Outgoing Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky slammed President Donald Trump’s insistence on passing the SAVE Act.

Massie made the comments to reporters Friday morning in a News Nation clip surfaced by journalist Aaron Rupar.

“I’ll vote for the SAVE Act, but I think it’s a distraction from our real problems.I think it’s ironic that we control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the White House, and we’re yelling ‘election fraud’? I mean, we won all the damn elections!” Massie said.

Massie: "I think it's ironic that we control the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and the White House, and we're yelling 'election fraud'? I mean, we won all the damn elections." pic.twitter.com/dynY1dbEjs

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 26, 2026

The SAVE Act—also known as the SAVE America Act, or by its official name, the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act—has been pushed by Trump as a way to fight election fraud. It would require people provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, and show photo ID while at the polls. There is no evidence of widespread election fraud.

READ MORE: Trump Holds Housing Bill Hostage, Mike Johnson Says He’ll Sign It Anyway

The SAVE Act passed the House—with one Democrat, Texan Rep. Henry Cuellar joining Republicans—but the bill has languished in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) says he won’t bring the bill to a vote because it doesn’t have the support needed to pass.

Trump has been vocal on getting the SAVE Act passed. On Wednesday, he called for an end to the filibuster. Though the Act likely has about 50 votes—enough to pass with a simple majority—it would be filibustered in the Senate. A filibuster boosts the requirement to pass to 60, which would be nearly impossible. All 53 Republicans would need to be present and vote for it, plus seven Democrats. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is currently on health leave after being hospitalized this month.

The same day, Trump announced that he would not be signing the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act until the SAVE Act is passed. That bill is set to reduce housing prices and limit corporate ownership of homes. It passed both chambers by an overwhelming majority—85-5 in the Senate and 393-13 in the House.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency. Thank you for your attention to this matter!” Trump wrote.

It’s unknown if or how the SAVE Act will progress. Some senators suggest it could be put into a budget reconciliation bill, requiring only a simple majority, according to the Hill. In that case, however, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough would have to backtrack on her previous decision that it could not be included due to the Byrd Rule. The Byrd Rule determines the kind of proposals that can be bundled into a budget reconciliation bill.

Image via Reuters

In a Thursday tweet, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-KY) appears to panic and crash out over the idea that progressive candidates backed by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani—collectively known as the Mamdani slate—will win.

“The House Democrat leadership team needs to be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do they intend to put anti-American, USA-hating leftist radicals on House committees if they are elected next Congress? These radicals who have ties to terrorist groups and have OPENLY SAID they want to:-Abolish borders and immigration enforcement -Grant mass amnesty, even to criminals and terrorists -Decriminalize trans-prostitution -Use taxpayer dollars for transgender surgeries -Abolish prisons and defund the police -Impose Medicare for All -Abolish the Senate and replace the President and Supreme Court -Eradicate America and Western civilization The American people deserve to know,” Johnson wrote, attaching a 11-and-a-half minute clip of Fox News reporting on his weekly press conference.

READ MORE: ‘No Moral Compass’: Cuomo Condemned for ‘Odious’ and ‘Racist’ Remarks on Mamdani

The House Democrat leadership team needs to be asked a simple yes-or-no question:

Do they intend to put anti-American, USA-hating leftist radicals on House committees if they are elected next Congress?

These radicals who have ties to terrorist groups and have OPENLY SAID they… pic.twitter.com/YGqrkrSIOP

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) June 25, 2026

The Mamdani slate—Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez—all triumphed in Tuesday’s Democratic primaries in New York. The three candidates overtook two incumbents, Reps. Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat, as well as the candidate endorsed by the retiring Rep. Nydia Velazquez. The three defeated Democrats were aligned with the establishment, centrist wing of the Democratic party.

Most of Johnson’s complaints come from reporting on Chevalier’s deleted X account, resurfaced by CNN reporting. CNN reported that Chevalier’s retweets included a call for a “world without borders … prisons or police.”

“A world without borders—just like a world without prisons or police—is possible, necessary, and the only moral way forward,” read a retweet from September 2021. She also reportedly retweeted messages saying “Yes, literally, abolish the border” and that “all deportation is wrong.” In her own tweets on this deleted account, mostly dating from around 2020 and 2021, she called for the end of “policing full stop. Period. No more police at all ever.”

Some of the things Johnson warns about, like Medicare for All, are widely popular, according to surveys. One Data for Progress survey found that nearly 50% of Republicans at least “somewhat support” Medicare for All.

Other claims Johnson makes, like that the Mamdani slate want to  abolish the Senate or “eradicate America and Western civilization” are baffling and appear to be based on nothing. And some—like the desire to replace the president—are just called being a Democrat.

