Congressional Republicans are pushing back against Democratic claims that their marquee voter ID legislation would wreak havoc on elections in the country.

Congressional Democrats have panned the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act as a tool of voter suppression — saying it’s a bill that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to monitor Americans’ voter information and create barriers for married women to vote, among several other claims.

Along with requiring photo ID to vote, the bill would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, mandate states to actively verify and remove noncitizens from voter rolls, expand information sharing with federal agencies, including DHS, to verify citizenship, and create new criminal penalties for registering noncitizens to vote.

Trump has time and again pushed voter ID, calling the election reforms in the bill a ‘CAN’T MISS FOR RE-ELECTION IN THE MIDTERMS, AND BEYOND.’ 

Some of the bill’s strongest proponents fact-checked those claims in interviews with Fox News Digital.

‘If you look at what it actually says, rather than what Democrats aggressively and, I believe, disingenuously are arguing right now — they’re overlooking the requirements of the SAVE America Act — those requirements are actually really generous,’ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, told Fox News Digital. ‘They’re really flexible.’

Here’s a closer look at some of the most common claims Democrats have made about the SAVE America Act — and how Republican supporters of the bill are responding.

Claim: ‘Federalizing voter suppression’

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., routinely has bashed the SAVE America Act as ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ — the segregationist laws of the Deep South largely done away with by the Civil Rights Act.

‘It has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression,’ Schumer said earlier in February on the Senate floor.

But Republicans argued that Democrats were being ‘hypocritical’ in their voter suppression charge, particularly when it comes to voter ID.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., whose home state is one of 36 that either requests or requires a form of photo identification before voting, argued that voter ID laws across the country had no effect on turnout.

‘This idea that they’re saying that it’s going to suppress any vote — it’s never done that anywhere,’ Scott told Fox News Digital. ‘They said that when Georgia passed it, and they had record turnout. So it’s not true at all. I mean, how many people do you know who don’t have an ID?’

Claim: DHS will have access to legal voters’ data

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., argued during a press conference that this iteration of the SAVE Act — with its new name — is ‘worse’ than the version that passed the House in April because it gave DHS access to Americans’ voter data.

He appeared to be referring to a provision that would allow DHS to begin potential deportation proceedings against a noncitizen found on a state’s voter rolls.

‘This version, as I understand it, would actually give DHS the power to get voting records from states across the country,’ Jeffries said earlier in February. ‘Why would these extremists think that’s a good idea? That we as Democrats are going to accept at this moment in time? We’d want DHS and ICE, who have been brutally, viciously and violently targeting everyday Americans, to have more data about the American people? It’s outrageous.’

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, who led both the SAVE Act and SAVE America Act in the House, argued Democrats were ‘really reaching’ for criticism.

‘This actually allows and empowers states to be able to — as many of them want to do — check their voter rolls against the citizenship database that they’re currently prohibited from doing under a judicial interpretation of federal law,’ Roy said.

‘So, long-winded way of saying, no — the SAVE system exists, we have citizenship data, and we’re simply going to allow the checking of voter rolls against citizenship data.’

Claim: Suppresses married women’s right to vote

Another oft-repeated argument by Democrats is that the legislation would make it harder for American women to vote — specifically married women whose last names are now different from those on their birth certificates.

That’s because the bill would require proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a Real ID, to register to vote.

‘Republicans aren’t truly afraid of noncitizens voting, which we all know is already illegal, already grounds for deportation,’ House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., said earlier this month. ‘They’re afraid of women voting.’

Rep. Emilia Sykes, D-Ohio, said during the same press conference, ‘If your current name does not exactly fit and match the name on your birth certificate or citizenship papers, you could be blocked from registering to vote, even if you are a lifelong naturalized or American-born citizen.’

But Roy again said this was untrue.

‘This is absolute nonsense, and we specifically allow for a provision to make sure that no one can possibly be left behind,’ he said.

‘If a woman tried to register to vote with different names on her birth certificate and driver’s license,’ Roy said. ‘We literally put in the statute that all you have to do is sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that, ‘I am that person. This is my birth certificate … and this is my driver’s license that is reflecting my married name.’’

