The Dictatorship

Why the GOP’s latest, desperate attempt to rescue the SAVE Act failed

Published

3 months ago

March 23, 2026

Mar. 22, 2026, 6:00 AM EDT

Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, gas prices are nearing all time highs, the president has launched one of the most unpopular wars in modern American history, all while Democrats have been putting up big numbers even in deep red state races. Suffice it to say, the Republican Party is rather unpopular.

In response, Republicans seem to be trying to do what they have done for the last 10 years in an attempt to cling to power: use the law to suppress voters who aren’t likely to vote for them.

As Trump flails for a political angle to help pass this bill that he thinks he needs to keep control of Congress, the anti-transgender platform has been his fall-back.

This plan of action has guided the seemingly doomed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Actwhich President Donald Trump has been trying to pass with little luck.

As Trump flails for a political angle to help pass this bill that he thinks he needs to keep control of Congress, the anti-transgender platform has been his fall-back, evidenced when lawmakers proposed an amendment that would add a national ban on transgender girls playing girls sports, and a national ban on transgender youth receiving gender-affirming care to the bill.

But as we learned previously, transphobia won’t save Republican lawmakers, or the SAVE Act. That was confirmed on Saturday when the Senate voted down the amendment to ban transgender girls from playing girls sports, 49 to 41.

When it was first introduced last year, the act was seen by many as a transparent plan to suppress votes. It would require two forms of identification proving U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote, an ID at all polling places and would force states to check their registered voter rolls against a list of “ineligible voters” maintained by the Department of Homeland Security — and purge any voters on the DHS list from the rolls. The bill would also ban all mail-in voting, a popular practice in many states across the political spectrum.

Amongst the concerns from Democrats, who oppose the bill along party linesis the citizenship check for registering to vote. Any discrepancies between information on IDs will result in rejection from registering to vote. So for example, a married woman with a driver’s license with her married name and a birth certificate with her maiden name would be rejected for registration to vote unless she could produce a U.S. passport, which only roughly half of Americans could produce.

This wouldn’t be an issue for the vast majority of men, who do not customarily change their surnames when they get married. It just so happens that women as a demographic historically tend to vote more often for Democrats than other parties.

Through early debate, even some moderate Republicans opposed the bill, and its prospects of passing the Senate are minuscule without killing the filibuster. Nevertheless, Trump has declared that passing the SAVE America Act is his number one domestic short-term priority.

The amendment on gender-affirming care was similar to a bill from Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene that would make it a Class C felony for a doctor or medical professional to provide gender-affirming care.

The transgender sports ban was rather redundant, since most sport governing bodies have already banned trans women from women’s sports and so has the NCAA. It would have just essentially banned blue state transgender kids from playing on their school sports teams with their friends.

The anti-transgender provisions of the bill were designed to force Democrats into a difficult vote over a very divisive wedge issue. The hope was that by forcing Democrats to vote against these provisions, it would make for easy attack ad fodder come this fall during critical midterm general elections.

But Democrats weren’t budging, as we saw in Saturday’s Senate vote. Transgender issues don’t poll particularly well for Democrats overall, as some on the liberal side of the aisle have taken great pains to point out. Every time a vote on one of these anti-transgender bills comes up, The New York Times pumps out another editorial chiding the left for supporting transgender people and calling for them to be abandoned.

Even if the current Democratic party stance is politically unpopular, transgender issues as a whole just aren’t salient for most voters.

Trump earlier last week called transgender issues an “80% issue” for Republicans. But in reality, even if the current Democratic party stance is politically unpopular, transgender issues as a whole just aren’t salient for most voters. It’s important for someone like me, because I am transgender, and my friends and family members also feel it is important. But the number of voters whose votes can be swayed to the Democratic side by abandoning transgender issues is miniscule.

In last fall’s off-year elections, transgender issues ranked near the bottom in importance to voters on multiple major exit polls.

So there’s little political risk for Democrats to oppose the SAVE America Act, and now rthey’ve followed through on their threats to block it. Democratic opposition has even forced discussion of the idea that Republicans should kill the Senate filibuster to ensure the bill’s passage, an idea that has little support outside the extreme MAGA wing of the party.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., pointed out the other day that the filibuster is far more often a tool used to protect conservative priorities than liberal ones.

So if adding the anti-transgender positions aren’t going to pressure Democrats to support the bill, why add them in the first place? Trump understands that the far right wing of the party, the folks who spend all day marinating in right wing media, are obsessed with transgender issues. This is not actually a tool to force Democrats into submission, but rather a pressure tool designed to get Republicans to support killing the filibuster.

