US GOP Civil War Erupts On Two Fronts: A.P. Luna Freezes The House Floor, Trump Gets "Brother'd" By Bill Cassidy In Senate Over SAVE Act

  • 🇵🇦 Nuestro primer dominio localizado está en español en kiwifarms.pa. Our first localized domain is on Spanish on kiwifarms.pa.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

The Republican Party's long-simmering tensions over election integrity exploded into open warfare on Wednesday, with chaos breaking out simultaneously in the House and Senate - and President Trump caught in the middle of both.

It started, as these things often do, with a procedural knife fight.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and a band of House conservatives declared they would refuse to support any rule votes this week unless Senate Republicans finally moved the SAVE America Act - the proof-of-citizenship and voter ID bill that has passed the House multiple times but remains stuck in the upper chamber. Without a rule, the House can't conduct normal business. Leadership blinked. The scheduled rule vote was pulled. The floor froze.

The House GOP is attempting to move a Senate Bill with NO VOTER ID and NO SAVE AMERICA ACT. I will have to be a NO on rules for this week (and maybe even longer) if they don't stop the games. I am not the only one. Other House Members are frustrated at the games being played. This is a problem. The President agrees that the Senate needs to move Voter ID. Other Frontline Members depend on Voter ID legislation getting passed. Stop catering to a Senate that doesn't do their jobs.

— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) June 23, 2026

Limited to suspension votes and with tomorrow already off the table, GOP leaders were left scrambling: send everyone home? Let a rule fail on the floor? Cut a deal? Try again next week? The options were all bad.

And of course, Trump then lit a match... Hours before a planned signing ceremony for the popular bipartisan housing bill (passed 358-32 in the House and 85-5 in the Senate), the president abruptly canceled it on Truth Social, declaring he would not sign the measure "until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."

The housing bill - a rare bipartisan win on affordability - was suddenly held hostage to a voting bill Democrats have no intention of supporting and that Senate Republicans still can't get to 60 votes.

The Senate Meeting Turns Ugly​

According to multiple senators in the room who spoke to Punchbowl's Andrew Desiderio, Trump arrived in a sour mood and used much of the session to vent. He hammered the SAVE Act, the filibuster, and his decision to kill the housing signing. Nobody pushed back.

The temperature in the room reportedly dropped. Trump, already irritated over Iran war powers votes, was further agitated. One senator later described the entire session to Desiderio as "more of a venting session for the president."

Bill Cassidy, freed from re-election concerns, was apparently done pretending otherwise.

The SAVE America Act: The Prize Everyone's Fighting Over​

At the center of the storm sits the SAVE America Act - the bill requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and photo ID at the polls. Supporters call it basic election security. Opponents call it a solution in search of a problem that will disenfranchise legitimate voters.

The House has passed it. The Senate has not. And with the filibuster still in place, it's not clear how it gets to 60 without major concessions or rule changes - neither of which Senate leadership appears eager to deliver.

House conservatives have decided they're done waiting politely. Luna and her allies are using the only leverage they have: the ability to make the House floor a dysfunctional mess.

I stand with @repluna and @potus. The Save America Act must pass.

Ilegal foreign voters are electing America-hating communists. Add me to the list, it’s that important.

— Congressman Max Miller (@RepMaxMiller) June 24, 2026

Trump, frustrated with the Senate's math problem, decided to take a popular bipartisan win off the table until they fix it.

And in the Senate lunch, one of the president's former allies decided the deference phase of the relationship was over.

Where Things Stand​

As of mid-afternoon Wednesday:
  • The House is in procedural limbo, limited to suspension votes.
  • The housing bill signing is canceled.
  • Senate Republicans just sat through a venting session from an unhappy president.
  • A lame-duck senator called the Commander-in-Chief "brother" to his face.
In short - this is a collision of three different Republican power centers - House hardliners, Senate institutionalists, and a president who wants results now - all using the same bill as a weapon against each other.



Earlier...

President Donald Trump abruptly canceled a planned Capitol Hill signing ceremony for a sweeping bipartisan housing affordability bill Wednesday, saying he would not move forward until Congress passes the SAVE America Act, an elections measure he has elevated as a top legislative priority.

