Politics

(GARDEN CITY, N.Y.) — Just over three months after he won New York City’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani is already at the center of another election — even though he’s not on the ballot.

With the New York governor’s race on the horizon, some voters and Republican officials who attended New York State’s Republican convention on Long Island on Monday mentioned Mamdani’s name immediately as they spoke about Gov. Kathy Hochul.

“Kathy Hochul is scrounging for votes and she latched onto Mamdani,” convention attendee Phil Orenstein, from Queens Village, told ABC News. “She endorsed him. He endorsed her in the governor’s race and you can see where that’s going. It’s going so far off the cliff.”

The most prominent Republican New York native, President Donald Trump, criticized Mamdani heavily prior to last November’s election.

Yet after the democratic socialist and former state assemblyman defeated former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Republican Curtis Sliwa in November, Trump appeared to change his perspective on Mamdani.

When Mamdani visited the White House after his victory, President Donald Trump congratulated the then-mayor-elect and said that he thought Mamdani “could do some things that are going to be really great.”

Trump’s praise of Mamdani has raised questions over how Republicans seeking to defeat Hochul this November will incorporate the new mayor into their messaging.

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, who became the likely Republican gubernatorial nominee after Rep. Elise Stefanik dropped out of the race in December, did not mention Mamdani by name in his opening remarks at the Republican convention in suburban Garden City on Monday.

However, Blakeman’s campaign previously issued a statement criticizing the “Hochul-Mamdani agenda” and posted on social media shortly before the convention began that “Zohran Mamdani and Kathy Hochul are pushing New York in the wrong direction.”

Hochul, who had been facing a primary challenge from Lieutenant Gov. Antonio Delgado until Delgado suspended his campaign on Tuesday, touted Mamdani’s endorsement last week.

“Mayor Mamdani understands that we need to build a New York that everyone can afford — I’m grateful for his partnership in finally bringing universal child care to New York, and I know that he’ll stand strong alongside me as we fight against Donald Trump’s attacks on this state,” the governor said in a statement.

Mamdani’s proposals have ranged from free fares on the country’s largest bus system to free child care for 2-year-olds in the city.

“His policies are completely backwards and we are not a socialist country. We are not a socialist state,” Broome County Republican Committee Chair Benji Federman told ABC News at the convention on Monday. “The vast majority of voters disagree with the policies that he has put forward across New York.”

Just under 45% of New York State’s population lives in New York City.

“You have so many people who are in the Senate and the Assembly from New York City [that] if something happens locally down here, they’re going to try to bring it statewide,” Mike Sigler, an upstate Republican county legislator who lives outside Ithaca, told ABC News.

Mamdani and Hochul have each expressed disagreements with each other on a number of issues, particularly regarding taxes.

“Those of us entrusted with the sacred oath of service must heed that call and work together to honor it. That requires not the absence of disagreement but the presence of trust,” Mamdani wrote in his endorsement of Hochul that was published by The Nation. “We must be able to disagree honestly while still delivering for the people we serve.”

On Tuesday, New York leaders gathered for a press conference in the city about housing and infrastructure. Hochul and Mamdani were standing side by side at the podium.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Rand Paul had strong words on Thursday for the heads of the federal agencies spearheading the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in Minneapolis and across the U.S.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, Customs and Border Protection commissioner Rodney Scott, and Citizenship and Immigration Services director Joseph Edlow were testifying in front of the Senate Homeland Security Committee.

“Witness the thousands of people in the streets in Minneapolis and in Minnesota, and the millions of viewers who witnessed the recent deaths,” Paul, the committee’s chairman, said. “It’s clearly evident that the public trust has been lost. To restore trust in ICE and Border Patrol, they must admit their mistakes, be honest and forthright with their rules of engagement, and pledge to reform. I hope the leadership of ICE and Border Patrol here today will participate in a meaningful way.”

Paul and ranking member Sen. Gary Peters went frame by frame on videos of the shooting of Alex Pretti, the 37-year-old Minneapolis nurse killed in an encounter with federal agents last month. Federal officials initially said that Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and “attacked” officers carrying out immigration duties.

