This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section covers nominations, confirmations, or other executive branch business. It mentions members such as John F. Reed.
Official title: Department of Homeland Security (Executive Session)
Issued
March 21, 2026
senate side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
0
No linked legislation in this section
Committees
0
No linked committees in this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
1 Helpful Term
Executive business
Senate business involving nominations, treaties, and executive branch communications rather than ordinary bills.
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official Senate Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. President, I want to sit down and talk a little bit more specifically about DHS funding though.
to respond to the President's offer—18 days, crickets, nothing from the Democrats. That is because they are the party of “defund the police.” They don't want ICE to be working.
with Republicans. It has been over a month since DHS was defunded, and it wasn't until later, at the very end of this week, that Democrats were willing to sit down with Republicans to have any type of conversation.
from funding DHS—at least on the surface, that is what it looks like to me—that prevent us from funding TSA, from funding FEMA, the Coast Guard, or the cyber security defense team.
Again, these issues don't happen in silos, right? We have this war in Iran. We don't have DHS funded. I am as worried and concerned about American citizens here at home, about their safety, as I am our soldiers in harm's way overseas.
told us—the two main issues that we haven't figured out here. One is demasking ICE officers, and two is the issue of warrants for those who entered our country illegally.
Let's quickly touch the demasking issue. That is a nonstarter. I am not going to put the families of my ICE agents in harm's way either. That is because, when the names are revealed of these ICE officers, their family back home, their children, their spouses, their lives are being threatened. So we are not going to do that.
I am all for them being more recognizable. I think that is straightforward. But maybe what is not quite as straightforward is this warrant issue. And, again, I have to admit that I needed to try to understand this a little bit better myself—the difference between a judicial warrant versus an administrative warrant.
Now, why is this important? Because I continue to hear arguments in this Chamber that don't square with the facts, and I think the American people deserve to hear the truth about how the immigration enforcement system actually works.
they want to destroy—the warrant system that ICE uses to arrest or remove people in this country illegally. Now, on the surface, maybe that sounds like a good idea, and it is certainly worth discussing. But when you really take a close look at the law—and, remember, I am just a country doctor, and I am the last one that needs to be up here pontificating about our legal system when it comes to immigration. But I think it is important that even I, as a country doctor, understand that their case evaporates when you look at the truth.
Now, here is what the current court system requires. Before ICE makes an interior arrest, officers must have probable cause. That is an important fact to remember—the term “probable cause.” It is a legal standard as old as our Republic that the person in front of them is removable under the Federal law, that they have probable cause to remove this person.
Now, they have to document that. It is reviewable. It is not a rubberstamp. These ICE officers would lose their jobs if they didn't follow this protocol. It is no different than when a highway patrolman pulls you over for speeding. He or she has to have probable cause. They can't just pull you over because you have a hat on or because you have sunglasses on. They need to have some type of probable cause. Maybe you didn't use your blinkers when you changed lanes. But they have to have probable cause.
and it is worth clearing up: the difference between a judicial warrant and an administrative warrant. A judicial warrant is issued by a Federal judge in a criminal proceeding. An administrative warrant is issued by a trained Federal officer in a civil process.
Immigration enforcement has always been civil, not criminal. There are different tools for different systems, and conflating them, as my colleagues are across the aisle, once again—again, they are all lawyers. They all should know this better than I do. So they are purposely deceiving the public—or, at least, a deliberate attempt to confuse the public.
authorize. It does not allow ICE to enter a private home. It does not allow them to walk in the back of a business or workplace.
Let me emphasize this: Without either the owner's consent or a judicial warrant signed by a Federal judge, the door stays closed. These limits are very real. They are enforceable, and they are already built into the system.
through the immigration court. They have had a full hearing before an immigration judge. They have made their arguments. They could appeal if they chose to. And a final removal order was entered. Then ICE executes that order. This is one way the administrative order is used. The due process has already happened in an immigration court with an immigration judge presiding.
So that is the first bucket. Someone has been through this entire process. They have had an immigration judge make the decision, but instead of leaving the country like they were supposed to, they are still inside the country, and our ICE officers are charged with removing that person.