In a Truth Social post shortly before the scheduled event, Trump said the housing news conference and signing were "cancelled" until passage of the SAVE America Act, which he described as a "National Emergency."

1782334628046.png

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act cleared the Senate 85-5, with Republican leaders insisting the CBDC restriction ride along with one of the most bipartisan bills in years. The House passed the bill Tuesday 358-32, putting the measure on a direct path to President Donald Trump's desk for signature.

And so - Trump's cancellation upended what was expected to be a rare bipartisan victory lap for lawmakers, who had sent Trump the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act after months of negotiations. The bill, one of the most significant federal housing packages in decades, passed the House Tuesday evening by a wide margin after clearing the Senate 85-5 a day earlier.

Just hours before Trump comes to the Capitol for a celebratory bill signing for the housing bill, he says it is of "minor importance" and notes Elizabeth Warren's involvement.

In case you missed it, Trump is pushing for SAVE America Act and to blow up the filibuster -- neither of which have the requisite votes for passage.

Should be a very interesting day.

— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 24, 2026
1782334728148.png

One of the most politically prominent pieces of the bill would limit large institutional investors from purchasing certain existing single-family homes. Supporters argue that such restrictions could help reduce competition for individual buyers in markets where corporate ownership is concentrated, while the final version preserves a carveout for new construction.

It explicitly shields private stablecoins, carving out any "open, permissionless, and private" dollar-denominated asset.

The bill's broad coalition had made it a rare point of agreement in a divided Congress. Republicans emphasized deregulation, supply growth and limits on Wall Street homebuying. Democrats pointed to affordability, renter protections and housing access. Lawmakers from both parties had hoped the signing would mark a tangible response to high rents, elevated mortgage costs and a shortage of affordable homes.

Now, the bill in legislative limbo with Trump using the housing package as leverage to force Senate action on election rules. The SAVE America Act has been a priority for Trump and his allies, but it faces strong Democratic opposition and an uncertain path in the Senate.

That said, if Trump continues to withhold his signature - and does nothing, the bill is likely to become law regardless. Under the Constitution, a bill presented to the president becomes law automatically after 10 days if he neither signs nor vetoes it - provided Congress remains in session. With August recess still weeks away and both chambers having passed the measure by margins far exceeding the two-thirds threshold needed to override a veto, the CBDC ban appears headed into law with or without a ceremony.
 
I would think Dems lying would just not need to be said in the first place.
I think you're talking past some people here. The dems in congress are lying obviously. However a large part of their constituents probably want fair elections in earnest and probably believe that all recent elections (except 2016, natch) have been legitimate. Thus they support the save act.
 
I think you're talking past some people here. The dems in congress are lying obviously. However a large part of their constituents probably want fair elections in earnest and probably believe that all recent elections (except 2016, natch) have been legitimate. Thus they support the save act.
Some are even smart enough to realize that fraudulent elections can be used to keep the party establishment in power forever, where mostly jewish money decides the course instead of the mostly brown base.
 
I think you're talking past some people here. The dems in congress are lying obviously. However a large part of their constituents probably want fair elections in earnest and probably believe that all recent elections (except 2016, natch) have been legitimate. Thus they support the save act.
This is probably accurate. It also may be I just have a far more skeptical view on the trustworthiness of the average person than others. I don’t see a bunch of numbers from a polling group and instantly believe even if I agree with what it was polling like here. I want voter ID. I want people to CARE about voter ID. I don’t see them actually caring though.

And this isn’t some high horse I am talking from here either, there are probably more things *I* should be doing if I want to get SAVE passed. But it involves risks and risks I am unwilling to take because well I have people who depend on me but ultimately I bet people will say I am a coward. Don’t know which is the answer.

Either way I still die on the hill of it not being 80% because half the country is apathetic and self-interested as shit and couldn’t even tell you who the first three presidents were let alone what voter ID is. I am sorry but the internet is not the real world.