State and local officials said Pretti was lawfully carrying a gun, with a concealed carry permit, and video reviewed and verified by ABC News does not appear to show that Pretti drew his gun on the agents and instead was holding up a cell phone, not a gun, to record agents during the incident.

Another Minneapolis resident – Renee Good — was also shot and killed by federal agents in early January. Federal officials say that the agents acted in self defense after Good allegedly tried to ram them with her car, which local city officials and her family have disputed.

Paul said that it isn’t so much about the specifics of the investigation, but rather the training that CBP and ICE agents receive.

“No one in America believes shoving that woman’s head and face in the snow was de-escalation,” Paul said of video showing agents scuffling with Pretti and a woman moments before the shooting. “But your officer, you need to know they…had a verbal encounter with them. She did not place her hands on the officers. She wasn’t trying to get their weapon. It’s not great. I mean … I don’t like to see these encounters either, but is it appropriate for the officers to respond to a verbal, barrage of words or whatever? Is it proper, to physically throw a woman down or throw anyone down if the only action is verbal?”

Both Scott and Lyons agreed that it wasn’t de-escalation if the only action against the agents had been verbal.

“I understand you not wanting to make conclusions yet, but nobody believes you’re gonna because you made conclusions immediately,” Paul told the law enforcement leaders. “Not you. But people within the government made conclusions immediately that [Pretti] was a terrorist and an assassin … people aren’t believing there’s going to be an honest investigation.”

In the hours after the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti committed an “act of domestic terrorism” and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller called him a “would-be assassin” and a “terrorist.”

Paul added at the hearing, “I think it’s terrible police work, but there has to ultimately be repercussions.”

Scott said that he would not jump to conclusions and asked the nation to do the same. He said he was committed to releasing the officers’ body-worn-cameras once the investigation is complete.

“There’s body-cam video, that’s all being looked at,” Scott said. “And until all that evidence is evaluated, I can’t jump to a conclusion on either direction. I would ask America to do the same thing, but I am committed to transparency, to making sure all the information we have is made public when it’s appropriate.”

Paul said that he saw “nothing, not even a hint of something that was aggressive on [Pretti’s] part.”

“I don’t think this should take months and months and years and years. There needs to be a conclusion,” Paul said. “We need to have answers here and there needs to be an announcement. These are the new policies. This is how we’re going to interact with the public, because the public needs to know to, you know, if I go to a protest and I shout something at people, could I be killed?”

Scott also did not say whether the gun was accidentally discharged by officers in the Pretti case, citing an ongoing investigation.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — In a biting opinion that chastised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Republican-appointed judge on Thursday blocked the Defense Department from trying to punish Sen. Mark Kelly over a video he and other Democrats made urging service members not to follow illegal orders, accusing Hegseth of “trampling” on the Arizona senator’s First Amendment rights and suggesting Hegseth should be more “grateful” for the wisdom of retired service members.

“This Court has all it needs to conclude that Defendants have trampled on Senator Kelly’s First Amendment freedoms and threatened the constitutional liberties of millions of military retirees,” Washington D.C. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his opinion.

Leon sharply questioned Trump administration lawyers on whether there was legal precedent for the Defense Department’s attempt to demote and reduce retirement benefits for Kelly, who has been sharply critical of the White House.

“Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired servicemembers, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years,” Leon wrote. “If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.”

The Justice Department could appeal the decision, although it’s not clear if it would. The Pentagon and Hegseth on Thursday did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The case has drawn considerable attention as a major test of the First Amendment rights of military veterans and the government’s separation of powers. Kelly was suing the Pentagon for threatening to demote him in rank and reduce his military retirement benefits because of a video he made with other Democrats that urged troops not to comply with illegal orders, which they did not specify.

Hegseth accused Kelly of violating a federal law that prohibits undermining good order and discipline within the military and accused him of hiding behind his position as a U.S. senator to do so.

In a video posted online to social media on Thursday, Kelly said he is grateful for the judge’s opinion.

“I appreciate the judge’s careful consideration of this case and the clarity of his ruling, but I also know that this might not be over yet, because this president and this administration do not know how to admit when they’re wrong,” he said.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Sen. Adam Schiff of California and a group of fellow Democrats are launching a probe into Freedom 250, a new non-profit group closely aligned with President Donald Trump that is raising private funding for high-profile events surrounding America’s 250th birthday this summer.

Freedom 250 — a nonprofit subsidiary of the National Park Foundation, the congressionally chartered fundraising arm of the National Park Service — was announced by the White House X account in December 2025, as an alternative for the congressionally chartered “America250” commission that is planned to celebrate the nation’s birthday this year.

The New York Times is reporting on allegations that the Freedom250 group is exchanging access to Trump for donations, and concerns have been raised in Congress about the arrangement between the group’s donations and their political fundraising.

Schiff’s inquiry, first shared with ABC News, raises concerns about the large sums of private donations and alleged “pay-to-play” access implications involved in the Freedom 250 effort.

When asked to respond to Schiff’s inquiry, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said, “President Trump is ensuring that America gets the spectacular birthday it deserves. The celebration of America’s 250th anniversary is going to display great patriotism in our Nation’s Capital and throughout the country.”

Democratic Sens. Chris Van Hollen, Cory Booker, Richard Blumenthal, Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Gary Peters joined Schiff in sending a letter on Wednesday to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, demanding the White House produce a list of Freedom 250 donors and describing any benefits, access, recognition or other consideration donors have received or been promised related to their contributions.

The senators raised concern that the potential coordination between the Trump administration and Freedom 250 could violate federal bribery, conflict of interest and ethics statutes. Schiff’s inquiry is also asking for an explanation on the ethical guidance the group received from the Office of Government Ethics or White House ethics officials.

“It is imperative that Congress and the public understand how decisions are made, who exercises control, and what guardrails exist to prevent inappropriate donor influence. Absent clear rules, this structure risks blurring the line between legitimate civic fundraising and pay‑for‑play access tied to official government functions, an all too familiar feature of the current Administration,” the senators wrote.

Trump — who repeatedly promised on the campaign trail a grand celebration for America’s 250th birthday that would be comparable to past world’s fairs — announced Freedom250 in December as a public-private partnership to spearhead the festivities.

On Tuesday, congressional Democrats accused the Trump administration of trying to alter plans to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday and using the National Park Foundation to solicit money from private donors.

Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman claimed “Trump and his Freedom 250 party planners are working to obscure reality with a fake narrative.”

“America250 could have been an honest celebration. Trump didn’t have control over the congressionally charted nonpartisan organization leading the celebration,” Huffman said, adding that Trump is working to “monetize it.”

During a hearing in the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Jeff Reinbold, the foundation’s president and CEO, promised anonymity to donors who requested it. Reinbold also said he would not provide Congress with any contracts signed by Freedom 250 donors.

Democratic Rep. Maxine Dexter claims Freedom 250 is using public money meant to go to America250, which was created in 2016. Dexter asserted that Freedom 250 is co-mingling fundraising for Trump with private donations for the nation’s birthday celebrations.

“This leaves us all guessing which one of Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies and which foreign interests are buying access,” Dexter said.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge has blocked the Department of Defense from attempting to demote and reduce retirement benefits for Sen. Mark Kelly.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A rare collision at sea between two U.S. Navy ships occurred in the Caribbean on Wednesday, leaving two personnel with minor injuries, according to U.S. Southern Command.

“Yesterday afternoon, the Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Truxtun (DDG103) and the Supply-class fast combat support ship USNS Supply (T-AOE-6) collided during a replenishment-at-sea,” Col. Emmanuel Ortiz, a U.S. Southern Command spokesman, said in a statement.

He added that “two personnel reported minor injuries and are in stable condition.”

“Both ships have reported sailing safely. The incident is currently under investigation,” Ortiz said.

It is unclear if the two injured were aboard the destroyer, the supply ship or both ships.

During a replenishment at sea, two ships sail side-by-side at a close distance and supplies are transferred to the receiving ships via a cable fired from one ship to the other.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report that a collision had occurred between the two ships.

Collisions at sea are very rare for U.S. Navy ships with the most recent one before Wednesday’s incident taking place on Feb. 12, 2025, in the Mediterranean Sea when the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman collided with a merchant ship off of Port Said, Egypt. The collision caused enough damage to the carrier that it had to make a port of call to receive repairs.

While no injuries occurred in that collision, a subsequent Navy investigation determined that a slight adjustment in the course of either ship could have led to a mass-casualty event.

A damage assessment for the Wednesday collision is being made that will help determine whether the ships will proceed with their deployments or will return to port, according to a U.S. official.

The Truxtun had just left its homeport of Norfolk, Virginia, on Feb. 6 to begin its deployment to the Caribbean as part of the large U.S. Naval presence built up over the last couple of months and that has remained in place following the seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

There are currently 11 U.S. Navy ships operating in the Caribbean including the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — House Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of “spying” on her search history when the congresswoman visited the Department of Justice earlier this week to view unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files.

“It is totally inappropriate and against the separations of powers for the DOJ to surveil us as we search the Epstein files,” Jayapal said in a post on X. “Bondi showed up today with a burn book that held a printed search history of exactly what emails I searched. That is outrageous and I intend to pursue this and stop this spying on members.”

Photos from a House Judiciary Committee hearing at which Bondi appeared on Wednesday show printouts she referenced were titled: “Jayapal Pramila Search History.” 

A diagram on the page shows several documents from the DOJ’s Epstein files that Jayapal searched. File numbers and brief descriptions of the contents are shown, according to photos taken of Bondi’s document.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said in a statement that he plans to ask the DOJ’s inspector general to launch an inquiry into whether the DOJ monitored lawmakers’ search history while reviewing the Epstein files. 

“It is an outrage that DOJ is tracking Members’ investigative steps undertaken to ensure that DOJ is complying with the Epstein File Transparency Act and using this information for the Attorney General’s embarrassing polemical purposes. DOJ must immediately cease tracking any Members’ searches,” Raskin said.  

At the outset of Wednesday’s hearing, Raskin used his opening statement to condemn Bondi’s use of a so-called “burn book” to prepare attacks against Democratic members.

“We saw your performance in the Senate and we are not going to accept that,” Raskin warned. “This isn’t a game. In the Senate you brought something with you called a burn book, a binder of smears to attack members personally for doing the people’s work of oversight. Please, set the burn book aside and answer questions.”

Those comments came as Raskin opened Wednesday’s combative hearing, where Bondi sparred with lawmakers, traded insults with them and at times refused to answer their questions.

The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to ABC’s request for comment. 

Since Monday, lawmakers have been allowed to visit the DOJ to view unredacted Epstein files — which has prompted fierce backlash from lawmakers critical of redactions that were maintained by the Department in defiance of the Epstein Transparency Act, which only allowed redactions to protect victims and their personally identifiable data and information.

Another lawmaker who visited the secure facility at the Department of Justice to view the unredacted documents, Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, of South Carolina, said she believed the department was tracking her as she conducted her review on Wednesday.

“Yes. I will confirm. DOJ is tracking the Epstein documents Members of Congress search for, open, and review,” Mace posted on X. “I was able to navigate the system today and I won’t disclose how or the nature of how; but confirmed the DOJ is TAGGING ALL DOCUMENTS Members of Congress search, open and review. Based on how I confirmed this, there are timestamps associated with this tracking.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney General Pam Bondi told members of Congress on Tuesday that Ghislaine Maxwell “will hopefully die in prison,” after she was pressed on the allegations that Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator was getting special treatment from the administration, including a controversial transfer to a minimum security prison.

Maxwell, who is 64, has been incarcerated since her arrest in July 2020 and would be in her mid-to-late 70s when her sentence ends.

Bondi, who clashed with Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee when asked questions related to the Epstein investigation, however, said she could not say who ordered Maxwell’s transfer to a lower security prison and tried to change the subject.

Rep. Deborah Ross, D-N.C., brought up the transfer during the heated hearing and sought out answers, specifically who signed off on the move.