Now, here is the second bucket. For those immigrants who haven't yet been through the proceedings—and, again, they are in the country illegally to start with, right. For those who haven't been through the proceedings, ICE makes an administrative arrest, but they have probable cause to start with. They have probable cause. They make an administrative arrest, and then they make a notice to appear before an immigration judge, typically months or years down the line, unfortunately.
The person gets their day in court. They get a lawyer. They present evidence. They could appeal all the way to a Federal circuit court.
Now, that is due process, right? It is quite an expense for the American people to pay for, and it is also a risk to the American public by allowing these people to stay in our Nation, many times with social services paid for by Americans. But it certainly is due process.
Guess what. This system has been in place for decades. It has been upheld by Federal courts. It was used by administrative courts of both parties, including the ones my colleagues across the aisle seem to remember so fondly.
to immigration enforcement officers. It is not a gray area. This is settled law being relitigated for their own political purposes.
Now, I will grant this: There are real problems out there, and they are worth fixing. Immigration courts are backlogged. Detention facilities are strained.
strengthen the legal representation for those in proceedings, now that we have our border secure and we have stopped the hemorrhaging, then count me in. Let's make this broken system better.
But it is not the issue at hand. It is not the warrant issue. There is a significant difference between saying the system needs more resources and saying the system is unconstitutional.
system needs more resources versus saying the system is unconstitutional. One is a policy debate. The other is not supported by facts, the law, or decades of court decisions.
Now, back home in Kansas, we have a simple standard: If the fence is doing its job, you don't tear it down. If a gate is broken, you fix it. If the fence posts are leaning, you straighten them out. You don't have to come bulldoze the whole fence and call it progress.
The warrant system is doing its job. It is grounded in probable cause. It provides due process. It has been tested in court, and it has upheld, and it keeps us safe. So let's stop pretending otherwise.
It all makes you wonder. It really does make you wonder: What do the Democrats really want? Their arguments disappear when it comes to the two things they are talking about, when it comes to the warrant issue or demasking. What is it that they really want?
We have to be concerned. Is it that they want these 30 million illegal aliens in this country to be given amnesty? Is that really their goal here? Is that really their goal? Why don't they just say it? Why don't they just come out and say it?
It is time to get the SAVE Act across the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, first let me commend my colleague Senator Whitehouse for his excellent remarks that show all the dangers of the SAVE Act. And like my colleague, I rise today to speak out against the deceptively named SAVE America Act, a bill that would create new barriers for American citizens to exercise their most important right: the right to vote.
Americans and as an inspiration for freedom-loving people everywhere, has depended upon strong civic engagement from all Americans. When more Americans vote, our government is more representative of the people. It is more responsive to their needs. It has more legitimacy, and it is a better steward of their tax dollars and public resources.
to vote. The SAVE America Act will not do that. In fact, it will suppress the right to vote.
supported by a vast majority of Americans. If the bill simply required every American to show an ID at the polls, then I would not be ringing such a loud alarm.
regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has been extremely effective.
when they vote; instead, it requires them to prove their citizenship at the time of registration.
ask: What is the difference if you have to prove citizenship to register versus showing your ID at the polling place? But as I will explain, proving citizenship at the time of registration requires a total and complete overhaul of our election system and will force millions of American citizens to scramble to gather the right documentation—if they can ever do so at all—while imposing very costly and burdensome unfunded mandates on the States.
faith effort to improve election integrity and security. But make no mistake, this bill is a bad-faith effort to help Donald Trump and his potential successors stay in power no matter what the voters say in 2026 and 2028. It is loaded up with additional measures that allow the Federal Government, under his control, to deter people from voting and then to challenge people's votes after they are cast.
and secure. That includes every single election that my current colleagues won. Now, if our elections are so rife with cheating and fraud, as my Republican colleagues would lead you to believe, then do they also think their own election victories are tainted or illegitimate? I think this is a question that the sponsors of the SAVE Act need to answer before we vote.
information—their full voter rolls—with the Department of Homeland Security, a Department that has flagrantly violated the American people's civil liberties under the Trump administration.
them of people who have not shown “documentary proof of citizenship,” which, based on current law, could encompass millions of law-abiding American citizens. That is right. Technically, millions of Americans could be wiped off the rolls as soon as this bill is passed and signed.
challenge a State official for registering voters that the litigant believes are illegitimate, which means every American's registration is now at risk of being questioned or invalidated. This will open the floodgates to thousands, perhaps millions, of frivolous cases and tangle every election up in knots with never-ending litigation. Indeed, given the record of filing outlandish lawsuits after the 2020 election, it is not hard to imagine that Donald Trump will use this law to contest the registration of everyone he believes is opposed or at least in areas the election is expected to be close.