President Donald Trump’s newly created Board of Peace is set to hold its first meeting Thursday, with administration officials and participating countries framing the gathering as a step toward implementing the next phase of the Gaza ceasefire and reconstruction effort rather than a moment likely to deliver an immediate breakthrough.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement, ‘President Trump is proud to welcome representatives from more than 40 nations to the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace on Thursday for a major announcement on Board of Peace actions aimed at establishing enduring peace in the Middle East. Since the president and his team ended the war between Israel and Hamas last October, we have maintained the ceasefire, delivered historic levels of humanitarian aid, and secured the return of every living and deceased hostage. The Board of Peace will build on that progress and prove to be the most consequential international body in history.’

At least 40 countries are expected to attend the inaugural session in Washington, where Trump is slated to chair discussions on a multibillion-dollar reconstruction framework, humanitarian coordination and the potential deployment of an international stabilization force.

Officials said representatives will come from across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America, and speakers are expected to include President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Jared Kushner, Tony Blair, Ambassador Mike Waltz, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, High Representative Nickolay Mladenov and other participants.

Trump unveiled the initiative at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month. Initial members include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Bahrain, Pakistan, Turkey, Israel, Hungary, Morocco, Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Argentina, Paraguay, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Indonesia and Vietnam.

On Sunday, Trump said members of the initiative had already pledged $5 billion toward rebuilding Gaza and would commit personnel to international stabilization and policing efforts. ‘The Board of Peace will prove to be the most consequential international body in history, and it is my honor to serve as its Chairman,’ Trump wrote in a social media post announcing the commitments.

Italy’s foreign minister, Antonio Tajani, has announced a plan to train a future Gaza police force, while Indonesia has committed thousands of troops to a prospective international stabilization mission expected to deploy later this year.

The United Arab Emirates, a founding participant in the initiative, said it plans to continue its humanitarian engagement in Gaza.

‘The UAE remains committed to scaling up its humanitarian efforts to support Palestinians in Gaza and to advancing a durable peace between Israelis and Palestinians,’ the UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement, noting its role as a founding member of the Board of Peace and part of the Gaza Executive Board.

Even as Gulf and regional partners signal willingness to fund humanitarian needs, long-term reconstruction remains tied to security conditions on the ground.

Disarmament remains the central test

Analysts say the meeting’s significance will hinge less on headline announcements and more on whether participants align on the unresolved core issue shaping Gaza’s future: Hamas’ disarmament.

Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, argued the meeting’s credibility will depend on whether participants coalesce around a clear position on disarmament. ‘Unless there is going to be a joint statement coming out of it that clearly says Hamas has to disarm — to me the meeting would be a failure,’ he said, because it would show ‘the U.S. cannot get everyone on the same page.’

Funding is also expected to dominate discussions, though diplomats and analysts caution that pledges may not translate quickly into large-scale reconstruction.

‘We’re going to see pledges,’ al-Omari told Fox News Digital, ‘with a footnote that a pledge does not always translate to deliverables,’ urging attention to which countries commit funds and whether the money is earmarked for humanitarian aid, stabilization or long-term rebuilding.

John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), also cautioned that early financial pledges are unlikely to translate into immediate large-scale reconstruction. ‘I can’t imagine that much of that initial pledge or any of it is going to actual long-term or even medium-term reconstruction of Gaza. Just too many parties won’t support it, pending actual progress on the core question of disarmament and demilitarization of Hamas,’ he said.

Hannah added that the financing challenge remains enormous. ‘It’s been a major outstanding question: How are you going to fund this tremendous bill that is going to come due over the course of the next several years?’ he said. ‘I’ve been watching this now for 35 years, and if I had $100 for every time a major Arab country pledged support for the Palestinians but not delivered, I’d be a relatively wealthy man.’

Netanyahu signs on despite Turkey, Qatar tensions

The initiative has also highlighted political tensions surrounding Israel’s participation, particularly given the involvement of Turkey and Qatar.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signed on to the agreement last week during a meeting with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, placing Israel formally inside the framework despite earlier Israeli objections to Ankara and Doha playing a central role in Gaza’s future.