Image via Reuters

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called out the conservative members of the Supreme Court for a “sudden aversion” to history in striking down a Hawaiian gun control law.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 along ideological lines on Wolford v. Lopez Thursday morning. Prior to the ruling, Hawaii state law banned carrying a firearm into private property accessible by the public—like a gas station or supermarket, for example—unless explicitly given permission by the property owner.

Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion. In it, the Court ruled that Hawaii’s law did not pass a test laid out in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen. Bruen is a two-part test for Second Amendment cases. First, it asks whether the law before the Court “applies to ‘the people’ and restricts the ‘keeping’ or ‘bearing’ of ‘Arms.'” Next it must also look at whether the law infringes upon “the historical understanding of the codified right.”

READ MORE: ‘Gun Grabbers’: Trump DOJ Blasted for Weighing ‘Legally Illiterate’ Trans Gun Ban

Hawaii has had prohibitions on firearms since before it became a state. However, when the Court decided Bruen, which repealed a number of state laws prohibiting carrying firearms outside the home, Hawaii passed this version of the law. Under the law, while Hawaiians could carry firearms in public, they were assumed to be barred from most businesses.

“When these permit holders leave home in the morning, not only must they take care to avoid all the territory where the possession of a gun is prohibited outright, but they may also be barred from entering many places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines, such as gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, coffee shops, drug stores, grocery stores, ‘big box’ stores, home improvement stores, barber shops or hair salons, dry cleaners, and laundromats,” Alito wrote. “This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives. We hold that the law is unconstitutional.”

Justice Jackson had harsh words for this line of argument. She wrote that while she disagreed with the original Bruen ruling, she accepts it as precedent—but says the majority got the test wrong, as the law is fundamentally not a Second Amendment case but a property law case.

“To hear the majority tell it, Hawaii’s law is a blatant attempt to end-run our Second Amendment precedents. But the statute at issue does no such thing. Instead, it fairly applies a first principle of property law—the right to exclude—and does no harm to the Second Amendment,” she wrote.

She also points out Hawaii’s historical relationship with gun laws, dating back to pre-colonial rule in 1833. In that year, King Kamehameha III banned weapon ownership generally, including knives, swords and firearms. The king’s law continued even after U.S. annexation in 1898. In 1927, some people in Hawaii were allowed to carry firearms, but it was tightly controlled.

Even after being granted statehood in 1959, Hawaii kept strong regulations on firearms. A 1961 law adjusted the regulations to allow gun ownership if a potential owner could prove an “exceptional case,” Jackson wrote.

“That custom continued until very recently. Prior to this Court’s decision in Bruen, Hawaii issued concealed-carry permits only in ‘exceptional case[s],’ which required ‘an applicant [to] sho[w] reason to fear injury to the applicant’s person or property.’ … The result? Hawaiians have rarely carried (or encountered others carrying) guns,” Jackson wrote.

The conservative wing of the Court claims to follow the “originalist” philosophy of jurisprudence—attempting to not just follow the letter of the law but how it would have been interpreted when originally written. But Jackson poked fun at that side of the court for its “sudden aversion” to this interpretation of the Constitution and the existing Hawaii state laws.

“The Court’s sudden aversion to consulting history to inform the scope of the Second Amendment right at Bruen’s step one is strange, to say the least. Several Members of the majority have elsewhere opined that interpreting the Second Amendment requires understanding the original meaning of its text. Yet the majority’s newfound understanding of the first step of Bruen obliterates any need for reference back to original meaning. All that step one now requires is a 21st-century judge to read the text of the Second Amendment and ask herself what she thinks the words mean,” Jackson wrote.

“Worse, the majority’s new methodology is a one-way ratchet: It inevitably works only to the benefit of armed carry by removing any real burden of proof on gun owners at step one. The majority simply equates the ability to carry a gun with the right to carry anywhere and everywhere. … Because of that, it then assumes that any impediment to carrying qualifies as a burden on the right. … The upshot of the majority’s view of Bruen’s first step is thus that any law that regulates the carrying of firearms is presumptively unconstitutional. But under this Court’s precedents, assessing whether conduct falls within the right protected by the Second Amendment requires more than breezily asserting that the restricted conduct involves carrying a firearm,” she added.

In closing, she calls out the majority for changing the Bruen test, but also stripping property interests from citizens being “protected against unauthorized armed entry.”

“From this day forward, it will be difficult to view Bruen as anything more than a fig leaf,” She wrote. “Of course, the real irony is that the Court’s effort to rein in judicial discretion has resulted in an arbitrary rule that unleashes judges to thwart gun regulation at every turn.”