Mr. LEE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. REED. No, I will not yield.
immediately, meaning they must be implemented for the 2026 election, which, I should point out, is already underway. There are primaries that have been completed in several States, and one could raise issues, if this bill passes, on the outcome of those primaries simply by invoking what the SAVE Act does, which is to question the validity of one's citizenship.
and chaos than Donald Trump. That is how he has operated as a businessman, as a candidate, and as an elected official. When the bogus suits on the 2020 election results that he and his surrogates filed failed in court after court—62 times—he fomented an insurrection on January 6, 2021, in an effort to cling to power illegitimately.
no to Trump and voted to certify the election, which means they acknowledge the fact that Trump won in 2020. Today, many of these colleagues are prepared to hand Trump powerful new tools to subvert free and fair elections. They know what Trump will do with this power, but they are willing to hand it to him anyway.
command, to “take over” elections and “nationalize the voting.” The SAVE Act is the vehicle for him to do that.
insurrection in which we all fled for safety off this floor, a man who has never accepted an electoral defeat even when the other candidate got more votes—all of a sudden genuinely cares about election integrity? Nobody should be fooled into thinking that.
securing the right to vote for all Americans—women, African Americans, and young people who could be called upon to fight and die for their country.
policies that would disqualify tens of millions of Americans from voting.
rights that we have seen under the Trump administration through partisan gerrymandering, which he insisted upon and which was unique— perhaps unprecedented historically—of a President asking to redistrict before the 10-year census window, the deadly insurrection of January 6, as I mentioned, and the subsequent mass pardons of those individuals who tried to overturn an election. Also looming in the background is the Supreme Court, which has gutted campaign finance laws, nullified key parts of the Voting Rights Act, and declined to prevent gerrymandering that has interfered with the bedrock principle of “one person, one vote.”
of Americans, and I cannot support any bill that makes it harder for law-abiding American citizens to vote.
“gotchas” that will stand between millions of voters and the ballot box.
their citizenship and by showing a government-issued photo identification card—usually a driver's license—showing that person listed on the voter rolls is the person who is actually casting the vote. The penalties for violating these requirements are severe. This has made the system simple and secure. Indeed, instances of voter fraud are so rare that calling them minuscule would be a gross overestimate.
citizenship in order to register to vote. That
can be accomplished only through either a U.S. passport or through a government-issued photo identification card plus a birth certificate with a name that matches what is on the photo ID.
Americans—those are 21 million people—don't have documents sufficient to prove their citizenship at this time, either a passport or a birth certificate that is readily available. Maybe they are at the home of another family member or are stored in a safety deposit box. And 4 million Americans don't have these documents available at all for many different reasons. Maybe they were lost, destroyed, or stolen. These millions of Americans are most at risk of being prevented from voting.
citizenship, but more than half of Americans—an estimated 150 million to 200 million citizens—do not have a passport, and to get one, you need to find your birth certificate and a government-issued photo ID, submit the paperwork, pay $165, and then wait a month for it to arrive, which would really bother someone who suddenly, in October, decides that they must vote, and they are legally entitled to do so but can't get a passport.
satisfy the requirement. This is a State-issued driver's license which complies with Federal security standards established after 9/11 to limit counterfeiting; and the SAVE Act does say that a REAL ID is acceptable. It says we will accept the REAL ID so long as it “indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States,” but that is a false premise.
REAL IDs do not indicate citizenship status. Even if the
federal laws for REAL ID were amended, the nearly 140 million
REAL IDs that have been issued over the last decade could not
be used as proof of citizenship.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the secretary of state of Rhode Island be printed in the Record.
State of Rhode Island, Department of State, Office of the
Secretary of State,
February 12, 2025.