Hannah said Netanyahu’s decision reflects strategic calculations tied to Washington. ‘I think the prime minister doesn’t want to anger the president. He’s prioritizing his really good strategic relationship with Trump over this tactical difference over Turkey and Qatar,’ he said. ‘The prime minister is just making a basic calculation of where Israel’s interests lie here and trying to balance these competing factors.’

European allies raise legal concerns

Beyond Gaza, the initiative has sparked concern among European allies, many of whom have declined to join the board.

European officials told Fox News Digital the group’s charter raises legal and institutional questions and may conflict with the original U.N. framework that envisioned a Gaza-focused mechanism.

Speaking at the Munich Security Conference, European leaders argued the Board of Peace’s mandate appears to diverge from the U.N. Security Council resolution that initially supported a Gaza-specific body.

European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas said the resolution envisioned a time-limited structure tied directly to Gaza and to the U.N., but that the board’s current charter no longer reflects those provisions. ‘The U.N. Security Council resolution provided for a Board of Peace for Gaza… it provided for it to be limited in time until 2027… and referred to Gaza, whereas the statute of the Board of Peace makes no reference to any of these things,’ she said. ‘So I think there is a Security Council resolution but the Board of Peace does not reflect it.’

In response, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz criticized what he described as excessive concern over the initiative and argued the status quo in Gaza was unsustainable, and attacked what he said was ‘hand-wringing’ about the Board of Peace — saying the cycle of war with Hamas in control had to be broken.

Not a replacement for the United Nations

Despite European unease, analysts say the Board of Peace is unlikely to replace the U.N. system.

Al-Omari dismissed the idea that the initiative poses a serious institutional challenge, arguing that major powers remain deeply invested in the existing multilateral structure.

Hannah agreed, saying the administration appears to view Thursday’s meeting primarily as incremental progress rather than any kind of major breakthrough. ‘The way the administration is looking at this is just another sign of continued progress and momentum, rather than any kind of major breakthrough,’ he concluded.

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico’s campaign is $2.5 million richer this week and a bit closer to victory after Stephen Colbert, host of ‘The Late Show’ on CBS, made up a ridiculous lie about being censored by President Trump.

It took a few days for the dust to settle, but now that we have a clear picture of what happened, it is about as bad as it can be. In fact, it would likely be a fireable offense if the ratings challenged Colbert was not already slated to get the ax in May.

According to Colbert’s version of events, which is falling apart faster than a house of cards in a wind tunnel, he was told by CBS lawyers on Monday, just minutes before he was set to interview Talarico, that he could not air the conversation. Why? Because of the Trump administration Federal Communication Commission’s new rules on equal time.

A petulant Colbert went on to tell his audience that he wasn’t even supposed to mention being censored to them, but, putting on his free speech super hero cape, he would do the interview anyway, defying his bosses and release it on YouTube.

The only problem with all of this is that, according to both CBS and the FCC, nobody told Colbert the interview could not air. He just made it up. All that happened was that CBS lawyers told him if he had Talarico on, he might also have to give equal time to his Demcorat primary opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas.

It is not clear why Colbert would have any issue with having Crockett on, unless perhaps he and his friends in high places think the preppy White Bible school boy is more electable than the sassy Black finger-snapping lady.

Talarico was fundraising off of Colbert’s lie within minutes and raked in $2.5 million. Oh, and did I mention that early voting in Texas started on Tuesday, the day after this duplicitous debacle?

It truly was remarkable to watch. Even by Wednesday, when they knew quite well Colbert had not been censored, CNN had an entire panel that argued the Trump administration’s pressure on CBS had backfired because of the fundraising and the 5 million YouTube views the video got.

But there was no pressure on Colbert from the Trump administration. As FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told Fox News Channel’s Laura Ingraham, ‘CBS was very clear that Colbert could run the interview that he wanted with that political candidate. They just said, you may have to comply with equal time… But instead of doing that, they claimed that they were victims.’

All that the FCC has said, without taking any action, is that it may enforce equal time rules for talk shows, something it has not done in the past, but given how skewed late night comedy and daytime talk have become, it is worth considering.

‘The View,’ ABC’s mid-morning girl gaggle, had 128 liberal guests in 2025 and only two conservatives, one of which was actress Cheryl Hines, who is actually not conservative, just married to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 

Put bluntly, the reason that the equal time rules have not been enforced on talk shows is that they never had to be, because Johnny Carson, Tom Snyder and Phil Donahue didn’t turn their shows into nonstop political ads. Obviously, that has changed.

