US citizenship to be required for midterm voters, according to new bill

Lawmakers voted 218-213 to approve the SAVE America Act, with only one Democrat joining Republicans to back the measure. The action sends the legislation on to the Republican-led Senate, where it is expected to receive a vote but unlikely to garner the 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority needed for passage.

The bill is the latest version of election legislation that first emerged during the 2024 presidential campaign, driven by Trump's false claims that large numbers of people in the country illegally have been voting in federal elections. A similar measure passed the House twice, last April and in 2024, only to die in the Senate.

The House vote came barely a week after Trump called for Republicans to "take over" elections in more than a dozen locations. The bill would require proof of citizenship when registering to vote in the midterms and would impose criminal penalties on election officials who register anyone without the required documentation.

But Democratic Party leaders say the legislation attempts to suppress the vote and undermine their electoral chances at a time when they are favored by independent analysts to take control of the House. Republicans have been jarred by a string of Democratic special election wins, including one for the Texas state Senate viewed as a wake-up call.

"The SAVE America Act is part of a comprehensive Republican strategy to cement power this year. Speaker Johnson wants to make it harder for Americans to vote, easier for Washington Republicans to control how elections are run," said Representative Joe Morelle, the top Democrat on the House committee that oversees elections.

It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote in federal elections. Independent groups on the left and the right, as well as state election officials, have found such voting to be extremely rare.

The left-leaning Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law has warned that the SAVE America Act could deny the vote to millions of US citizens who lack ready access to passports, birth certificates and other documents that prove their citizenship.

Democracy advocates say the legislation is also part of a larger struggle between the Trump administration and state governments that has included the withholding of federal funds, the deployment of National Guard troops and the FBI search of a county election office in Georgia.

"We have checks and balances in place that include state and local officials acting as a check against federal overreach," said Mai Ratakonda, program director of election protection at States United Democracy Center, a nonpartisan group that works to safeguard free and fair elections. "That's what the federal government is trying to undermine."

Republicans are also readying a second, broader election bill, called the Make Elections Great Again Act, which would mandate the use of paper ballots, restrict mail-in ballots, and prohibit ranked-choice voting in federal general elections. It was examined at a hearing before the House Administration Committee on Tuesday.

The House of Representatives also narrowly backed a measure disapproving of President Donald Trump's tariffs on Canada, a rare rebuke of the president and leaders of his party in the Republican-majority House.

Lawmakers voted 219 to 211 in favor of a resolution to terminate Trump's use of a national emergency to put punitive trade measures on Canadian goods, as six Republicans joined all but one Democrat in favor.

It was an important symbolic vote in the chamber, where Trump's Republicans hold a slim 218-214 majority. The resolution stands a good chance of passage in the Senate, which has voted twice to block Trump from imposing tariffs on Canada, despite Republicans holding more seats.

However, it is unlikely to become law, as it would take two-thirds majorities in both chambers to overcome an expected Trump veto. Most Republicans have been unwilling to oppose Trump's policies.

The House approved the resolution a day after three Republicans joined Democrats to narrowly defeat an effort by Republican leaders to block legislative challenges to Trump's tariffs.

Members of Congress have expressed frustration over rising costs for US consumers as well as the impact of the tariffs on businesses involved in international trade.

Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who introduced the resolution, said it was about lowering the cost of living for American families, disputing claims that there was a drug-related national emergency as Trump had claimed to justify tariffs against Canada.

"Canada isn't a threat. Canada is our friend. Canada is our ally," Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a House speech before the vote.

Trump warned that any Republican in the House or Senate who voted against the tariffs would "seriously suffer the consequences come Election time."

He also took a shot at Canada, saying it had taken advantage of the United States on trade. "They are among the worst in the World to deal with, especially as it relates to our Northern Border," he wrote on social media.

Some members of Congress have also objected to Trump's repeated use of executive orders to set tariffs, especially on close allies like Canada, noting that the US Constitution gives that right to Congress, not the president.

Last month, the Yale Budget Lab said that the annual median cost of the Trump administration's tariffs stand around $1,400 for each US household. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated the cost at $1,000 per household in 2025, rising to $1,300 this year, in a report last week.

Trump initiated a tariff war with Canada shortly after beginning his second term in January 2025. He ordered 25% tariffs on imports from Canada in February 2025, and in August signed an executive order increasing tariffs on Canadian goods to 35% for all products not covered by the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.

Members of the US Congress learned only through press reports that President Donald Trump's administration had tried, and failed, to have them charged and arrested, and some said they were considering legal action in response.

"This is not a good news story," Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a former astronaut and Navy veteran, told a news conference. "This is a story about how Donald Trump and his cronies are trying to break our system in order to silence anyone who lawfully speaks out against them."

A source familiar with the matter said on Tuesday that a grand jury had rejected an attempt by the Republican president's administration to indict the Democrats after they urged members of the military not to comply with unlawful orders.

Trump has repeatedly called for punishment of those he sees as political enemies. Since returning to the presidency in January 2025, Trump has called for imprisoning adversaries, and his Justice Department has targeted critics such as former federal officials John Bolton and James Comey.

In January, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said that the administration threatened to indict him over congressional testimony over a Fed building project.

The six Democrats targeted in this probe served in the military or intelligence community. In November, they released a video telling members of the US military they must refuse illegal orders, prompting Trump to accuse them of sedition and call them traitors who could face execution.

The White House, which called the video a threat to national security, later said the president did not want congressional Democrats executed.

Senate Republican Majority Leader John Thune later told reporters he thought the video was "a really dumb move" but said he did not think the lawmakers should be indicted. "No, I don't think so. I mean, that wouldn't have been my response to that, but we are where we are," he stated.

Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, a former intelligence analyst and Iraq war veteran, said at the news conference she was leaving her options open when asked whether she planned to file suit.

She said the lawmakers did not know what charges the Department of Justice sought against them. "If things had gone a different way, we'd be preparing for arrest," Slotkin said.

The government had opened an inquiry in December, according to Slotkin, and carried it forward into January. When the lawmakers refused to sit for a voluntary interview, it went to a grand jury.

Slotkin said she had asked US Attorney Jeanine Pirro and other officials to preserve documents related to the investigation and provide confirmation that the probe is over.

Separately, a lawyer for Representative Jason Crow of Colorado, a former Army Ranger who completed three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, demanded that Pirro stop pursuing the probe and also preserve documents.

Kelly has sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, saying proceedings to demote him from his retired Navy captain rank over the video violated free-speech rights.