"🔥 FINAL COUNTDOWN! — SENATE STUNS WASHINGTON AS TRUMP HITS THE MAGIC 50-VOTE MARK!"
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.
"🚨 BRANSON'S SCATHING ATTACK! — HE BLASTS TRUMP OVER PUTIN TIES AND URGES EUROPE TO STAND FIRM!"
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson has launched a fierce public attack on Donald Trump, accusing the U.S. administration of appeasing dictators and putting personal preferences ahead of American and allied interests.
The Virgin Group founder made his criticism in a LinkedIn post published this week, questioning why Trump appeared so willing to accommodate Russian President Vladimir Putin while Ukraine continues to face Russia’s invasion.
Branson described the administration as an “appeaser to autocrats and dictators,” arguing that its approach could weaken confidence among America’s traditional allies and undermine the interests of democratic nations.
He also raised a pointed question about the president’s relationship with Putin, asking why Trump seemed to flatter the Russian leader despite the continuing war and widespread international concern over Moscow’s actions.
The remarks come amid renewed controversy over a reported agreement involving Russian diesel supplies and a temporary easing of U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports.
Trump has defended the arrangement as beneficial to fuel markets, while critics argue that allowing Russian energy revenues to flow could indirectly help Moscow sustain its war effort.
Branson called the deal deeply hypocritical, pointing to the contrast between Washington’s previous willingness to penalize countries purchasing Russian energy and its own decision to ease restrictions.
His criticism extended beyond energy policy. He also condemned Trump’s public attacks on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, describing the administration’s treatment of Ukraine as a betrayal during a period of war and suffering.
The billionaire’s intervention follows mounting concern in Kyiv and across Europe about the durability of American support for Ukraine, particularly as diplomatic efforts have struggled to produce a lasting settlement.
Branson also expressed alarm about reports involving restrictions on Starshield services used by Ukraine, a technology issue that has raised questions about the country’s access to crucial battlefield communications.
Some of Branson’s claims about the consequences of satellite-service restrictions have not been independently confirmed, and the details of decisions involving military communications remain disputed.
He urged European leaders to respond more decisively, arguing that the continent cannot simply wait for Washington to determine the future of Ukraine’s security and its broader relationship with Russia.
His proposed response reportedly included considering the use of frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine and supplying more advanced weapons, measures that would intensify the confrontation with Moscow.
The comments place Branson among a relatively small group of prominent business leaders willing to criticize Trump directly over foreign policy, despite the political and commercial sensitivities surrounding such interventions.
Branson has previously spoken out in support of Ukraine and criticized approaches that he believes would pressure Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable peace agreement with Russia.
The latest dispute also comes at a politically sensitive moment in the United States, with congressional midterm elections approaching and foreign policy increasingly intertwined with domestic debates over leadership and national priorities.
Supporters of Trump’s approach may argue that direct engagement with Moscow and energy-market flexibility can serve American interests, even when such policies provoke disagreement among allies.
Critics counter that concessions to Russia risk weakening deterrence and sending an unsettling message to countries relying on the United States for diplomatic, economic and military support.
The disagreement reflects a broader debate over whether negotiations and economic pragmatism can help end the war—or whether they could give Moscow additional leverage without securing meaningful concessions.
For Ukraine, the stakes remain immediate: continued military pressure, uncertainty over international support and the search for a settlement that preserves its sovereignty remain central concerns.
Branson’s intervention adds another prominent voice to the dispute, challenging the White House’s handling of Russia and demanding a stronger response from Europe as the conflict continues.
