hoped the Senate would move as quickly as possible to consider it. 

‘I would love to see us turn to it next week, perhaps the day after the State of the Union address,’ Lee said. ‘I think that would be good timing. But I think this needs to get done sooner rather than later.’

That multifaceted campaign — both on social media and behind closed doors in the Senate — proved successful, drawing support from Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and several others.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th senator to back the bill. That gives Republicans the internal support they need to advance the legislation procedurally, but only if they turn to the standing, or talking, filibuster.

Before leaving Washington, D.C., for a weeklong break last week, Lee and other supporters, including Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., pitched the voter ID proposal and potential pathways to pass it to colleagues.

‘We had some good senators stand up and say, ‘No, we got to fight for this,’’ Johnson told Fox News Digital. ‘I’m with them. We need to fight for this.’

Still, the effort faces heavy resistance from Senate Democrats, who are nearly unified in their opposition.

The only potential outlier is Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who has pushed back against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s, D-N.Y., characterization of the bill as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ but has not said whether he would ultimately support the SAVE America Act.

Despite that possibility, Schumer and most of his caucus plan to block the legislation.

‘We will not let it pass in the Senate,’ Schumer told CNN’s Jake Tapper. ‘We are fighting it tooth and nail.’

Not every Senate Republican is onboard, either. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, has announced she will vote against the measure, while Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., have not signed on as co-sponsors.

One option to bypass Democratic opposition would be nuking the filibuster and its 60-vote threshold — a move some congressional Republicans argue has effectively become a ‘zombie filibuster,’ since legislation can be blocked simply by withholding votes rather than holding the floor.

Despite previous pressure from President Donald Trump to eliminate the filibuster, the move does not have the votes among Republicans to succeed — a point Thune underscored last week.

‘There aren’t anywhere close to the votes — not even close — to nuking the filibuster,’ Thune said.

That leaves a return to the standing, or talking, filibuster — the precursor to today’s procedural hurdle. Under that approach, Senate Democrats would be required to hold the floor and publicly debate their opposition, as senators did for decades before the modern filibuster became standard practice.

The idea appears to be gaining traction among some Republicans, though critics warn it could effectively paralyze the upper chamber for days, weeks or even months, depending on Democrats’ resolve.

Lee said that many senators he’s spoken with are open to the idea, and that those who were reluctant didn’t believe it wouldn’t work. 

‘I understand why people might have questions about a procedure that we’re not familiar with,’ Lee said. ‘It doesn’t mean we don’t have to do it, because we do.’

Meanwhile, Trump has suggested he could take matters into his own hands if Congress cannot pass the SAVE America Act.

In a Truth Social post last week, Trump called the legislation a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’

‘This is an issue that must be fought, and must be fought, NOW! If we can’t get it through Congress, there are legal reasons why this SCAM is not permitted,’ Trump wrote. ‘I will be presenting them shortly, in the form of an Executive Order.’