Kennedy Urges GOP To Use Budget Reconciliation To Pass SAVE Act
Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) is urging Republicans to pursue a dramatic procedural shift to pass the SAVE America Act — by using budget reconciliation to bypass a Democratic filibuster and approve the bill with a simple majority.
Advertisement
Under current plans, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has scheduled the SAVE America Act for consideration as standard legislation, meaning it would require 60 votes to invoke cloture and overcome a filibuster. With Republicans holding 53 seats, at least seven Democrats would need to join them.
Kennedy argues that approach is unnecessary. Speaking on the Senate floor, Kennedy said Republicans should attempt to pass the measure through reconciliation — a parliamentary process created under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that allows certain budget-related legislation to pass with just 50 votes plus the vice president.
That means, if structured properly, the bill could pass with unified Republican support and a tie-breaking vote from Vice President JD Vance.
“That’s how we passed the one big, beautiful bill,” Kennedy said, referencing prior GOP legislation enacted over Democratic opposition. He also noted that Democrats used reconciliation in 2021 to pass the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan on a party-line vote.
Kennedy acknowledged that reconciliation is not simple.
“Anything you propose through reconciliation has to be paid for. We can find the money,” he said. “And anything you pass through reconciliation has to conform with the contours of the Budget Control Act. We call that giving a provision a Byrd bath.”
The so-called Byrd Rule limits reconciliation to provisions directly tied to federal spending, revenue, or the debt limit. Measures considered “extraneous” — meaning their budgetary impact is merely incidental to policy changes — can be struck by the Senate parliamentarian.
“Our parliamentarian decides what passes muster under the Budget Control Act and what doesn’t,” Kennedy said.
Advertisement
He urged Republican leadership to enlist legal experts to draft a version of the SAVE Act that could survive what he described as the “Byrd bath.”
“We have yet to try going to these smart lawyers … and saying, ‘Craft us a SAVE Act that will pass muster under the Budget Control Act and can be blessed by the parliamentarian,’” Kennedy said.
Some senators have expressed skepticism that the bill’s election-policy provisions could qualify under reconciliation rules. Kennedy pushed back on that pessimism.
“I’ve been here 10 years. I’ve seen things pass muster — survive a Byrd bath — that I didn’t think had a hope in hell,” he said. “And I’ve seen provisions fail … that I thought were slam dunks.”
“You don’t know until you try,” he added.
The SAVE America Act, supported by President Donald Trump, would require proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, mandate photo identification at polling places, and restrict mail-in ballots to specific circumstances such as military service, illness, disability, or travel.
Conservatives argue the bill is essential to restoring public trust in elections. Critics say documented cases of non-citizen voting are rare and warn that stricter requirements could burden eligible voters.
Frustration among Republican activists has grown as the bill faces procedural hurdles. Last year, when the Senate parliamentarian ruled against a Medicaid-related provision in a separate GOP bill, some conservative leaders criticized the unelected official’s influence over legislative outcomes.
Kennedy stopped short of calling for rule changes or removal of the parliamentarian, instead emphasizing that the Senate should test the limits of reconciliation before conceding defeat.
“If this bill is as important as everybody says it is — and I think it is, because we’re not just talking about voting, we’re talking about the confidence, the trust of the American people in our elections — we should try it through reconciliation,” he said.
Whether leadership adopts Kennedy’s strategy remains uncertain. But his proposal signals escalating pressure within the Republican conference to use every available procedural tool to advance the administration’s election-integrity agenda — even if it means reshaping the legislative battlefield.
Seditious Six' Mark Kelly Does It AGAIN - Pete Hegseth Promises A Legal Response
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired U.S. Navy captain, drew criticism after discussing details from a classified Pentagon briefing during a live interview on CBS News. In the segment with anchor Margaret Brennan, Kelly described the impact of U.S. military operations in the Middle East on American weapons stockpiles. He specifically referenced munitions including Tomahawk cruise missiles, ATACMS, SM-3 interceptors, THAAD rounds, and Patriot systems, stating it was “shocking how deep we have gone into these magazines.”
Kelly attributed the depletion to decisions made by the current administration, saying the president acted “without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline,” which he argued left the United States less prepared for potential conflicts elsewhere, including a hypothetical scenario involving China and Taiwan. He noted that replenishing the stockpiles would take years.
The comments followed a classified briefing provided to members of Congress on the effects of recent U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict. National security experts and administration officials have expressed concern that public discussion of specific munitions levels and readiness timelines could compromise operational security and provide adversaries with actionable intelligence.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth responded swiftly, stating that the Department of Defense’s legal counsel would review Kelly’s remarks to determine whether they constituted a violation of his oath or improperly disclosed classified information. Hegseth wrote on social media: “Captain Mark Kelly strikes again. Now he’s blabbing on TV (falsely & dumbly) about a CLASSIFIED Pentagon briefing he received. Did he violate his oath…again? @DeptofWar legal counsel will review.”