Senators Reed and Whitehouse and Congressmen Amo and
Magaziner: I write to urge you to vote against the federa1
legislation known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility
(SAVE) Act should it come to a floor vote. Passage of this
Act would threaten one of the most core principles of our
democracy—our right to make our voices heard—by making
access to the ballot box more difficult for millions of
Americans. The SAVE Act is creating mistrust in our elections
and solving a problem that simply doesn't exist. The Act's
main objective is to require election officials to verify
proof of American citizenship at the time of voter
registration, positioned as a solution to the false notion
that non-citizens are voting in American elections in great
numbers.
This Act deviates from pro-voter and pro-democracy policies
that make it easier for people to cast a ballot by placing an
undue burden on voters. The law is already clear. The United
States Constitution, Rhode Island Constitution, and Rhode
Island General Laws all explicitly state that only eligible
United States citizens are permitted to vote in federal
elections. It is a felony for a non-US citizen to cast a
ballot in an American election.
Should the Act pass, the two most common ways an individual
would be able to prove their citizenship would be by
supplying a US passport or birth certificate. USA Today
reports that only 51% of Americans have a US passport, and
the Brennan Center indicates that nine percent of adults
(21.3 million people) don't have proof of citizenship readily
available. Additionally, millions of Americans, mainly
spouses who have changed their name after marriage, currently
have a different name than what is reflected on their birth
certificate.
Individuals who do not have the required documentation
would need to pay the associated fees to obtain those
documents. Currently, the cost is $165 for a Passport Book/
$65 for a Passport card. In the city of Providence, a birth
certificate costs $22. This is a clear violation of the 24th
Amendment to the United States Constitution, effectively
creating a poll tax in order for eligible citizens to
participate in an election. In addition to placing a monetary
burden on voters, this Act creates an unfunded mandate on
election officials. The Act provides no funding for changes
to voter registration systems and voter registration forms,
or resources for a robust education campaign to ensure voters
understand the dangerous changes this Act makes.
As a government by and for the people, it is imperative
that we work together to resist legislation that
disenfranchises our constituents and creates barriers for
voters and election officials. As Rhode Island's chief
elections official, I am available to provide any assistance
you may need in that effort. If you have any questions,
please contact Deputy Secretary of State Rob Rock.
Sincerely,
Gregg M. Amore.
Mr. REED. Now, in Texas, for example, to get a REAL ID, an applicant “must provide proof of lawful presence in the United States.” That is according to the instructions to form DL-53, which is the document the Texas Department of Public Safety uses to inform noncitizens of the documentation that they can use to get a REAL ID. Yes, that is correct. You don't need to be a citizen to get a REAL ID in Texas. For example, individuals seeking asylum are eligible for a Texas REAL ID if they provide “immigration documentation with an alien number.” So noncitizens who are ineligible to vote can still get REAL IDs. By the way, a REAL ID issued by Texas does not indicate the holder's country of citizenship. So, in Texas, having a REAL ID won't allow you to register to vote under the SAVE Act.
documents and register to vote in person, but that hasn't been the experience of my constituent who wrote me:
My wife is a native Rhode Islander. We just secured a
certified copy of her [Rhode Island] birth certificate from
the State Archives a few weeks ago—primarily to ensure that
she's able to vote in 2026 and beyond. The fact that we're
forced to think about obtaining certified birth certificates
as a precondition of voting is completely antithetical to our
actual right to vote.
you can't easily get to your town hall to fill in the gaps in your paperwork, if you are just too busy living your life, what are you to do? Faced with these barriers, you may just give up and not vote at all.
getting married. Their birth certificates do not reflect that change. While many of them have access to their original birth certificates, that alone would not be enough to register under the SAVE Act. They will also need to produce official documentation that their name has changed and matches what is on their current government-issued photo ID.
that together. This isn't just a barrier for recently married women who haven't gotten around to updating their papers. Women of all ages will be affected.
just proving her identity in order to get a REAL ID. And, mind you, a REAL ID is just a modern driver's license that doesn't even indicate citizenship status.
As a divorced woman it took me 3 visits to get my Real ID.
The first time I did not realize I needed my marriage
certificate. The second time, I brought the divorce decree
and it was not accepted. The third time, I had to go to the
town hall and have my marriage certificate made. This bill is
so damaging to the women of this country.
through not only to get a REAL ID but also to document their citizenship under the system established by the SAVE Act?
mother being turned away from the polls:
If the SAVE Act gets passed, my husband and I still have
the ability to vote. But my 85-year-old mother will not. She
does not have a passport and changed her name when she
married my father in 1964. Please do not let Trump do this to
our female voters.