But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.
 
there are probably more things *I* should be doing if I want to get SAVE passed. But it involves risks and risks I am unwilling to take because well I have people who depend on me but ultimately I bet people will say I am a coward. Don’t know which is the answer.
Shame on you for not restructuring your life and performing to the exacting standards of a thousand random retards on the Internet giving their unsolicited opinions
 
This is probably accurate. It also may be I just have a far more skeptical view on the trustworthiness of the average person than others. I don’t see a bunch of numbers from a polling group and instantly believe even if I agree with what it was polling like here. I want voter ID. I want people to CARE about voter ID. I don’t see them actually caring though.

And this isn’t some high horse I am talking from here either, there are probably more things *I* should be doing if I want to get SAVE passed. But it involves risks and risks I am unwilling to take because well I have people who depend on me but ultimately I bet people will say I am a coward. Don’t know which is the answer.

Either way I still die on the hill of it not being 80% because half the country is apathetic and self-interested as shit and couldn’t even tell you who the first three presidents were let alone what voter ID is. I am sorry but the internet is not the real world.

But that’s just my opinion, I could be wrong.

In 2024, Nevada, a swing state, voted on enacting voter ID by popular vote. The motion won 75-25.
 
Non voters literally do not matter because they don't vote.
They are American citizens and they matter because the goal is to engage people in helping keep their society alive and safe, silly

Also it’s 2.59 million. Versus 1.4 million voters
yes its called go outside and talk to some niggas

or actually don't talk to niggers they hate voter ID
but literally like anyone else
I don’t think you would find the people I interact with…comforting.
 
you are asking me to accept ‘polling’ from groups inherently invested in controlling what the public believes
This is a reasonable position for a layman to take. If you don’t want to study how polling works and then dig into every poll and look at methodology and crosstabs then you probably are better off just assuming every single one is a tainted push poll by an ideologue. It is still something of a science though, you can make sense of what people are doing and evaluate whether it’s meaningful. High profile poll misses like “Dewey defeats Truman” are down to concrete errors that can be analyzed, although there’s no absolute checklist you can go through to make sure you’re not falling into error in advance. Times when polls collide verifiably with reality (i.e. elections) are very valuable.

Your point about watching what people actually do reminds me of covid. You had people overestimating the transmissibility and fatality of the disease by several orders of magnitude, and while it’s true that the (nonsensical) mitigation measures they took demonstrated a level of concern more than commensurate with the reality, they fell well short of what one would expect for a disease with the characteristics they described. The fact is, though, they’re simply innumerate. They know however many people personally who had/died from it, and had a heuristic about it which they used to generate pseudorandom numbers for the polls, and superstitious practices for their lives.

Anyway, you’re right not to let anyone just wave a number in your face. The fact that the news does not evaluate polls nor dig into their methodology is treasonous, but that’s how things are. If anyone wants to cite a poll, let him analyze the questions it asked and the order in which they were asked, look into how they recruited and reached people, and check the crosstabs, then summarize the information and provide his estimate of the poll’s accuracy.
 
Either way I still die on the hill of it not being 80% because half the country is apathetic and self-interested as shit and couldn’t even tell you who the first three presidents were let alone what voter ID is. I am sorry but the internet is not the real world.
I think you're over valuing the commitment required to say "yes" when some pollster asks joe blow a question.

IMO "voter ID" is self-explanatory. Anyone who's bought beer will understand it just from the name alone, and (again IMO) even your average person will intuitively understand that a voter ID requirement is good. So no matter how apathetic they are, if they're filling out a survey and have to choose an answer they're going to pick "yes".

None of that guarantees or even implies they will take any action (including voting!), or that they have any strong commitments (or that they could name Washington, Jefferson, and Adams).

And if we're being charitable some might even be in situations like this:
there are probably more things *I* should be doing if I want to get SAVE passed. But it involves risks and risks I am unwilling to take because well I have people who depend on me

I think it could easily be 80/20: 20% politically aware dems who say "that's racist!" (earnestly or not), 20% politically aware conservatives who say "election integrity!" (earnestly or not), and 60% who don't really think about it and say yes on a survey because it sounds good.

Ultimately I think you need to realize that the commitment to say "yes" or press 1 on a phone survey is a lot less than simply going to vote for joe blow.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole