Republicans Demand Inclusion Of SAVE Act In DHS Funding Bill – What To Know

Authored by Joseph Lord & Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

After President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed a government funding measure to end a partial government shutdown, funding clashes still lie ahead—this time, centered entirely around the contents of a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington on Feb. 4, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Republicans are escalating their calls to include the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—a bill intended to require voter ID and reduce voter fraud in federal elections—in the final funding package for DHS.

Trump has expressed support for the measure, calling for voter ID laws to be included in the package.

The president has also called for the federal government to “nationalize” or “take over” elections if states cannot run them “legally and honestly.”

Later, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that those comments were an endorsement of passing the SAVE Act.

Senate Democrats—who have demanded sweeping reforms to DHS and its subsidiary Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a condition for their support of the funding legislation—have described this as a non-starter in the upper chamber.

The funding bill signed by Trump finalizes full-year funding for 96 percent of the government, leaving all executive departments except DHS funded until Sept. 30. The funding for DHS, meanwhile, is set to run out on Feb. 13.

The DHS bill was separated from a larger tranche of spending bills after Democrats refused to support it in the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis.

Any bill will need 60 votes to clear the Senate—though some House Republicans are calling for weakening or changing the rules around the Senate mechanism to more easily pass the bill.

With both sides digging in on their positions and no clear resolution in sight, the stage is set for a long week in Washington. Here’s what to know.

What Is the SAVE Act?

The SAVE Act was introduced and championed by Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), its original sponsor, and other congressional Republicans several times in recent years.

Most recently, the legislation was reintroduced by Roy and passed the House in April 2025. However, it has stalled in a Senate committee.

The bill’s purpose, according to its introduction, is “to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office.”

The bill lists several acceptable documents to verify the citizenship of a would-be voter, including a REAL ID compliant identification, a U.S. passport, a military ID card, or any valid state, federal, or tribal identification, such as a birth certificate, hospital record, or adoption certificate, showing that the individual was born in, or is a naturalized citizen of, the United States.

Roy and other proponents of the legislation say that it’s necessary to respond to a 2013 decision in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, which found that federal law limiting ID requirements supersedes existing state laws requiring documentary proof to vote—effectively banning states from imposing such requirements for federal voter registration.

House Republicans’ Demands

Conservative House Republicans are leading calls to pass the legislation as a condition of their support for any DHS bill negotiated by Senate Democrats.

Ahead of—and during—the vote to pass the funding measure to end the partial shutdown, there were signs that the issue was becoming a redline for several members of the House Republican conference.

Before the House Rules Committee vote, there were questions about how Roy and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) would vote, as both have called for the SAVE Act’s inclusion in the legislation.

Reps. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) had indicated before the floor vote that they were considering how they would vote due to the issue. Ultimately, the two were persuaded to support the measure to end the partial shutdown but have continued to call for the SAVE Act’s inclusion in the final package.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) voted against the procedural motion to advance to a floor vote after an amendment to include the legislation failed to pass. Massie ultimately opposed final passage.

During the procedural vote, Rep. John Rose (R-Tenn.) joined Massie in blocking passage for nearly an hour over the issue before switching his vote.

The powerful Republican Study Committee (RSC) in the House has called for the bill’s passage.

“American elections should be fair and free, not subject to foreign influence. Illegal aliens have no right to be in America, and they certainly shouldn’t be voting,” said Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, who’s leading the RSC’s push to pass the bill.

“House Republicans are united behind the SAVE Act. I urge my Senate colleagues to pass this legislation and get it to President Trump’s desk for his signature.”

Schumer Says Measure Is DOA

Democrats have indicated that the inclusion of any such measure would make the bill dead on arrival in the Senate.

“The SAVE Act would impose Jim Crow type laws to the entire country and is dead on arrival in the Senate,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to.

“If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package, it will lead to another prolonged Trump government shutdown.”

Schumer said the legislation would “suppress voters,” and that it “seeks to disenfranchise millions of American citizens, seize control of our elections, and fan the flames of election skepticism and denialism.”

The New York lawmaker vowed that Democrats would “go all out to defeat the SAVE Act.”

Whether as part of the DHS funding bill or as a standalone item, the SAVE Act would require the support of at least seven Senate Democrats to clear the upper chamber—support that Democrats have made clear they won’t provide.

What’s Next?

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has promised a vote on the legislation in the Senate, though he didn’t say whether that would be a standalone vote or when it might be held.

“We will get a vote on the SAVE Act at some point,” Thune told reporters at a Tuesday press conference. “I’m not sure exactly what that context will be. Maybe it’s in the context of voting on the DHS bill if something’s agreed upon, but there will be at some point a vote on the SAVE Act.”

As it stands, Congress appears to be at an impasse, with both sides entrenching their position.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a leader of GOP negotiations on the funding bill, had little to say about how negotiations currently stand as she left an initial meeting with Senate Democrats on Wednesday.

She told reporters that lawmakers will “need a little bit more time” to “figure out a pathway forward.”

Britt added that Republicans, including Trump, were working in good faith and said that Democratic lawmakers were as well.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a crucial swing vote, was pessimistic when asked about the prospects of a deal being reached before the Feb. 13 deadline.

“It’s really hard, because the time that we’ve given ourselves, this window, it’s so short,” Murkowski told The Epoch Times.

She added that a deal being reached before the deadline is “not impossible, but you’ve got to have willingness on both sides, and you’ve got to have the President really leaning in on these negotiations.”

With no clear way forward in sight, some Republicans—most prominently Luna—have called for the Senate to resurrect the “standing filibuster.”

In contrast to the filibuster system of recent years—handled largely by the use of a procedural cloture vote requiring 60 members’ consent to overcome—the standing filibuster requires members to consistently speak on the Senate floor to continue debate.

Some Republicans have indicated skepticism about such a change.

Asked about Luna’s proposal, Murkowski told The Epoch Times, “That’s not constructive,” saying that such tactics would undermine a “message of optimism” and hope for a bipartisan solution.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) also said he’s broadly opposed to the push.

“​​I’m not really for changing the filibuster, but I am definitely for the SAVE Act,” Paul told The Epoch Times.

*  *  *

Please consider supporting ZeroHedge with the purchase of a hat or multitool.