Kelly has faced previous scrutiny for a video earlier this year in which he and several Democratic colleagues encouraged military members to evaluate the legality of orders from President Trump, remarks some critics labeled as seditious. As a former naval aviator and astronaut, Kelly has frequently drawn on his military background when discussing national security issues.
The senator’s office has not issued a direct response to Hegseth’s statement. In the interview, Kelly framed his comments as part of legitimate congressional oversight, noting that members of Congress receive classified briefings to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.
The episode highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over the handling of sensitive national security information. Legal analysts note that members of Congress are generally protected by the Speech or Debate Clause when discussing matters related to their official duties, but the public disclosure of classified details can still trigger internal reviews and potential referrals to the Department of Justice.
The Pentagon has declined to confirm or deny the accuracy of Kelly’s description of stockpile levels. Officials have previously warned that public speculation about munitions readiness can embolden adversaries and complicate deterrence strategy, particularly with respect to China’s military posture in the Indo-Pacific.
The incident occurs against the backdrop of heightened U.S.-Iran tensions and broader concerns about military readiness. Both Republican and Democratic lawmakers have expressed worries about the pace of munitions replenishment following sustained operations in multiple theaters. However, the public nature of Kelly’s remarks has intensified partisan debate over congressional responsibility and the boundaries of classified information.
As the Department of Defense legal review proceeds, the matter is likely to fuel further discussion about the balance between transparency, oversight, and national security in an era of heightened geopolitical competition.
Former General Milley Says Armed Forces Must Serve the Constitution Above Politics
Mark Milley Issues Stark Warning at Arlington National Cemetery — “Military Must Serve the Constitution, Not a President”
In times of political strain and national uncertainty, the most enduring principles of a democracy are often reaffirmed not through legislation or elections alone, but through the voices of those entrusted with its defense. The statement attributed to Mark Milley, delivered at Arlington National Cemetery, speaks directly to one of the foundational pillars of the United States: the subordination of military power to constitutional authority rather than individual leadership.
At the heart of Milley’s message lies a principle that distinguishes democratic systems from authoritarian ones—the military’s oath is sworn to the Constitution, not to a person. This idea, while deeply embedded in American civic tradition, gains renewed significance in moments when political divisions intensify and questions of loyalty arise. By emphasizing this distinction, Milley reinforces a core safeguard against the concentration of unchecked power: that no leader, regardless of position, stands above the constitutional framework.
The setting of Arlington National Cemetery adds a profound symbolic dimension to the statement. It is a place where the cost of preserving constitutional ideals is made visible in rows of white headstones, each representing a life given in service to something larger than individual ambition or political allegiance. Speaking in such a setting transforms a statement into a moral reflection, linking present concerns to a legacy of sacrifice. It reminds the nation that the principles under discussion are not abstract—they have been defended at the highest possible cost.
This message arrives amid ongoing debates about the relationship between civilian leadership and military responsibility. In any democracy, the military must remain under civilian control; yet that control is exercised through lawful authority rooted in constitutional order, not personal loyalty. The distinction is subtle but critical. It ensures that the armed forces operate as an institution of the state rather than as an instrument of any one leader’s will. When this balance is maintained, it protects both democratic governance and the integrity of the military itself.
Criticism of Milley’s remarks, particularly from allies of Donald Trump, reflects the broader polarization shaping contemporary political discourse. Some view such statements as overreach by military figures into political territory, raising concerns about the appropriate boundaries between military leadership and public debate. Others interpret them as necessary clarifications during a time when those boundaries may appear blurred. This divergence of interpretation underscores the difficulty of navigating institutional roles in a highly charged environment.
Yet beyond the immediate controversy, Milley’s words serve a broader purpose. They invite reflection on the nature of allegiance in a constitutional democracy. Loyalty, in this context, is not directed toward individuals but toward enduring principles—rule of law, separation of powers, and the rights enshrined in the Constitution. These principles provide continuity even as leaders change, ensuring that the nation’s identity is not tied to any single figure.
Ultimately, the significance of this moment lies not in partisan reactions but in the reaffirmation of a fundamental truth: the strength of a democracy depends on the clarity of its commitments. By reiterating that the military serves the Constitution above all, Milley echoes a tradition that has helped sustain American governance through crises both past and present.
In the quiet solemnity of Arlington, where history is etched in stone, such a reminder carries particular weight. It speaks not only to those currently in positions of power but to future generations, emphasizing that the preservation of democratic ideals requires constant vigilance—and, at times, the courage to restate what should never be forgotten.