It is currently primary season for 2026, and across the country, Republican incumbents are facing challenges from candidates who are almost uniformly much more extreme. Any Republican on this year’s ballot (or even future primary ballots) seen as squishy on transgender issues will likely lose to a more extreme challenger.

That would in part explain why Trump wants this bill passed now, with enough time to implement it before this year’s general elections.

According to a recent NBC News articlehowever, it appears that Trump will not get his wish on the filibuster, and it appears as of right now that it will not reach the necessary 60-vote threshold to pass the Senate.

All of us should take this as a sign that the centrist-liberal panic over Democratic Party support for transgender issues is probably overblown. Voters have much bigger concerns on their minds this year as they hit the ballot box.

No one cares about transgender athletes when gas is hitting $6 or $7 a gallon.

Katelyn Burns is a freelance journalist based in New England.

The Dictatorship

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Monday’s Campaign Round-Up, 6.22.26: Why Trump backed both Republicans in a key S.C. race

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* In South Carolina’s gubernatorial raceDonald Trump endorsed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette last month. Last week, however, ahead of this week’s primary runoff election in the race, the president published an online item telling voters that “you can’t go wrong” with either Evette or state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

If this sounds at all familiar, it’s because Trump has done this before. Around this time two years ago, for example, he endorsed both Republicans running in a congressional primary in Arizona. And two years before that, he endorsed two leading contenders in a Senate primary in Missouri.

Only the president can say for sure why he ended up endorsing Evette and Wilson in the South Carolina race, though it’s worth emphasizing for context that GOP primary voters have already ignored his direction into two gubernatorial primaries this month, and it stands to reason that he hoped to avoid a third.

* We’re one day away from a variety of notable racesincluding but not limited to South Carolina’s gubernatorial race. There are also some congressional primaries in a handful of statesincluding Maryland, New York and Utah.

* In took a while, but the ballots have been tallied under Maine’s ranked-choice systemand we now know that Democrat Hannah Pingree, the former state House speaker, will face off against Republican Bobby Charles, who worked at the State Department during the Bush-Cheney era.

* As for Maine’s closely watched congressional racestate Auditor Matt Dunlap won the Democratic nomination in the battleground 2nd District, defeating state Sen. Joe Baldacci, who enjoyed the backing of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dunlap will run in the fall against a familiar figure: former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who had moved to Florida a few years ago, but who returned to run for Congress.

* In California’s congressional special electiontwo Democratic candidates — state Sen. Aisha Wahab and Melissa Hernandez, a Bay Area Rapid Transit director — have advanced to an Aug. 18 special general election. The winner will fill the vacancy left by disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell, who resigned in April.

* In a new commercial shared first with MS NOWDemocrat James Talarico has launched his campaign’s first multimillion-dollar ad buy in Texas’ gubernatorial race. In the 30-second spot, Talarico focuses on affordability and the cost of living. The state lawmaker will face scandal-plagued state Attorney General Ken Paxton in the fall.

* And in New Jersey, Republican Rep. Tom Kean Jr.who has been missing from Capitol Hill since early March, will reportedly return to work on June 30according to a statement from his spokesperson. Neither Kean nor his office have offered any public information about why he has been away.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump tries dual endorsement in South Carolina as his pick for governor flounders in polls

Jun. 22, 2026, 11:39 AM EDT

After President Donald Trump’s pick for governor in Iowa lost in the Republican primary earlier this month, the president argued that he “would have endorsed the other person” if he had “the proper information.”

Trump is taking no chances in the South Carolina gubernatorial primary. Over the weekend he rescinded his exclusive endorsement of Pamela Evette, the lieutenant governor, announcing instead that he would support both Evette and her runoff opponent, Alan Wilson, the state’s attorney general.

The move put Evette’s political future in jeopardy: Even before Trump’s dual endorsement, she trailed in limited public polling and was seen by political observers in South Carolina as a weak candidate with little to show besides the president’s coveted endorsement.

“Her chief distinction from Alan Wilson was that Trump endorsed her,” said Dr. Dubose Kapeluck, a professor of political science at the Citadel Military College of South Carolina.

Trump’s dual endorsement “was a kiss of death,” he told MS NOW.

Evette, who moved to South Carolina from Ohio to found a successful payroll and HR company in 2000, has been lieutenant governor since 2019, serving under Gov. Henry McMaster, who is term-limited.

In office, she has pursued meaningful but little-celebrated policies, like a key tort reform bill, according to Gil Gatch, a Republican member of the South Carolina state House and an Evette supporter.

