Four Senate Republicans Again Block Trump's SAVE America Act Alongside Democrats

For the third time in three months, President Donald Trump's signature election legislation crashed into the same wall on June 4, 2026: four members of his own party. Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined every Senate Democrat to defeat an amendment attaching the SAVE America Act to a $70 billion immigration enforcement package. The vote was 48–50 [1][2].

The result was not close. Republicans could not muster even a simple majority, let alone the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles. The bill — which Trump has called legislation that "supersedes everything else" — now sits in legislative limbo, fueling a confrontation between the White House and a small but immovable faction of Senate Republicans over federalism, electoral strategy, and the future of the filibuster [3].

What the SAVE America Act Would Do

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, known as the SAVE America Act (H.R. 22), passed the House in February 2026 on a near party-line vote [4]. It would make several major changes to federal election law:

• Documentary proof of citizenship: Voters would be required to present a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or other certified citizenship document when registering to vote in federal elections. This would effectively eliminate most online and mail-in voter registration [5][6].
• Photo ID at the polls: Voters would need to show a government-issued photo ID each time they cast a ballot [4].
• Voter roll purges: States would be required to submit their voter registration lists to the Department of Homeland Security's SAVE database — a system designed for immigration benefit verification — to check registrants' citizenship status. Any registrant flagged as a non-citizen would be removed [5][7].
• Ballot counting deadline: All ballots would need to be counted within 36 hours of Election Day [1].
• Private right of action: Citizens could sue any election official who registers someone who failed to provide documentary proof of citizenship [5].

Supporters describe the bill as common-sense protection against non-citizen voting. Critics call it the most restrictive voting legislation ever considered by Congress, one that would create barriers for millions of eligible American citizens who lack ready access to passports or birth certificates [7][8].

How It Compares to Existing Law

Federal law already prohibits non-citizens from voting in federal elections, a provision enforced with criminal penalties including fines and deportation [9]. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 requires voter registration applicants to attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 requires states to verify identity through a driver's license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number [10].

The SAVE America Act goes substantially further. Where HAVA permits election officials to use DHS databases voluntarily, the SAVE Act would make such checks mandatory. Where the NVRA requires only a sworn attestation, the SAVE Act demands physical documentary proof presented in person. A Congressional Research Service analysis noted that the bill would "amend the NVRA to establish additional requirements for states concerning voter ID verification during registration and voting" [10].

This distinction matters because roughly 21 million American citizens lack a current passport, and millions more do not have easy access to a certified copy of their birth certificate — disproportionately affecting elderly, low-income, and minority voters [7][8].

The Vote Timeline

The SAVE America Act's Senate journey has been marked by repeated defeats:

March 25, 2026: The Senate voted 51–48 on a procedural motion to begin debate on the bill. This cleared an initial hurdle using a simple majority, but advancing past debate to a final vote still required 60 votes under filibuster rules [11].

April 22, 2026: Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) forced a vote during late-night debate on a DHS reconciliation bill, attempting to insert key provisions of the SAVE Act. The amendment failed 48–50, with Collins, Murkowski, McConnell, and Tillis voting no [12][2].

June 4, 2026: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) offered a nearly identical amendment to a $70 billion immigration enforcement package. It failed again, 48–50, with the same four Republicans in opposition [1][2].

Source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes

Data as of Jun 5, 2026CSV

Each attempt used a different legislative vehicle, but the outcome was identical. Graham argued, "There's no other reason to say you don't have to have an ID. It just makes cheating easier" [1]. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) countered: "Current safeguards are working. And yes, it is already unlawful for non-citizens to vote" [1].

Why the Four Republicans Object

The four dissenters share a broad concern about federal overreach into state election administration, but their specific motivations differ.

Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) has been the most vocal. She argued on the Senate floor that the Republican Party "has long purported to be against federal mandates for states when it comes to their elections" and that the SAVE Act contradicts that principle [3]. She also warned that Trump may be "setting himself up to falsely claim the 2026 elections were 'rigged'" if the bill fails and Republicans lose seats — echoing his rhetoric after the 2020 election [3].

Thom Tillis (North Carolina) focused on political math. "There's a 0% chance of this succeeding," he stated, noting the 60-vote threshold and unanimous Democratic opposition [3]. Tillis warned that forcing floor votes on the SAVE Act exposes vulnerable Republican incumbents — including Collins — to difficult votes on Democratic counter-amendments that could become campaign attack ads [3].

Susan Collins (Maine) has said she supports the concept of voter ID but rejected the specific legislative language in the Kennedy and Graham amendments [1]. Collins faces reelection in 2026 in a state Trump lost by seven points, making her the most electorally vulnerable of the four [13]. She is also the incoming chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a position that rewards bipartisan dealmaking [13].

Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) has not given extensive public explanations, but his opposition aligns with his long-standing defense of the filibuster as an institution. McConnell is retiring and has no electoral incentive to comply with White House pressure [13]. His vote can be read as a final act of institutional preservation by the Senate's most consequential modern leader.

The Evidence on Non-Citizen Voting

The SAVE America Act is premised on the idea that non-citizen voting threatens election integrity. The available evidence does not support this premise as a significant problem.

A 2016 Brennan Center survey of 44 election administrators overseeing 23.5 million votes found only 30 suspected incidents of non-citizen voting — representing 0.0001 percent of votes cast [14]. State-level investigations have produced similarly small numbers: Ohio found 44 non-citizens voted over 15 years out of 3.26 million ballots per cycle (0.00000135 percent), and Nevada found 3 non-citizens among 1.1 million ballots (0.0003 percent) [14].