These barriers aren't being faced just by women in blue States. They are being felt in red States too. Take Brandi Halladay from Utah— Senator Lee's home State. She wrote a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune on March 15:
When my 80-year-old mother moved to Utah, she needed to get
a new ID and register to vote. She had to show a birth
certificate, her marriage license to my father, her divorce
papers from my father (in which she kept his last name to
match that of her children) and then her marriage license to
her second husband.
This was the only way to trace the name on her birth
certificate to her current last name.
This took two trips to the DMV, which was not an easy task
for someone of her age who uses a walker, and she was
fortunate to have my help in tracking down the relevant
documents.
Now imagine trying to do this for a person who may have
moved frequently over the course of their lives and has lost
documents along the way. They will need to contact various
offices, possibly across many states and request the
appropriate documentation which may also require fees that
they may not be able to afford. And imagine someone working
two jobs while trying to raise a family needing to do this.
Now, my colleague from Utah has sought to minimize these burdens. He has pointed to text in the bill, specifically page 14, line 15, purporting to say that “if you don't have documentation, you don't have a problem” and that you can register “without a single additional document other than what you provide to the government in the form of a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.”
So if this is true, then what is the purpose of this bill? What the Senator from Utah described is basically the current system, at least in Rhode Island.
Mr. LEE. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. REED. I will not.
But this is not the way the bill works. If you review the specific page and line that Senator Lee has referenced, page 14, line 15, and just look a few lines further in that same direction—specifically page 15, line 6—the bill says that anyone submitting a sworn affidavit must also “submit such other evidence to the appropriate State or local official demonstrating that the applicant is a citizen of the United States and such official will make a determination as to whether the applicant has sufficiently established United States citizenship.”
file their own affidavit that “the applicant has sufficiently established United States' citizenship.” And if that official makes an improper determination, then he or she could be put in jail for 5 years. All I am doing is reading the words on the page that we are being asked to enact into law. I am trying to take a textualist approach and derive the original meaning.
this bill would inflict upon the 69 million women who have changed their names and the 21 million Americans without ready access to the papers, well, this exception wouldn't deliver them any relief at all. They still must show their papers—which exact ones, no one can say. It will be subject to the decision of the clerk who is attesting to it. Asking the clerk to risk 5 years in jail simply for permission to register to vote doesn't sound like much relief at all. It is another “gotcha.”
Second, young Americans in college will face issues at the polls. The 26th Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. This was a critical reform in the Vietnam war era that embodied a simple principle: If you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote. It is the height of hypocrisy to place barriers to vote in front of any American citizen who puts his life on the line to keep us safe.
sufficient to show at the polls when voting. But through the SAVE Act, that Rhode Island law would be invalidated; a college ID is not on the list of “valid photo identification” in the SAVE Act. And I will bet there are very few college-age students bringing their birth certificates with them to school. At their parents' rightful insistence, these documents are probably kept locked away at home. And very few college students go through the trouble of getting a local driver's license because they only are temporarily living where they attend school. So young Americans may disproportionately get turned away, maybe be denied the right to participate in civic life, even though they have so much riding on it.
are not theoretical or hypothetical. We have seen this play out very recently. In 2013, Kansas implemented a State version of the SAVE Act. According to the Associated Press, it was “one of the biggest political fiascos in the state in recent memory.” In other words, it was a total failure, and we are on the verge of replicating that failure nationwide. It was such a failure because over 30,000 Kansans— that is 12 percent of everyone seeking to register—saw their registration suspended or invalidated. Fortunately, in 2018, the court stepped in and invalidated the Kansas law before it could do more damage.
was trying to prevent noncitizens from voting. It turns out that this is a completely illusory problem. In Kansas, only three noncitizens registered to vote each year from 1999 through 2012. That is a total of 39—or 0.002 percent—of all registered voters. The court found that these were nominal cases, explained by administrative error and confusion. And of the 39, only 11 actually voted.
The law had acted as a deterrent to registration and voting
for substantially more eligible Kansans than it has prevented
ineligible voters from registering to vote. At least one
applicant testified that he opted not to apply to register to
vote again, despite possessing documentary proof of
citizenship, because of the burdensome experience of being
held in suspense and prevented from voting in 2014 due to the
law.
Based on this record, the magnitude of the burden on
unregistered eligible Kansas voters cannot be justified. The
evidence at trial demonstrated that the documentary proof of
citizenship law disproportionately impacts duly qualified
registration applicants, while only nominally preventing
noncitizen voter registration. It also may have the
inadvertent effect of eroding, instead of maintaining,
confidence in the electoral system.
13-year period, a total of 39 noncitizens were mistakenly added to the voting rolls. This unfortunate episode in Kansas is a cautionary tale for us here in Congress. We should learn from their mistake. We should be humbled by their mistake. And, more importantly, we should not repeat their mistake. In Kansas, it made no sense to punish 30,000 law- abiding American citizens who wanted to vote, just to prevent 11 noncitizens from voting.
to enforce existing Federal and State law, that only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote, with strong penalties for noncompliance. Under Federal law, it is a felony for noncitizens to vote. Section 1015 of title XVIII of the U.S. Code states that:
Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or claim that
he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to
vote or to vote in any Federal, State, or local election
(including an initiative, recall, or referendum) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The Rhode Island Constitution states, “Every citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen (18) years or over who has had residence and home in this state for thirty (30) days next preceding the time of voting, who has resided thirty (30) days in the town or city from which such citizen desires to vote” is eligible to vote.
attest to their U.S. citizenship. They must “swear or affirm that I am a U.S. citizen.” Then check a “yes” or “no” box for whether they are a citizen of the United States. They are warned on the registration form—a simple, one-page document—that “if you sign this form and know it to be false, you can be convicted and fined up to $5,000 or jailed for up to 10 years.” And then to vote in Rhode Island, all voters must show a valid photo ID.
These laws are enforced. They are an effective deterrent. They have made our elections safe and secure, and that is why noncitizen voting is so rare. According to Christine Stenning, the President of the League of Women Voters in Rhode Island, “There is no evidence that noncitizen voting has ever been significant enough to impact an election's outcome.”
aligned conservative think tank, found only 77 instances of noncitizen voting from 1999 until 2023, each of which was investigated by the authority. That is 77 out of hundreds of millions, maybe even more than a billion, votes cast during this time period. During the
indicted for voting without U.S. citizenship. In 2024, the numbers looked very similar. The top election official in Utah reviewed all 2.1 million registered voters and found just one “confirmed noncitizen” registered to vote, and that person never voted. In Idaho, officials found 36 “very likely” registered noncitizens, and not all of them voted. The secretary of state of Idaho said that “out of the million- plus registered voters we started with, we're down to 10 thousandths of a percent” of the overall count—“10 thousandths of a percent.”
2.9 million. Only 79 had voted in an election over the last several decades; in Montana, only 23 possible noncitizen registrants out of approximately 785,000; in Georgia, only 20 out of 8.2 million; in Maricopa County, AZ, only 2 out of 2.5 million.
should be punished for breaking the law, but we are talking about a handful of votes. We do not need a complete overhaul of our election system and to potentially strip millions of American citizens' voting rights when the evidence demonstrates that this purported issue is already addressed by current law.
famously conservative and Republican-leaning think tank, the results of these State investigations, in his words, “affirm what is simply common sense. People largely aren't willing to risk their status in the United States—the land of economic opportunity—for the ability to cast one more vote out of hundreds of thousands or millions in a state and hundreds of millions in the country.”
conservative views, similarly said about the SAVE Act:
Although Mr. Trump insists that voter fraud is endemic, his
big claims aren't backed by hard evidence. The President
recently said illegal aliens are voting in such huge numbers
that he won Minnesota three times.
Audits in a variety of places—Georgia, Michigan, Texas,
Utah, Idaho—have found noncitizen voting and registration to
be rare. Other states might be worse, but consider
incentives: Illegal immigrants who want to stay are trying to
be avoid being noticed by the authorities. Green card holders
have much to lose if they commit a crime. Prosecuting
violations is good for deterrence, and vigilance is
important.
lived in the same neighborhood for decades and, therefore, you have nothing to worry about if the SAVE Act were enacted—not so. Even if you have been registered for decades and voted without issue, you still should be worried about what the SAVE Act means for you. States would be required to report their full voter rolls to the Department of Homeland Security and certify that there are no noncitizens on their list. And the Federal Government can require then States to purge their voter rolls of any suspected noncitizens.