But voters could be forgiven for knowing little about Evette besides the fact that Trump endorsed her, which he did just days before the June 9 primary. Visitors to her campaign website are greeted with a full-screen message labeling Evette as “Trump-endorsed.” The first line in her X bio states the same. Pro-Evette television ads are quick to tout the endorsement.

An accomplishment like tort reform, while noted on Evette’s website, “maybe could have been something that was highlighted more heavily,” Gatch told MS NOW.

The political makeup of South Carolina nearly guarantees the next governor will be whoever emerges on Tuesday between Evette and Wilson. They survived a crowded primary field on June 9, and nearly every challenger who fell short of the runoff publicly endorsed the attorney general.

“She’s just not a good candidate,” Josh Kimbrell, a state senator who failed to make the runoff and has since said he’d back Wilson, said of Evette.

“She kind of assumed this was a coronation, and that was never going to go over that well,” he added.

Even some pro-Trump voters were confused by the president’s initial endorsement of Evette, whom he called “a good friend, fighter, and WINNER” in a social media post in May.

“I have no clue why Trump would endorse Pamela Evette,” Leland Lemmons, a 30-year-old Trump supporter told MS NOW as he exited a polling site in the Greenville suburb of Easley on June 9.

“She’s served, you know, a decent time. I just haven’t seen much fruition of what she’s done in office,” he added.

In a post on Truth Social Friday announcing his dual endorsement, Trump wrote, “I can’t hurt one of them by only Endorsing the other, so, therefore, I am going to Endorse, for Governor of South Carolina, both Pam Evette and Alan Wilson!”

In a subsequent statement on X, Evette said, “I was proud to come in first as [Trump’s] endorsed candidate for Governor on June 9th. Looking forward to doing it again on June 23rd.”

After The Washington Post foreshadowed the dual endorsement last Tuesday, allies of Evette were quick to denounce the possibility.

“I would guess that’s fake news,” Suzanne Pucci, a member of Evette’s finance committee, told MS NOW of the chance Trump would also endorse Wilson. “She’s probably not real worried about it.”

Another close ally and supporter told MS NOW at the time the report was “a total, fabricated lie.”

“[Trump] is invested in Pamela Evette because she invested in him. He’s a loyal guy. That kind of stuff is important to him,” added the supporter, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“With or without Trump, I think she is going to win,” they said.

On Thursday, a senior campaign aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, brushed off the idea of a dual endorsement, telling MS NOW in a statement, “Pamela Evette has earned the complete and total endorsement of President Trump. She is the only Trump-endorsed candidate in this race and we look forward to delivering a big win for the president on Tuesday.”

Roughly 24 hours later, Trump retracted the exclusive endorsement.

Will McDuffie is a reporter for MS NOW.

The Dictatorship

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

Published

1 hour ago

June 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Fears of an ‘economic catastrophe’ helped push Trump toward an Iran deal

As last week’s G7 summit in France got underway, a reporter asked Donald Trump whether his purported deal with Iran was final. “No, it’s not final,” the president replied. Later that day — during a visit to Versaillesof all places — he signed the framework anyway.

But moments after signing his name to the memorandum of understanding, Trump offered an unsubtle hint about what he was thinking at the time. Amid applause from those around him, the American president pointed down and then up while saying“Oil down, stocks up.”

In other words, Trump’s focus had nothing to do with natural security and everything to do with the economy. What’s more, the four-word phrase was part of a larger and underappreciated pattern. The Washington Post reported:

In the more than 100 days since President Donald Trump launched a war with Iran, he has offered a shifting list of reasons for why he started the conflict. But in explaining his push for peace, he named a priority much closer to home: protecting the stock market.

“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit.

As the summit wrapped up, the Republican similarly said“I’ve studied presidents, some good, some bad, some great. Not too many are great and some really bad. … And the one president I did not want to be was the late, great Herbert Hoover. I didn’t want that and who knows what would have happened.”

He pushed the same point in an interview with Axios, which was released over the weekend.

“If I went further, the stock market would be much lower,” the president said. “Now think of this: I have one primary wish as president, in terms of people: I never want to be the late, great Herbert Hoover.”

The comments came days after Trump similarly argued“The alternative to this deal was a global recession. There are stupid people who want to see a global recession. They are just stupid people.”

Whether the president fully appreciates the implications of his own rhetoric, this string of comments doesn’t just shed light on his motivations for accepting a defeat, it also suggests he saw his failed policy in Iran as pushing the global economy toward a dangerous cliff.

In other words, based on Trump’s own comments, the war he started was poised to create an “economic catastrophe,” which he was desperate to avoid — and which led him to accept a framework that empowered Iran to get what it wanted in exchange for effectively no concessions at all.