Source: Brennan Center for Justice

Data as of Jan 1, 2026CSV

A 2014 academic study by Richman, Chattha, and Earnest estimated higher rates, but the study's methodology was challenged by multiple researchers, with one dataset author calling it "irresponsible social science." Richman himself subsequently revised his national estimate to under 1 percent registration and 0.5 percent participation [14][15]. The Heritage Foundation, which actively tracks voter fraud cases, has documented approximately 100 instances of non-citizen voter fraud since 2000. With 1.5 billion ballots cast in federal elections during that period, those cases represent 0.000007 percent of all votes [8].

Proponents argue that even rare fraud justifies preventive measures. Opponents counter that the proposed cure — adding documentation requirements that millions of eligible citizens cannot easily meet — is disproportionate to a problem measured in fractions of fractions of a percent.

The Federalism Argument

The constitutional case against the SAVE America Act draws on the Elections Clause (Article I, Section 4), which gives states primary authority to set the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections," with Congress retaining a backup power to "make or alter such Regulations." Historically, Congress has used this power sparingly and with deference to state systems [10][16].

The Brennan Center for Justice has argued the SAVE Act represents an unprecedented "election power grab," noting it would "take a sledgehammer to the balance Congress struck" in existing legislation like the NVRA and HAVA [16]. The bill would force every state to overhaul its voter registration infrastructure, regardless of whether that state has identified any problem with non-citizen voting.

Several conservative federalism advocates have echoed this concern. The argument is not that voter ID is inherently wrong, but that imposing a uniform federal requirement — complete with mandatory DHS database checks and private lawsuits against local officials — violates the principle that states are the primary laboratories of election administration. Many of the dissenters' home states already have voter ID laws in place; Alaska, North Carolina, and Maine all have some form of identification requirement at the polls [17].

This creates an ironic dynamic: Republicans who built careers opposing federal mandates on health care, education, and environmental policy are being asked to support a federal mandate on the one area — elections — where the Constitution most explicitly reserves power to the states.

Trump's Counter-Offensive

Trump has not accepted defeat quietly. After the June 4 vote, he renewed his call to "terminate" the legislative filibuster, posting on Truth Social that Republicans need to "get smart and tough" or "you'll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!" [18].

Earlier, in March, Trump posted: "Kill the Filibuster, and stay in D.C. for Easter, if necessary." He also urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to "clearly identify those few 'Republicans' that are Voting against AMERICA. They will never be elected again!" — an implicit threat of primary challenges [19].

Thune has resisted. "We don't have 51 votes for that in the United States Senate," he told Fox News, adding: "I'm the one who has to be the clear-eyed realist about what we can achieve here" [3][19]. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed a middle path: reverting to a "talking filibuster" that would require opponents to physically hold the floor rather than simply filing a procedural objection. That idea has not gained traction [19].

What Comes Next

With the SAVE Act stalled, several paths remain:

Reconciliation: Republican leaders could attempt to include voter ID provisions in a future budget reconciliation bill, which requires only 50 votes. But reconciliation bills must relate to federal spending and revenue, and the Senate parliamentarian — the nonpartisan arbiter of reconciliation rules — could rule that election administration provisions are not germane. The Byrd Rule, which governs what can be included in reconciliation, has historically been interpreted to exclude policy changes that do not directly affect the budget [12].

Executive action: Trump could issue executive orders directing federal agencies to share citizenship data with state election officials or to condition federal election funding on ID requirements. Such orders would face immediate legal challenges and uncertain enforcement [18].

State-level legislation: Multiple states have already begun passing their own versions of the SAVE Act's provisions. In 2026, at least a dozen states have introduced bills requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, with several modeled directly on the federal legislation [17]. This patchwork approach would achieve some of the bill's goals without federal legislation but would not create the nationwide standard Trump seeks.

Primary threats: Trump's rhetoric about identifying senators "voting against AMERICA" signals the possibility of backing primary challengers. But the math is unfavorable: McConnell and Tillis are retiring, Murkowski won reelection in 2022 as a write-in candidate after losing her party primary, and Collins represents a state where Trump is deeply unpopular [13][19].

Representative Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) introduced a separate REAL ID–linked bill on June 4 as an alternative pathway, though its prospects remain unclear [2].

The Broader Stakes

The SAVE America Act fight is about more than voter ID. It is a proxy battle over three larger questions in Republican politics.

First, the balance between populist loyalty to Trump and institutional conservatism. McConnell, Collins, Murkowski, and Tillis represent the latter tradition — one that values Senate procedure, state sovereignty, and incremental governance over executive demands for rapid action.

Second, the future of the filibuster. If Trump succeeds in pressuring enough Republicans to eliminate the 60-vote threshold, it would transform the Senate into a majority-rule body for all legislation, a change that would benefit whichever party holds power but strip the minority of its primary lever of influence. Republicans who remember being in the minority as recently as 2021–2023 are wary of that trade [19].

Third, the question of whether election policy should be federalized. The United States has always run elections through a decentralized patchwork of state and county systems. The SAVE Act would impose the most significant federal intervention in state election administration since the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — but this time, the intervention comes from the right rather than the left [16].

For now, four Republicans have decided that the costs of that intervention outweigh its benefits. Whether they can sustain that position through an election year — with a president who views their opposition as betrayal — remains an open question.