On February 10, 2026, the White House published the article Voter ID Is Overwhelmingly Popular with Literally Everyone — Except Democrat Politicians discussing the Save America Act HR7296. The article points out that the SAVE America Act is very popular with the majority of US Citizens no matter the race or sex. The biggest factor in whether or not one supports the SAVE Act is political with the vast majority of those who are against the SAVE Act being socialist democrats aka the loony left.
There are actually 3 bills in Congress, 2 in the House and 1 in the Senate about voting and voter ID. The HR22/S128 - SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) was discussed in my February 3, 2026 ANP Article). Although they have different numbers (one for the House and one for the Senate) the wording is the same.
The Save America Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) - HR7296 was introduced by Chip Roy (R-TX-21) on January 30, 2026. The bill has 95 cosponsors (of which all 95 are Republicans). The summary provided states:
This bill requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and requires photo identification to vote, in federal elections.
Specifically, the bill prohibits states from accepting and processing an application to register to vote in a federal election unless the applicant presents documentary proof of U.S. citizenship. The bill specifies what documents are considered acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, such as identification that complies with the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates U.S. citizenship.
Further, the bill (1) prohibits states from registering an individual to vote in a federal election unless, at the time the individual applies to register to vote, the individual provides documentary proof of U.S. citizenship; and (2) requires states to establish an alternative process to demonstrate U.S. citizenship.
Each state must take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, which shall include establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens using information supplied by certain sources.
Additionally, states must remove noncitizens from their official lists of eligible voters.
The bill (1) provides for a private right of action for certain violations, and (2) establishes criminal penalties for certain offenses.
Individuals voting in federal elections must present an eligible photo identification document. An individual who votes by absentee ballot must submit a copy of their identification document with both the request for, and the submission of, the absentee ballot.
Section 1 states that the bill is called Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act or SAVE America Act.
Section 2 ensures only citizens are registered to vote in elections for Federal office.
Subsection a states what can be used to show proof of citizenship (must be valid/un-expired):
REAL ID Act of 2005
Valid Passport
US Military ID card with US military record of service showing applicant's place of birth was in the US.
Government-issued photo ID issued by Federal, State, or Tribal government showing place of birth was in the US
Some other form of photo ID along with a certified birth certificate, hospital Record of Birth, final adoption decree, Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a US Citizen, Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by DHS with classification 'KIC'
Subsection b requires applicant to present documentary proof of US Citizenship and prohibits States from accepting or processing applications that do not include this documentary proof of US Citizenship.
Subsection c acknowledges some states automatically registers driver license applicants to vote, and now require documentary proof of citizenship must be presented at the same time as the driver license application.
Subsection d requires documentary proof of US Citizenship be provided along with the with national mail voter registration form
Subsection e requires voters to present proof of US Citizenship to Election Officials when submitting application to receive a mail-in ballot as well as requiring Voter Registration Agencies to obtain proof of US Citizenship when registering people to vote
Subsection f-j pertains to the Administration of Voter Registration of each State in which they must ensure only US Citizens are registered to Vote. This section lists the ways States can comply with Federal election law for Federal elections and specifically states the Federal agencies consulted may not charge a fee for their services with respect to Voter Registration.
Subsection k orders States to remove non-citizens from the voter registration rolls and orders a new field be included in the State voter registration rolls to document the type of documentary proof of US Citizenship that was provided upon registration.
Section 3 requires photo voter identification for voting (as specified above) in a Federal election.
Subsections a-d state the eligible ID must be tangible (not digital). Absentee voters must include a copy of the eligible ID both when they request the mail-in ballot as well as when they submit said ballot.
Subsection e gives an effective date based on the enactment of the bill (i.e., when it is signed into law).
Personally, I do not think this is burdensome for most people. The biggest burden will be for the states. They will have to add a data field in their voter registration database to document which US Citizenship documents were presented as evidence of US Citizenship. The other thing the states will have to do is clean up the voter registration rolls to remove everyone whose citizenship cannot be verified.