Maxwell was moved from FCI Tallahassee in Florida, a “low security” prison for men and women, to FPC Bryan in Texas, a “minimum security” camp just for women, two weeks after she had a private meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Trump has been asked about possibly pardoning Maxwell, but the president has said no one had approached him, though he reiterated his power to grant one.

Blanche, Trump’s former personal attorney, has not responded to letters from Democrats in Congress seeking more details about the move.

“She should not be in that prison,” Ross said. “She needs to be moved back to a maximum security prison as soon as possible.”

The congresswoman noted that Maxwell, who is challenging her 2021 conviction and 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking and other offenses, told another congressional committee she won’t cooperate unless she gets clemency from the president.

Ross asked Bondi if Blanche or one of her other subordinates approved the transfer, but the attorney general didn’t directly answer.

“I learned after the fact,” Bondi said of the transfer. “That is a question for the Bureau of Prisons. I was not involved at that at all,” she added.

Bondi then scolded Ross and changed the subject, bringing up a September homicide of a woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, in the congresswoman’s home state.

“You know instead of talking about Ghislaine Maxwell, who will hopefully die in prison, hopefully will die in prison, you should be talking about Iryna Zarutska,” she said.

Ross asked again if the president should pardon or commute Maxwell’s sentence.

“Should she be released from prison, yes or no? You said she should die in prison, so I’m hoping the answer is no,” the congresswoman said.

“I already answered the question,” Bondi responded, before scolding Ross again for not discussing Zarutska’s murder.

Bondi delivered several angry retorts at the members of the committee over the Epstein investigation.

Early on in the hearing, she did not look at Epstein survivors and their families when they were introduced by committee ranking member Jamie Raskin and Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal.

Survivors were seen shaking their heads several times during the hearing as Bondi attacked the congress members.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After Tuesday night’s embarrassing defeat for Speaker Mike Johnson at the hands of rebellious Republicans, the House is set to vote Wednesday evening on a Democratic-led resolution to rescind President Donald Trump’s tariffs imposed on Canada — which could result in a major rebuke of the president’s trade policies.

The legislation, led by the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, would force House lawmakers to go on the record for the first time on Trump’s tariffs and trade policy.

The measure seeks to end the emergency declaration Trump used to justify his Canada tariffs.

Even if the tariff vote clears the GOP-led House, Trump is likely to veto the measure. It’s unclear how the largely symbolic vote will fall given Speaker Johnson’s razor-thin majority.

Johnson argued on Fox Business Wednesday morning that Congress should not be getting in the way of Trump’s tariffs.

“I think it’s a big mistake. I don’t think we need to go down the road of trying to limit the president’s power while he is in the midst of negotiating America first trade agreements,” Johnson said, adding that tariffs have “done great for the economy.”

He pointed to the tariff case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court — arguing that Congress should allow that process to play out.

House Republican leaders have fought for a year to block such a tariff vote from hitting the House floor, but the failed rule vote Tuesday night opened the door to full House votes on overturning the president’s tariffs.

Three Republicans — Reps. Kevin Kiley, Don Bacon and Thomas Massie — bucked their own party to defeat the procedural effort that failed by a vote of 214-217.

Bacon posted on X Wednesday, “Congress has Article One Constitutional responsibilities on tariffs. We cannot & should not outsource our responsibilities. As an old fashioned Conservative I know tariffs are a tax on American consumers. I know some disagree. But this debate and vote should occur in the House.”

Even if the House passes the resolution the matter would need to go back to the Senate.

Last October, the Senate voted on similar resolutions to cancel some of Trump’s tariffs.

At the time, some Senate Republicans joined Democrats to rebuke the president’s trade policy.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Amid President Donald Trump’s repeated unsubstantiated accusations of rigged voting and calls to nationalize elections, an updated version of the GOP’s signature piece of election reform — now called the SAVE America Act — is set to reach the House floor for a showdown vote later Wednesday.

The original, called the SAVE Act, was sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, passed out of the House in April, but has stalled in the Senate since — attracting intense pushback from Democrats, who say the bill would damage voting accessibility and discriminate against low-income voters who are unable to get government ID.