Colbert has been very clear that he purposefully uses his ‘comedy show’ to push a political agenda, in this case, to the benefit of James Talarico and the detriment of Jasmine Crockett, who is now in the awkward position of defending the Trump administration.

However, wherever one comes down on the equal time rules, it is crystal clear that Colbert is just flat-out, stone-cold lying when he says they were used to ban his interview from the air. Sadly, it is a lie many Democratic voters may take to their deathbeds.

There were two big victims to Colbert’s perfidy, the first being Crockett, who may be discovering that she is a little too Brown and uppity for the rich White men who still control liberal media and politics.

The second victim was the average citizen, who was separated from their money based on Colbert’s lies to fill the coffers of Talarico.

Thankfully, we only have about two more months to deal with Colbert’s nonsense and lies, at least on CBS late night. After that he can go to YouTube and interview anyone he pleases, just as he could have on Monday night.

The senior lawmaker leading the U.S. House of Representatives investigation of Jeffrey Epstein is the latest high-profile official to sound off on the arrest of former British royal Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., reiterated the need for accountability and lauded the Trump administration’s commitment to releasing its own information on Epstein.

‘There must be accountability for anyone who was involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific crimes,’ Comer told Fox News Digital. ‘The Justice Department’s transparency is ensuring that no one is above the law — even British royalty.’

News first broke of the former Prince Andrew’s arrest on suspicion of misconduct in public office in the early hours of Thursday morning on the U.S. East Coast.

It comes after a British police department said it was looking into a complaint that Andrew shared confidential information with Epstein, according to the BBC.

While he has denied any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein, Andrew was one of the late pedophile’s most well-known associates through the years.

Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s earliest and most vocal accusers, alleged in a memoir that Andrew had sex with her when she was a minor.

Giuffre died of suicide in April of last year. Epstein died of suicide in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019.

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., one of the earliest U.S. lawmakers to call for Andrew’s arrest in October 2025, told Fox News Digital, ‘If you’re watching a former prince get arrested today, remember: four Republicans refused to flinch, refused to fold, and forced the Epstein files into the light.’

‘Courage has consequences. So does corruption,’ said Mace, also a House Oversight Committee member.

She was one of four House Republicans who voted with Democrats to force a vote on mandating that the Department of Justice (DOJ) release all of its files related to Epstein’s case. The subsequent House vote was nearly unanimous, with just one GOP lawmaker voting against it.

Meanwhile, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee sounded off with renewed calls for accountability for other alleged Epstein associates.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va., said Andrew ‘appears repeatedly in the documents we have uncovered as having knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and is specifically named by victims as someone who engaged in wrongdoing.’

‘We hope today’s arrest will lead to answers and show that there will be accountability even if you hide, regardless of how rich and powerful you are,’ he said in a statement.

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., wrote on X, ‘This is exactly the kind of accountability we need from the Department of Justice. It’s time to bring the perpetrators to justice.’

A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life in prison Thursday for leading an insurrection after declaring martial law in December 2024.

Yoon was found guilty of abuse of authority and masterminding the insurrection.

Yoon, 65, denied the charges and argued that he had presidential authority to declare martial law and that his action was aimed at sounding the alarm over opposition parties’ obstruction of government.

Prosecutors said in January that Yoon’s ‘unconstitutional and illegal emergency martial law undermined the function of the National Assembly and the Election Commission … actually destroying the liberal democratic constitutional order.’

Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law lasted roughly six hours, sparking mass street protests before parliament quickly voted it down.

Under South Korean law, masterminding an insurrection carries a maximum sentence of death or life imprisonment. Prosecutors hadsought the death penalty.

While courts last imposed a death sentence in 2016, South Korea has not carried out an execution since 1997.

Yoon is expected to appeal the ruling.

Yoon faces eight ongoing trial proceedings and was already given a five-year prison sentence last month in a separate case on charges including obstructing authorities’ attempts to arrest him following his martial law declaration. He has appealed that sentence.

Reuters contributed to this report.