Vice President JD Vance says he and President Donald Trump have extensively explored ways to force the SAVE America Act through the Senate, including the extraordinary possibility of Vance taking control of the chamber and removing the Senate parliamentarian.
But according to Vance, there is a major problem with that strategy: Republicans still do not have the votes.
Speaking during an interview with Vince Coglianese released Tuesday, Vance said the White House has examined virtually every procedural option available for advancing the election legislation, which remains stalled in the Senate.
Advertisement
“We have wargamed this to every detail,” Vance said, explaining that he had wanted to pursue a more aggressive strategy months earlier.
One possibility involved Vance, in his constitutional role as president of the Senate, assuming the chair and removing the parliamentarian.
Vance argued that he has the authority to attempt such a maneuver.
Advertisement
However, he predicted that enough Republican senators would join Democrats to overrule the move, effectively killing the strategy before it could accomplish its objective.
“Four, five, maybe ten” Republican senators could side with Democrats, according to Vance.
That calculation, he said, is the central obstacle confronting Trump and congressional Republicans.
The SAVE America Act would impose new federal election requirements, including proof of U.S. citizenship and valid identification for voter registration.
The legislation would also restrict voting by mail while maintaining exceptions for circumstances including illness, disability, military service and travel.
Supporters argue the provisions would strengthen safeguards intended to ensure that only eligible American citizens participate in federal elections. Opponents have raised concerns about voting access and the potential burden of new documentation requirements.
The legislation has struggled to advance in the Senate, where the chamber’s filibuster rules generally require 60 votes to move most major legislation.
Vance rejected suggestions that simply replacing the parliamentarian could solve that problem.
Instead, he argued that the underlying difficulty is Republican senators who are unwilling to support the procedural changes necessary to pass the legislation.
Advertisement
If 50 Republican senators remained united behind the effort, Vance argued, Republicans and the vice president could potentially remove the parliamentarian, eliminate the legislative filibuster and then pass the SAVE America Act.
But Vance said he and Trump had already considered that scenario extensively and concluded that the necessary Republican support does not currently exist.
He specifically identified Sens. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, John Cornyn of Texas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska as Republicans he believes would oppose such an effort.
Advertisement
The senators Vance named were his own prediction about how they would vote. His comments did not establish that all four have formally announced how they would respond to the specific procedural maneuver he described.
Vance nevertheless made clear that his frustration extends beyond Democratic opposition.
He criticized what he called “mediocre Republican senators” while describing the difficulty of advancing Trump’s election legislation through the chamber.
The comments represent an unusually public confrontation between the vice president and members of his own party over both election policy and the Senate’s institutional rules.
Removing the Senate parliamentarian would itself be an extraordinary step.
The parliamentarian advises the presiding officer on Senate rules and precedents but does not independently determine whether legislation passes. Senators ultimately retain the power to overturn procedural rulings if they can muster sufficient votes.
Advertisement
Eliminating or substantially weakening the legislative filibuster would be even more consequential because it could allow a Senate majority to pass legislation without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to end debate.
Vance’s argument is that both strategies ultimately confront the same problem: votes.
“We have wargamed this to every detail,” he said, adding that the administration determined an immediate confrontation would fail because several Republicans would side with Democrats.
Other Republican senators have voiced similar frustration over the SAVE America Act.
Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said last month that Republicans lacked enough votes to overcome Democratic opposition and the Senate’s filibuster threshold.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has separately criticized the Senate’s schedule, arguing that repeated recesses cost Republicans valuable time that could have been devoted to the legislation.
Lee said senators had repeatedly promised to address the measure when sufficient floor time became available, while acknowledging that debate over the legislation could consume weeks.
This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.