Think about it this way: The Department that maintains the “no fly” list, which often misidentifies people, will be now maintaining a no vote list. What could go wrong?
of citizenship on par with the SAVE Act. So how will the States be able to meet this new mandate and avoid voter purges? The short answer is: They can't—at least not easily. So there is a real risk that States will take a conservative approach to compliance and require all their voters to reregister with documentary proof of citizenship.
protecting voters who have already registered under the current system, so there is also a risk that Trump's DOJ could use authority under the SAVE Act to find a State's entire voter rollout of compliance with the “documentary proof” of citizenship requirement.
Consider those 30,000 U.S. citizens in Kansas who were in the exact same boat and were denied the ability to register to vote. If you can't furnish the required documentation or you are busy and miss the window to reregister, well, you simply won't be able to vote in the 2026 election and maybe beyond that.
Government database. According to the Campaign Legal Center, “this is a plain attempt to bully states into sharing voters' sensitive personal information with the Federal Government. Making matters worse, the SAVE America Act places no restrictions on what the Federal government can do with the sensitive data once DHS receives it.”
Nation's adults. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has said that “DHS's desire to turn the SAVE program into a de facto national citizen registry raises significant civil liberties concerns.”
invasion of privacy is worth it. I do not personally believe that it is.
foreign governments to steal America's most sensitive personal information.
Again, this is not a theoretical concern. A whistleblower report from last week alleged that a former DOGE representative with “God-level access” to Social Security Administration servers copied data onto a thumb drive and planned to share it with a private employer.
The data allegedly included the “Numident” and the “Master Death File” containing more than 500 million living and dead Americans, including Social Security numbers, places and dates of birth, citizenship, race and ethnicity, and parents' names.
careless with classified information, from then-former President Trump taking documents with security classification markings to Mar-a-Lago and storing them in his bathroom to the current Secretary of Defense sharing military strike plans via Signal with a journalist.
been a target of a data breach targeting over 22 million records involving security clearances in which Social Security numbers, names, dates and places of birth, and addresses were exfiltrated by hackers working on behalf of the Chinese Government.
General Bondi to keep the personal information of the 200 million registered voters safe. Would you trust them with your name, address, date of birth, driver's license number, and biometric information like height, weight, hair color, and eye color? The SAVE Act asks you to place that trust in them. I personally would not.
Government. It reveals another fatal flaw in the bill which, again, replicates mistakes and the problems with the Kansas law. It is this centralization that makes the SAVE Act, in my view, unconstitutional.
Article I, section 4 of the Constitution reads:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the
Places of choosing Senators.
administration. It says the Congress place a role in election administration. It does not say anything about the Executive branch playing a role in election administration. And yet that is exactly what the SAVE Act would do. It gives DOJ and DHS, which are part of the Executive branch, immense power to determine the sufficiency of State voter registration laws and then to mess around with State procedures to actually conduct elections.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page said March 18 that:
The decentralized nature of American elections is a source
of resilience, and Republicans rightly opposed President
Biden's attempt to federalize voting rules on the lax
California model. Have they given up federalist principles?
Well, it appears they have.
constitutional requirement is met, but we have seen daily this administration ignore Congress, ignore the law, and ignore the Constitution. This will be a pass for President Trump to exploit the elections that are before us.
ink is dry with President Trump's signature. And before the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in, there will be litigation in district courts and the appellate courts across the country.
SAVE Act will almost certainly not be resolved before the 2026 election—possibly not even until the 2028 election. In the meantime, there will be mass confusion about the rules that govern those elections.
