Fetterman Slams Dems ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ Voter ID Lies As GOP Pushes SAVE Act

Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. John Fetterman broke with Democratic Party leadership this week, signaling his support for voter identification laws, saying he does not view showing ID to vote as unreasonable.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and almost all Senate Democrats have turned down the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This bill, which would protect the integrity of elections, passed the House earlier this week.
Schumer has called the bill “Jim Crow 2.0” because he thinks it would keep people from voting instead of making elections safer. But Fetterman, who has repeatedly disagreed with his party’s messages and positions, pushed back against Schumer’s framing of the bill.
“I would never refer to the SAVE Act as like Jim Crow 2.0 or some kind of mass conspiracy. But that’s part of the debate that we were having here in the Senate right now. And I don’t call people names or imply that it’s something gross about the terrible history of Jim Crow,” Fetterman told Fox News’ Kayleigh McEnany.
The bill would require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, require proof of citizenship in person when registering to vote, and mandate states remove non-citizens from voter rolls.

However, momentum is building among Republicans.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, became the 50th member of the conference to back the legislation. But Senate Democrats have all but guaranteed its demise in the upper chamber, via the filibuster.
Fetterman would not say whether he supports the bill outright. However, he noted that “84% of Americans have no problem with presenting IDs to vote.”
“So it’s not like a radical idea,” Fetterman said. “It’s not something — and there already are many states that show basic IDs. So that’s where we are in the Senate.”
Even if Fetterman votes for the bill on the floor, it probably won’t pass unless there are bigger changes to the way things are done.
Right now, there aren’t enough votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster limit.
Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, are pressing for passage of the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a birth certificate or passport—to register to vote in federal elections.
Trump has called on Senate Republicans to resurrect the “standing filibuster,” an older, more grueling procedure that forces senators to physically speak on the floor to block legislation, rather than rely on the modern “silent” version that stalls bills without debate.
“America’s elections are rigged, stolen, and a laughingstock all over the world,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. “We are either going to fix them, or we won’t have a country any longer.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed that the GOP is weighing whether to adopt the tactic, but emphasized that no final decision has been made.
Thune said such a procedural change would demand significant time on the Senate floor, limiting bandwidth for other priorities such as the farm bill, artificial intelligence legislation, and infrastructure funding.
Fetterman also linked the debate over election integrity to the ongoing fight over border enforcement, saying he wants to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security remains funded and focused on deporting criminal aliens.
“Hopefully we don’t have to pay the TSA people and everyone securing our border and focus on deporting those kinds of criminals wherever they are,” he said. “I never want to vote to shut our government down again.”
Although Fetterman reiterated that he does not support the SAVE Act itself, his acknowledgment that voter ID is reasonable marks a significant cultural shift within the Democratic Party.

Polls show the issue enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support.
A 2025 Quantus Insights survey found that 74 percent of Americans—including 61 percent of Democrats—support requiring photo identification to vote.
President Trump has maintained that securing elections through voter ID, proof of citizenship, and transparent counting procedures is essential to restoring confidence in the system. “Elections should be simple, secure, and transparent,” he said recently. “That vision doesn’t threaten democracy—it protects it.”
Shock New Revelations Regarding Trump Accuser E. Jean Carroll Drop - This Is Why She's Under Investigation

E. Jean Carroll’s rape allegations against President Donald Trump were never credible, and now she’s under investigation by the Department of Justice for perjury.
Now, Byron York is digging into the case and has uncovered what could be the most elaborate political setup in history.
Critics of Carroll have long argued that major inconsistencies and unanswered questions surrounding her allegations against Trump undermine the credibility of the claims.
Carroll accused Trump of sexually assaulting her sometime in the mid-1990s. Critics frequently point to her inability to identify a precise year. They also argue that aspects of the timeline and surrounding details remain difficult to reconcile.
Skeptics have also questioned why Carroll waited decades before publicly making the accusation. This is especially true given that they came near the height of the “Me Too” movement.
Carroll has offered multiple explanations for remaining silent for years. They include concerns about her Republican mother’s health and fears that going public politically could inadvertently benefit Trump.

Oh. Right. You bet.
She waited until 2019 to ‘disclose’ her allegations. But she didn’t go to police. Didn’t go to a lawyer. She didn’t even go to a journalist. Rather, she made the allegation in a book. And why? Well, that was the only way to generate royalties:
And Carroll had a history of grifting, too. Before the book even dropped, she was charging admission for her “Most Hideous Men in NYC Walking Tour,” a 90-minute #MeToo landmark stroll through Manhattan. The tour started at the Bergdorf Goodman entrance on 58th Street, which just so happens to be exactly where she claims she first encountered Trump the day of the alleged assault. She had been leading paying groups past that spot before she’d told the world what had supposedly happened there.
Now here’s where the origins of these allegations get genuinely interesting. Carroll, by then a certified celebrity of the anti-Trump resistance, attended a party at writer Molly Jong-Fast’s Manhattan home, a gathering the New York Times described as “Resistance Twitter come to life.” The guest list included George Conway, who apparently advised Carroll to sue Trump for defamation.
The case got a critical boost when the New York legislature passed the Adult Survivors Act in 2022, which allowed sexual assault claims to be filed regardless of expired statutes of limitations. Carroll had helped advocate for the bill. The Act went into effect on November 24, 2022, and within hours, Carroll filed a second suit, this time adding a rape allegation in addition to defamation.
Tech billionaire Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn and a virulent anti-Trump guy, bankrolled all of it. But Carroll testified under oath that no one was paying her legal fees. She described it as a “contingency case.”
It was just before the trial began that her own attorney wrote to Trump’s legal team admitting that Carroll had “recollected additional information” while preparing for testimony.
Trump’s lawyers stated that the “belated disclosure” raised “significant concerns” about Carroll’s “bias and motive.”
Hoffman carries political baggage of his own. In 2018, Hoffman apologized after it was revealed he had funded a group that secretly mimicked Russian disinformation to help a Democrat win an Alabama Senate seat.
Now, York says, investigators are digging deeper into the broader origins of the anti-Trump legal and political apparatus.
This includes the network of activist lawyers, wealthy donors, resistance groups, and strategically timed legal maneuvers that critics argue helped fuel years of coordinated lawfare against Trump.
For conservatives, the emerging scrutiny feels long overdue.