🚨 BREAKING: GOP Sen Pushes SAVE Act After Report Finds 30,000 Noncitizens Registered To Vote
With voters already casting ballots for November’s midterm elections, pressure is building within the Republican Party to advance more of President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda.
One Republican senator is publicly urging Senate leadership to act more quickly, arguing that there is little time left to deliver on several key priorities before lawmakers leave Washington for the campaign season.
Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act after a Reuters investigation revealed that over 30,000 self-declared noncitizens were added to U.S. voter rolls across 11 states since 2000.
The report cited software glitches and clerical errors, which were often linked to automated vehicle registration.
While the investigation noted it was unclear how many actually voted, recent state data from New Jersey showed fewer than 400 ballots cast among 6,600 mistakenly registered noncitizens.
Speaking on the Senate floor on Thursday, Lee argued that existing bans on noncitizen voting are virtually impossible to enforce because systems rely on an “honor system” of self-attestation.
“It should not be any easier for someone to get away with voter fraud at a polling location… than it is to cheat Olive Garden through its never-ending pasta pass,” Lee said.
The House-passed SAVE America Act, backed by President Trump, would require voters to present documentary proof of citizenship to register, but the bill remains stalled in the Senate amid debate over whether strict requirements could inadvertently disenfranchise eligible citizens.
Republicans have 50 votes, but it would require 60 to pass in the U.S. Senate.
Vice President JD Vance says the Trump administration has explored an unusual Senate procedural maneuver that could help advance the SAVE America Act but acknowledged that a small group of Republican senators remains an obstacle.
Speaking on Newsmax’s “Carl Higbie FRONTLINE” recently, Vance said the White House has examined whether he could use his constitutional position as president of the Senate to preside over the chamber and issue a ruling contrary to the advice of the Senate parliamentarian.
“So, we’ve actually looked into this. As the president of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution, there are things that we can do,” Vance said.
“We can take over the Senate chair. I can occupy the chair. We can overrule the parliamentarian. Those things are very possible.”
The parliamentarian advises the Senate’s presiding officer on the chamber’s rules and precedents but does not issue binding rulings on its own.
The presiding officer generally follows that advice when ruling on procedural questions. Senators can then appeal many of the chair’s rulings, allowing the full Senate to decide whether the decision should stand.
Depending on the procedural question involved, a simple majority often decides such appeals, although certain budget-related points of order require a higher threshold.
Vance said the administration’s problem is determining whether enough Republican senators would support such a move.
“The fundamental issue with that is not the 60-vote threshold. It’s the 50-vote threshold,” Vance said. “So if, for example, I took over the Senate chair, and I overruled the parliamentarian, we would need to sustain 50 senators plus me.”
Vance said President Donald Trump, White House officials, and congressional Republicans have been discussing whether they could assemble sufficient support.
“Obviously, most Republicans would support it,” Vance said. “But could we get 50? That’s the big question.”
Republicans currently control the Senate, but the SAVE America Act has repeatedly encountered procedural obstacles because most legislation remains subject to the chamber’s 60-vote threshold for ending a filibuster.
The House passed the legislation 218-213 on Feb. 11, with nearly all Republicans supporting it and all but one Democrat opposing it.
The measure would require applicants registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
It would also establish a federal photo-identification requirement for voting and direct states to take additional steps to identify and remove noncitizens from their voter rolls.
Supporters argue that the requirements would strengthen election safeguards and public confidence in federal elections.
Republicans have considered several ways of advancing the bill without obtaining 60 votes.
NO SURRENDER — Ilhan Omar Fires Back at Donald Trump After Federal Agents Search Her Home
Ilhan Omar is refusing to back down after federal agents searched her Washington, D.C., home in a criminal investigation—an extraordinary development that has reignited her long-running confrontation with Donald Trump just weeks before the midterm elections.
The Minnesota Democrat responded with a defiant message: “I will not be silenced.” She accused the Trump administration of using federal law enforcement to target political opponents and described the search as another escalation in what she called a decade-long campaign of intimidation.
The statement immediately raised the political stakes. Omar is not simply disputing the circumstances surrounding the search; she is challenging the administration’s conduct and demanding that the public examine why federal agents took such a consequential step so close to an election.
But the central questions remain unresolved: What exactly are investigators looking for, what evidence supports the inquiry, and will the search trigger a broader confrontation between congressional Democrats and the Trump administration?
‘I Will Not Be Silenced’: Omar’s Defiant Response
On October 12, after news of the search emerged, Omar posted a response on social media that began with a brief reassurance: “I’m ok.”
She then delivered a much sharper political message, accusing the administration of targeting political enemies and weaponizing federal law enforcement.
“For ten years, Trump has targeted me with baseless lies and smear campaigns,” Omar wrote, describing the search as the latest escalation in what she characterized as political intimidation. She ended with a declaration that quickly became the defining line of her response: “I will not be silenced.”
Her congressional office issued a separate statement calling the search an “outrageous abuse of power” and an “unprecedented escalation” in the use of federal law enforcement against political opponents. The statement said Omar had done nothing wrong and argued that no president should be able to use the federal government to intimidate political adversaries.
Those are Omar’s allegations and her office’s position. The search itself was carried out under a judicially authorized warrant, according to the Justice Department. Whether investigators uncover evidence of wrongdoing—and whether the search was justified by the facts of the case—remains to be established.
What Happened at Omar’s Washington Home?
Federal agents with Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, searched Omar’s Washington residence early Monday, October 12.
The Justice Department confirmed that agents executed a search warrant authorized by a court as part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation. Officials did not publicly disclose a complete account of the evidence being sought or all the details of the inquiry.
Reporting by CBS News and The Washington Post indicated that investigators were examining immigration paperwork dating back to Omar’s childhood. The documents reportedly involved paperwork completed by her late father when the family came to the United States as refugees from Somalia.
The details remain limited, and the reported focus of the investigation should not be confused with a finding of guilt. A search warrant authorizes investigators to look for specified evidence; it does not establish that the person whose home is searched committed a crime.
Omar has repeatedly rejected allegations against her and portrayed the renewed scrutiny as politically motivated. Her office’s statement following the search reiterated that she had done nothing wrong.
As of the latest reports, authorities had not publicly laid out a complete evidentiary case against the congresswoman. That leaves a critical distinction at the center of the story: the investigation is real, but its ultimate findings are not yet known.
Why the Timing Has Become a Political Flashpoint
The search took place less than a month before the November midterm elections, when control of Congress is at stake. That timing has intensified questions from Democrats about whether the action could influence the political environment surrounding Omar’s reelection campaign.
House Judiciary Committee Democrats raised concerns about the search, while senior Democratic leaders condemned the action and questioned the use of federal power against a sitting member of Congress so close to an election.
The criticism centers on more than Omar’s personal dispute with Trump. It touches on a broader principle: federal law enforcement must be able to investigate potential crimes, but its decisions should be grounded in evidence and applied without improper political influence.
The Justice Department has confirmed the existence of a court-authorized search but has not publicly provided a full explanation of the investigative rationale. Without that information, it is not possible to establish from the public record alone whether the timing was politically motivated or driven by investigative necessities.
That uncertainty is likely to keep the controversy alive. Democrats are demanding answers about the decision and its timing, while the investigation itself remains ongoing.
A Long-Running Clash Between Omar and Trump
Omar has been one of Trump’s most prominent congressional critics. Their political conflict has repeatedly drawn national attention, with disputes involving immigration, national identity, federal enforcement and the congresswoman’s background.
Trump has frequently criticized Omar in public, while Omar has accused him of spreading false claims and using inflammatory rhetoric against her and the Somali American community.
In the days before the search, Omar had also criticized Trump’s rhetoric about Somali Americans. The latest federal action therefore arrived against the backdrop of an already bitter political relationship—not in isolation.
Still, a history of public hostility does not by itself prove that a federal investigation was politically directed. Establishing improper interference would require evidence about how the investigation was initiated, authorized and conducted.
That distinction matters because the controversy involves two separate questions: whether investigators have a legitimate basis to pursue the case, and whether the administration has handled the matter in a politically appropriate way.
Both questions deserve scrutiny, but neither should be treated as settled before the relevant evidence is available.
Democrats Demand Answers as the Investigation Continues
Omar’s response has been echoed by Democratic colleagues who say the search raises serious concerns about the use of federal power. Some have called for accountability and greater transparency about the investigation.
Their criticism is also shaped by the election calendar. A federal search involving a sitting member of Congress in the final weeks before voters head to the polls is certain to draw heightened political attention, even when authorities have a judicial warrant.
The administration’s position and the investigators’ evidence will be crucial to determining how the controversy develops. If officials disclose a clear evidentiary basis for the search, that information will help the public evaluate the government’s actions. If significant questions remain unanswered, pressure for congressional oversight may intensify.
For now, the public has only a partial picture of the investigation. Officials have confirmed a court-authorized search, but have not disclosed all the evidence or publicly established that Omar committed a crime.
What Happens Next for Ilhan Omar?
The immediate questions are whether investigators will release additional information, whether Omar or her representatives will provide further details, and whether congressional leaders will seek formal oversight of the search.
Omar has made her own position unmistakable: she intends to continue speaking out and views the search as an attempt to intimidate a political opponent. The Trump administration’s critics have embraced that interpretation, while the legal justification for the search must ultimately be evaluated through the evidence and applicable law.
The coming days could bring more details about the investigation, new statements from lawmakers and further debate over the role of federal law enforcement during an election season.
For now, the most defensible conclusion is also the most consequential: a federal search has triggered a major political confrontation, Omar has publicly challenged the administration’s motives, and key questions about the investigation remain unanswered.
Her “I will not be silenced” declaration has become a rallying cry for her response. Whether the dispute grows into a wider congressional battle will depend on what investigators reveal next—and whether the government can explain its actions in a way that withstands public and legal scrutiny.