And the 2026 elections, as I said, are already underway. At least six States have already had their primary elections. If the rules suddenly change or there are mass purges of the voter rolls between the primary elections and the general elections, then that will undermine the integrity of the election far more than the illusory problem of noncitizen voting.
unfunded mandates and burdens that will be placed on the States if this law is enacted.
government would need to change its voter systems and forms. It may need to purchase new voting machines and equipment, and it would need to pursue a significant public outreach campaign to educate voters about changes in the law. But the SAVE Act provides zero dollars to cover these costs. States and localities will need to cover this unfunded mandate, and that means higher taxes or more debt.
under the SAVE Act to essentially eliminate registration by mail and online. Under current law, any Rhode Islander can print and then fill out a voter registration form, get their signature notarized, and mail it to their town hall or they can complete the process entirely online—they can do it entirely online. The SAVE Act requires anyone who registers by mail to also present documentary proof of citizenship in person at the election office by the registration deadline. While the election is silent about online registration, I am assuming the same rule applies.
to go in person to show their proof of citizenship, which means that this process of mail-in registration will be practically eliminated.
is to make voting easier for American citizens, not to give my constituents yet another headache, place additional demands on their time, and impose, frankly, ridiculous government mandates—especially when it comes to exercising their fundamental rights to vote.
photo ID to present at the polls when voting. Rhode Island law permits voters at the polls to verify their registration and identity through ID cards that are issued by educational institutions and government- issued medical cards. The SAVE Act would not permit these cards.
accompanied by a birth certificate, Social Security card, or government-issued medical card. The SAVE Act does not permit nonphoto IDs to vote under any circumstances.
simple voter ID law. If it were, then the very sensible procedures currently used in Rhode Island would be acceptable. They have been in operation since 2012 without any issues. And yet, my Republican colleagues would meddle in them for no discernible and compelling reason.
and purge anyone suspected of being a noncitizen within 30 days of enactment and then on an ongoing basis. The State must submit its voter rolls to the DHS “SAVE” system to identify noncitizens and then purge them from its rolls. Anyone identified as a noncitizen who believes that is a mistake must meet the new documentary proof of citizenship requirement and reregister.
alike—are actively litigating with DOJ to rebuff the Federal Government's attempts to obtain its voter rolls. DOJ hasn't even said why it wants this information. Nobody should believe it is for any legitimate purpose.
end this litigation against the States' interests. DOJ should be defending what it is doing in court, not coming to Congress for a bailout, nor should we give them a bailout.
This meddling by the Federal Government is completely unnecessary. Rhode Island already undergoes regular voter maintenance efforts. A statewide voter mailing in 2020 ultimately resulted in 60,619 inactive voter registrations being removed from the State's voter list. Since 2023, election officials in Rhode Island have removed 107,738 voters from the voter lists through maintenance and processes.
latest effort to ensure the State's rolls are accurate. The government mailed every single registered voter in the State asking them to review the information in their voter record and update any inaccurate or outdated information.
agreements to identify potential instances of election fraud through the Electronic Registration Information Center or ERIC, which 25 States use for voter list maintenance and identification of potential instances of election fraud. Our States are constantly and actively determining that their rolls do not contain people ineligible to vote.
Federal mandates. The State, as I indicated, must conduct a marketing campaign to ensure that Rhode Islanders are aware of the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship to register. The State must notify every person who registers by mail of the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship prior to voting. The State must change its registration forms and its signage at the polls. As noted above, the State must review its entire voter rolls for citizen status.
voting is punishable by 10 years in prison and where everyone must show ID at the polls—would need to radically overhaul its voting system and pass those costs on to the taxpayers in order to meet new Federal mandates.
and require what is effectively a national ID, while ignoring current law that already makes it a serious crime for noncitizens to vote. That is a raw deal to fix a nonexistent problem.
prevents fraud and replace it with one that makes it harder for American citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
So why are they doing this? The real reason, in my view, is to support Trump's Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen, even though he lost by 7 million votes and even though 46 of my Republican colleagues voted to certify the election.
insatiable desire for power—power that he is using to take revenge on his political enemies and reward his political allies; power that he is using to personally enrich himself and his cronies through corrupt business deals, while he leaves the American people holding the bag through his tariffs; power that he is using to no longer provide Medicaid to children and seniors, while funding yet another “forever war” in the Middle East; and power that he is using to remain above the law, immune from prosecution, based on a sweeping Supreme Court ruling that he is protected so long as he is President.
Let's examine the record of how Trump is executing this power grab. It is systemic. It began on day one, and this is a component of that effort.
or CISA, which is part of the