Johnson Unveils New Strategy To Force Senate Vote On SAVE Act
House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a new strategy this week to force Senate action on the SAVE America Act.
The Speaker announced plans to merge the election integrity measure with the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act after conservatives brought House business to a standstill.
The move comes after a group of hard-line Republicans refused to support procedural rules needed to advance legislation unless the Senate acts on the SAVE America Act or the House takes additional steps to pressure the upper chamber.
The SAVE America Act would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and require voters to present identification when casting a ballot.
Speaking to reporters Monday, Johnson said House Republicans would use an unusual parliamentary procedure known as “MIRVing” to package the two bills together before sending them to the Senate.
“We’re going to pass a MIRV, or what’s better known as a merge onto the rule,” Johnson said.
“So what that means is, when Republicans vote for the rule, they’ll be voting not just for the NDAA and everything else is there, but they’ll be voting to merge onto that the SAVE America Act we passed back in February.”
Johnson said the maneuver would ensure the Senate receives both measures together.
“So that will send both of those items together over to the Senate, and so if any Republicans choose to vote against the rule, they will be voting against that outcome. So we think this is another good way to show the resolve of the House.”
The proposal is designed to demonstrate House Republicans’ commitment to election integrity legislation while attempting to increase pressure on the Senate to consider the bill.
Still, Johnson’s strategy faces significant hurdles.
Even if the combined package reaches the Senate, lawmakers there could remove the SAVE America Act from the defense bill before final passage.
The approach also risks complicating consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, one of Congress’ annual must-pass pieces of legislation that authorizes military programs and defense spending.
Not every Republican is convinced Johnson’s plan goes far enough.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida quickly criticized the proposal, arguing that simply attaching the SAVE America Act procedurally would still allow the Senate to strip it from the final legislation.
“‘MIRVing’ the NDAA plus either SAVE America or Voter I.D. would still allow the Senate to strip out either or,” Luna wrote on X.
“The only way to ensure the Senate passes this is to make sure it’s in the bill text of the NDAA, meaning that my amendment(s) must be made an order.”
“I’m not trying to be difficult, but this is what 80% of Americans want and what we promised the American people, so I stand by my decision.”
Johnson’s proposal could also create new political challenges with Democrats, who have strongly opposed the SAVE America Act and are expected to vote against the NDAA if the election legislation remains attached.
Democrats have argued the bill would create unnecessary barriers to voting, while Republicans contend it is needed to protect election integrity by ensuring that only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections.
The legislation currently approved by the House also does not include restrictions on mail-in voting, one of President Donald Trump’s key priorities in election reform.
Some conservatives indicated they remain open to Johnson’s approach but want additional details before committing their support.
Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee said lawmakers still need to review the proposal.
“We might be able to get everything we want, but as Luna said, we’d need to see it on paper first,” Burchett told reporters.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Maryland, however, expressed support for any strategy that advances the legislation, The Hill reported.
“Any way to include the SAVE or SAVE America Act on everything coming out of the House, I’m for,” Harris said.
Fox News DRAMA - Maria Bartiromo's Attorney Drops Bombshell After 'Firing'
When Fox announced that Maria Bartiromo was gone after more than twelve years, the statement was a masterpiece of saying nothing: thanks for the work, best of luck on the next chapter, no reason given. Corporate language that smooth usually exists to cover something rougher underneath. The reporting that followed suggests it did.
Here is the reconstructed sequence, and it should be read as the reporting of Status and Puck’s Dylan Byers rather than confirmed fact — Bartiromo’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, has since pushed back on the “fired” characterization, and the full story isn’t settled. With that caveat squarely in place: Bartiromo reportedly wanted to pursue a story tying China to 2020 election-security questions. For Fox that subject is radioactive. The network paid a historic settlement to Dominion Voting Systems over its 2020 coverage and still faces active Smartmatic litigation on the same ground. A Fox Business executive reportedly sent written guidance steering staff away from the topic, and most fell in line.
Bartiromo didn’t. According to the reporting, when Trump or a White House aide asked why Fox wasn’t covering the story, she confirmed her bosses had blocked it — and then forwarded the internal message proving it. Fox reportedly learned of the leak, concluded it violated her employment agreement, and pulled her off the air August 9.
Reports subsequently said she was “fired.” But according to her lawyer, Bryan Freedman, that’s not the case at all:
For many years, Maria Bartiromo hosted three number one rated television shows on Fox channels. She has been, without question, one of the hardest working journalists throughout her award winning career.
The irresponsible reports that have been published stating that Maria Bartiromo was fired or is no longer an employee of Fox are absolutely and unequivocally false. Make no mistake, we have the receipts and witnesses and they will come out whether through the courthouse or otherwise. Those reporting her firing or the incredulous facts supporting that fiction have exhibited a complete and utter reckless disregard for the truth.
We’ll keep you updated on this.
When Fox announced that Maria Bartiromo was gone after more than twelve years, the statement was a masterpiece of saying nothing: thanks for the work, best of luck on the next chapter, no reason given. Corporate language that smooth usually exists to cover something rougher underneath. The reporting that followed suggests it did.
Here is the reconstructed sequence, and it should be read as the reporting of Status and Puck’s Dylan Byers rather than confirmed fact — Bartiromo’s attorney, Bryan Freedman, has since pushed back on the “fired” characterization, and the full story isn’t settled. With that caveat squarely in place: Bartiromo reportedly wanted to pursue a story tying China to 2020 election-security questions. For Fox that subject is radioactive. The network paid a historic settlement to Dominion Voting Systems over its 2020 coverage and still faces active Smartmatic litigation on the same ground. A Fox Business executive reportedly sent written guidance steering staff away from the topic, and most fell in line.
Bartiromo didn’t. According to the reporting, when Trump or a White House aide asked why Fox wasn’t covering the story, she confirmed her bosses had blocked it — and then forwarded the internal message proving it. Fox reportedly learned of the leak, concluded it violated her employment agreement, and pulled her off the air August 9.
Reports subsequently said she was “fired.” But according to her lawyer, Bryan Freedman, that’s not the case at all:
For many years, Maria Bartiromo hosted three number one rated television shows on Fox channels. She has been, without question, one of the hardest working journalists throughout her award winning career.
The irresponsible reports that have been published stating that Maria Bartiromo was fired or is no longer an employee of Fox are absolutely and unequivocally false. Make no mistake, we have the receipts and witnesses and they will come out whether through the courthouse or otherwise. Those reporting her firing or the incredulous facts supporting that fiction have exhibited a complete and utter reckless disregard for the truth.
We’ll keep you updated on this.