And just in case you were wondering, these countries all require ID to vote in their National Elections:
S269 - Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act was introduced by John Kennedy (R-LA) on January 28, 2025. This bill had 5 cosponsors (3 Republicans & 2 Democrats). This bill is related to HR2716 - Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act which was introduced by Clay Higgins (R-LA-3) on April 8, 2025 with 2 cosponsors (both Republican). The text for both bills is the same. The purpose of these bills is to improve coordination between Federal and State agencies and the Do Not Pay working system.
Section 2 directs the Commissioner of Social Security to provide information in the Do Not Pay (i.e., death registry) once the Commissioner has determined that there is clear and convincing evidence that the individual is actually deceased. In addition, the Commissioner shall notify any agency that has a cooperative agreement of the death. The effective date of this amendment is not until December 27, 2026.
The official summary reminds us that current law that requires the Social Security Agency to share its Death Master File with the Do Not Pay system has been in effect for the last 3 years. This bill makes this sharing permanent.
17 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
1 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
8 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
9 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
6 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ:
Representative McIver,
former FBI Director James Comey, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
former National Security Advisor John Bolton,
(illegal alien) Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ordered released 12/11/2025;
New York AG Letitia A James, dismissed without prejudice 11/24/2025,
Congressional candidate Katherine Abughazaleh
On February 6, 2026, Judges Pillard and Pan, of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered these first 4 lawsuits to be consolidated as docket # 26-5009 since the EOs these law groups are filing against are basically the same:
1. In the lawsuit Susman Godfrey LLP v. Executive Office of the President docket # 25-5310 Appeal of 1:25-cv-01107 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on August 26, 2025 about Law Firm Targeting EO - The government appealed Judge Alikhan's order awarding summary judgement to WilmerHale and vacating President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm (discussed in my August 27, 2025 ANP Article).
EO 14263 Addressing Risks from Susman Godfrey signed April 29, 2025 (discussed in my August 27, 2025 ANP Article) charges that Susman Godfrey engaged in activities detrimental to American interests. It further charges Susman Godfrey with unlawful discrimination. It also directs all contracts with this law firm be reviewed for adherence to established laws and EO guidelines.
2. In the lawsuitWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President docket # 25-5277 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00917 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 28, 2025 about Law Firm Targeting EO - The government appealed Judge Leon's order awarding summary judgement to WilmerHale and vacating President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm.
EO 14250 Addressing Risks From WilmerHale signed March 27, 2025 charges that WilmerHale engaged in activities detrimental to American interests. It further charges WilmerHaley with unlawful discrimination. It also directs all contracts with this law firm be reviewed for adherence to established laws and EO guidelines.
3. In the lawsuit Jenner & Block LLP v. DOJ docket # 25-5265 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00916 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 22, 2025 about Law Firm Targeting EO - The government appealed Judge Bates's order granting summary judgment which declared President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm as unlawful and voided.
EO 14246 Addressing Risks from Jenner & Block signed March 25, 2025 charges that Jenner & Block engaged in activities detrimental to American interests. It further charges Jenner & Block with unlawful discrimination. It also directs all contracts with this law firm be reviewed for adherence to established laws and EO guidelines. The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Jenner & Block adds that suspending security clearances of this group will protect the National interest as well as address "rogue" law firms that engage in conduct detrimental to critical American interests.
4. In the lawsuitPerkins Coie v. DOJ docket # 25-5241 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00716 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on July 2, 2025 about Law Firm Targeting EO - The government appealed Judge Howell's order granting summary judgment which declared President Trump's executive order targeting the law firm as unlawful and voided.
EO 14230 Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP signed March 6, 2025 charges that Perkins Coie LLP engaged in activities detrimental to American interests. It further charges Perkins Coie LLP with unlawful discrimination. It also directs all contracts with this law firm be reviewed for adherence to established laws and EO guidelines. The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Addresses Risks from Perkins Coie LLP states that this EO is meant to stop abuses that undermine our Nation and to ensure our government serves the American people.
