Vance Says Trump Team Wargamed Maneuver To Pass SAVE Act
Vice President JD Vance says he and President Donald Trump have exhaustively explored ways to push the SAVE America Act through the Senate, including a confrontation over the chamber’s procedural rules. The obstacle, he argues, is that Republicans lack the unity to make those tactics succeed.
In an interview with Vince Coglianese released Tuesday, Vance described discussions about personally taking the presiding officer’s chair and removing the Senate parliamentarian as part of an effort to advance the election legislation.
But even an aggressive procedural move would fail, he said, if Republican senators joined Democrats to overturn it.
“Four, five, maybe ten” Republicans could break ranks, according to Vance’s assessment.
The vice president’s comments put the dispute squarely on elected senators rather than the unelected official who advises the chamber on its rules. Removing the parliamentarian, he argued, would accomplish little without enough Republicans willing to sustain the next steps.
“There is no shortcut,” Vance said.
The SAVE America Act is a priority for Trump and supporters who argue that federal elections should have stronger safeguards against noncitizen participation.
The proposal would require proof of citizenship and valid identification before registering to vote in federal elections. It would also restrict mail-in ballots while preserving exceptions for illness, disability, military service and travel.
Supporters present those provisions as protections for the principle that American citizens should decide American elections. The legislation has nevertheless stalled amid resistance from Democrats and some Republicans.
Vance said he and Trump had “obsessively” examined possible routes through the Senate.
Among the options discussed was a floor confrontation in which Vance would assume the chair and seek to remove the parliamentarian. He asserted that he had the authority to take that step, but said a sufficient number of Republican defections could allow Democrats to defeat the maneuver.
His broader argument was that a united bloc of 50 Republican senators, acting with the vice president, could pursue major procedural changes.
Under the scenario Vance described, that alignment could remove the parliamentarian, eliminate the filibuster and pass the SAVE America Act, along with other legislation.
The problem, he said, is that the necessary alignment does not exist.
“We have wargamed this to every detail,” Vance said, explaining that he had wanted to move forward months earlier.
Those discussions ultimately led to the conclusion that an immediate confrontation would not deliver the bill. Instead, several Republicans would join Democrats and stop the effort.
Vance identified four senators he believes would stand in the way: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
That was Vance’s prediction about their votes. Their responses to his assessment were not included in the account of the interview.
He also criticized what he called “mediocre Republican senators,” making his frustration with members of his own party unmistakable.
The remarks expose a central tension in the legislative fight. Support for an election-policy objective does not necessarily translate into support for changing Senate procedures to enact it.
Removing the parliamentarian and ending the filibuster would represent substantial procedural changes. Vance’s account makes clear that the administration has considered those options, but concluded that launching the fight without sufficient votes would leave the legislation stalled.
For supporters demanding immediate action, his message was that the barrier cannot be removed simply by replacing a procedural adviser. Senators would still have to vote together and sustain the effort.
Vance has previously described election integrity as “not a partisan issue” and urged passage of the legislation.
Other Republican senators have offered similar explanations for the impasse, while criticizing the chamber’s failure to devote more time to the bill.
Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said in a discussion last month that Democrats were blocking the measure and that Republicans did not have enough votes to overcome the filibuster.
Johnson argued that his party supported voter identification and election integrity, but that Democrats would not supply the votes needed to advance the legislation.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has focused additional criticism on the Senate’s schedule, describing its frequent recesses as a “lost opportunity” this year.
According to Breitbart News, Lee said senators repeatedly promised to take up the bill when time became available, even though they knew the debate could require weeks.
He pointed to Department of Homeland Security funding and other legislative priorities as reasons the measure had been deferred.
Together, the comments illustrate the two problems confronting the bill’s advocates: finding sufficient floor time and assembling a coalition willing to overcome the procedural obstacles.
Vance’s assessment is that the second problem remains decisive. Trump’s administration has considered extraordinary steps, but the vice president says they cannot succeed unless enough Republican senators are prepared to support them.