Trump and top Republicans have argued the revised bill is necessary to protect the country’s election process before the 2026 midterm elections in November.

“America’s Elections are Rigged, Stolen, and a Laughingstock all over the World,” Trump wrote on social media. “We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a Country any longer. I am asking all Republicans to fight for the following: SAVE AMERICA ACT!”

There has been no credible evidence of widespread fraud or substantiated claims of U.S. elections being rigged.

What is the SAVE America Act?

Republican lawmakers tout the SAVE America Act as the next step in securing what they call “election integrity.” The bill would restrict mail-in ballots, require photo ID at polling places and mandate states obtain proof of citizenship before registering a person to vote in a federal election.

Citizenship documents include:

• A valid United States passport
• A Real ID
• A birth certificate
• United States military ID card, together with a record of service showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States
• Federal, state or tribal government ID card showing the applicants place of birth
• A driver’s license without a Real ID stamp would not be accepted as proof of citizenship.

This process would include mail voter registration applications, requiring people to provide documented proof to an appropriate election official before being approved.

The bill would also require states to scrub noncitizens from their current voter records and create programs to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens by using data from various state agencies, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security.

On Election Day, voters would be expected to bring a valid photo ID which they would be required to present before getting access to the ballot box. If an ID does not have a photo, a voter would have to prove U.S. citizenship or provide the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number.

Along with ID requirements, Trump has called for restrictions on voting by mail, disallowing mail-in voting except for instances of illness, disability, military or travel.

Several high-ranking Republican leaders allege the bill would stop instances of noncitizens voting in elections, an issue they argue has damaged the credibility of election results.

Noncitizens are already prohibited from voting in federal and state elections, though some cities allow noncitizens to vote on some local elections.

“A number of states deliberately don’t want to check whether or not somebody’s here legally when they register, and then they mandate in some states that they can’t show picture ID. That’s a recipe for voter fraud,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said during an interview on Fox News. “…one person, one vote only matters if you’re having these protections like the SAVE America Act.”

Experts have long insisted that noncitizen voting is a rare problem. Voter roll audits before the 2024 elections in Georgia found only 20 registered noncitizens out of 8.2 million registered voters statewide. Nine of those actually cast a ballot.

The president has suggested noncitizen voting has allowed Democrats to win elections when they otherwise shouldn’t have, including unfounded claims that Joe Biden did not win the 2020 election.

“We need fair elections. We need elections where people aren’t able to cheat. And we’re going to do that, I’m going to do that, I’m going to get it done,” Trump said.

Why the controversy?

Implementing voter ID is not a novel idea in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures tracks 36 states that require voters to show some sort of identification at the polls.

Sentiment over voter ID is also recorded as mostly positive, with a Pew Research Center poll citing 83% of the 3,554 Americans surveyed as in favor of requiring all voters to show government issued photo IDs before voting.

In that same survey, 58% of respondents said they were in favor of maintaining mail-in voting.

Still, key Democrats on Capitol Hill have been strongly opposed to the bill, arguing it makes voting more difficult and less accessible.

“Our elections are key to our democracy. The SAVE Act would make it harder for registered, legal voters to vote,” California Democrat Rep. Mike Thomson said. “At a time when the president is talking about nationalizing elections, we must protect our democracy and every voter’s choice.”

Though the bill made it through the House with a 220-208 vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the bill would be “dead on arrival” in the Senate.

“The Republicans’ SAVE Act reads more like a how-to guide for voter suppression. It goes against the very foundations of our democracy,” Schumer said. “Mark my words: This will not pass the Senate.”

Others, such as Democrat Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA), argue Republicans are deliberately timing the change in voter rules before consequential midterm elections.

“Republicans will stop at nothing to interfere with the 2026 midterms — including leveraging ICE to gain access to sensitive voter information or pass their anti-democratic SAVE Act,” Padilla said. “We’re not going to let them get away with their attempts to suppress the right to vote.”

In the Senate, the bill would need to garner support from some Democrats in order to overcome a 60-vote threshold to advance over an expected Democratic filibuster.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.