A new lawsuitThe Interfaith Alliance v. Trump docket # 1:26-cv-01075 filed in District Court, S.D. New York on February 9, 2026 about Composition of the Religious Liberty Commission - The Interfaith Alliance sued the Trump administration over the creation of the Religious Liberty Commission, alleging that it has taken actions that violate the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The lawsuit seeks the following relief:
Declare that Defendants’ creation and administration of the Commission violates FACA by failing to ensure that the Commission’s membership is fairly balanced;
Order Defendants to employ good faith efforts to appoint a properly qualified representative from the excluded viewpoints;
Declare that the Defendants DOJ and Bondi’s administration of the Commission is arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law;
Declare that the Commission is not properly constituted and any report or recommendation does not reflect the views of a lawfully constituted advisory committee;
Enjoin Defendants to attach to any reports or recommendations produced by the Commission a disclaimer stating that the report was produced in violation of FACA’s requirement that the Commission’s membership be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented;
Order Defendants to immediately release all materials prepared for the Commission and to provide a Vaughn index for such material and those withheld from production for any reason;
Award Plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorney’s fees;
Grant such other relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.
I think "religion" needs to be defined more succinctly. A religion that acts to become the government of a country should not be considered a religion; it is a government that uses the idea of a deity to force actions upon individuals (both inside and outside the 'religion'). Plus, any 'religion' that advocates beheading non-adherents to their 'religion' as well as beheading any adherents that decide to pursue a different religion is antithetical to our form of government and especially our 1st Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.
Declare that the suit is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), (b)(2).
Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights;
Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating the Fifth Amendment and statutory rights of Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class;
Declare that Defendants have violated and are violating the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine;
Preliminarily and permanently order Defendants to allow Plaintiff L.H.M. and the members of the proposed Class to consult with attorneys while in detention;
Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from:
Impeding attorney-client communication between Plaintiff L.H.M. or members of the proposed Class and their attorneys; and
Retaliating in any form against any Plaintiff or Class Member for asserting their constitutional rights;
Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this action; and
Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
The detention conditions at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Dr., Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111, are at the heart of this lawsuit. During today’s oral argument, counsel for the Defendants was unable to answer some of the Court’s questions because counsel had not yet had an opportunity to visit the Whipple Federal Building. Defendants’ counsel asked for more time to supplement the record on the motions before the Court, and to allow her to personally view the conditions at the Whipple Federal Building. Plaintiffs’ counsel requested the same, and Defendants did not object.
Defendants shall allow full access to all detention facilities in the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building to Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel (and party representatives) before Monday, February 9, at 5 p.m. CST. The parties may file supplemental declarations on or before Tuesday, February 10, at 5 p.m. CST. Defendants shall coordinate with their counsel and Plaintiffs’ counsel to organize the logistics of access.
On February 8, 2026, plaintiffs requested an Order clarifying that at the inspection of the Whipple Building on Monday, February 9, 2026 at 8:30 a.m.:
Plaintiffs may have two attorneys and two party representatives attend;
both Plaintiffs and Defendants may interact with detainees in the Whipple Building on topics relevant to this case;
both Plaintiffs and Defendants may carry cellular phones and cameras and use them to obtain images or recordings relevant to this case, and, if needed, to contact the Court; and
Defendants may assert any such images or recordings obtained by either Plaintiffs or Defendants while in any non-public, secure area of the Whipple Building are confidential, pursuant to the terms of a hereafter-entered protective order consistent with the District’s template order.
Plaintiffs may have two attorneys and two party representatives attend the Whipple Building visit ordered by the Court;
Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may interact with detainees in the Whipple Building on topics relevant to this case; and
Plaintiffs’ counsel and representatives and defense counsel may not carry cellular phones and cameras during the visit.
When are these activist judges going to be told that "immigrants" whether legal or illegal, are to follow Immigration Law - first? Only US Citizens are afforded the rights and privileges afforded us through OUR US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
