The Fight To Save The SAVE America Act

Across the country, United Health Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the Goodacre provide 45,000 meals and lower A1C in the Twin Cities. And helping Hello Family Dool Us deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg. Because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn more at UnitedHealthgroup.com slash commitment. Across the country, United Health Group is working with local partners to build healthier communities every day. That includes helping partners like the Good Acre provide 45,000 meals and lower A1C in the Twin Cities and helping Hello Family Doolas deliver 44% fewer underweight births in Spartanburg because building healthier communities starts by giving people access to the care and services they need to live healthier lives. Learn more at UnitedHealthgroup.com slash commitment. I'm Ainslie Your Heart. I'm Charles Payne. I'm Martha McCallum, and this is the Fox News Rundown.

But for Republicans, it's a big litmus test on the conservative side of the aisle. Attaching it to the NDAA, what's the outcome of that? If people are so dialed into this and so insistent that this Save America Act not pass, does the NDA suffer? It would, but it begs the question, why? I mean, the Save America Act is very simple. Should you or should you not? The question before the senators, should you or should you not have to provide proof of citizenship in order to get registered to vote and show a signature when you vote that it is you, that it is indeed voting. Now, every other country on the face of the planet does this. You do it when you get on an airplane. They do it in bars all the time. Make sure you got, I mean, going into your local Costco has more security than our voting systems right now. So it really begs the question, why not? And it's terribly popular. I mean, Republicans, Democrats alike, you can take any demographic you want. Overwhelming majority of people support this. So are they against it because it's Donald Trump is supporting it? Like, why? And I think that political pressure ultimately wins the day that they can't hold back the dam that long. Like, why not do this? Okay, but let's talk about what some of the criticism is of this because even some Republicans are having issues with it. We know Senator John Fetterman, for example, has said he's not on board with this as a Democrat from Pennsylvania. So let's dial into some of these things because the critics say parts of this. are too onerous, that people don't have passports, they don't have their birth certificates, married women might not have time to ensure their documents are up to date to vote. What do you say to this particular criticism that the types of documents that should be accepted need to be expanded? If somebody has an amendment to offer, go ahead and offer it. But I don't see any reason why we should hold back from the integrity of the vote. A lot of people argue, oh, it's ease, it's convenience. You don't want to displace anybody. I would argue that integrity of the vote is paramount. And it begs the question, why do they do this in literally every other country where I would think getting to a place. to verify who you are is probably a little bit more difficult than the United States of America. So I just think the integrity of the vote is paramount, and you have a significant number of people who are concerned about that integrity. And you've got to be able to solve that. And it just seems so common sense to me. Jason, the president has said he wants legislation that would end mail-in voting. So far that... That isn't in the bill. Speaker Johnson told Fox News Sunday they could consider adding more things into a reconciliation package, but he believes an ID requirement in order to register to vote would already do so much. But what about the president's call for an end to mail-in voting? Because that is pretty popular. Well, I think if somebody, you think of people who are maybe receiving hospice care, maybe assisted living centers, there are.

There are parts, but there are ways to deal with that. We've dealt with this for decades. You can do an absentee ballot. You can do something where you go and vote in advance. Let's say you're traveling. We deal with it with our United States military, the hundreds of thousands of people that are serving overseas. We've dealt with this. These are not obstacles that are suddenly new and we don't know how to overcome them. I just think it's fundamentally wrong to take millions and millions of ballots. Throw them into the wind with your local grocery store and furniture coupons and a discount at your local ice cream, you know, yogurt shop. And then expect that everything comes back exactly the way it's supposed to. And I believe everybody should vote same day, same time, same information in person with a voter ID. But not everybody agrees with that. But to suggest that there be no identification, that mode or voter, you go to get your driver's license, you don't have to show ID to get that. And then suddenly you have the ability to vote. That's just ripe with fraud. That's just common sense. What about this one other criticism of this is an unfunded mandate on the states. You're asking too much of the states to conduct these purges of their voter roles. You're asking states to, you're requiring states to turn over all this data to DHS. There's already been a legal fight over that, actually. How much do you think that complicates things? Do you think any aspect of what's expected of states should be changed or amended in order to get this through? For a federal election, no. How they do the local school board race, how they do, you know, a local election. Go ahead and do it the way the homeowners association does it. That's their choice. But if you're talking about a federal race, United States House members, United States senators, you know, you're president of the United States. Yeah, let's make sure the integrity is priority number one. And it's going to cost some money. But they have it. We spent $7 trillion at the federal government. We spend $7 trillion. hundreds of billions of dollars in the states, the money's there to do this and do it right. Now, Speaker Johnson said this past weekend he's going to try to put this into a reconciliation bill because of the math in the Senate. The votes aren't there. But what do you think the parliamentarian will say to this if reconciliation is expected to address? budgetary matters and not legislation like this. Yeah, so the rule is you can't legislate on reconciliation. It has to be financial. And so maybe they have a creative way around that. I would hope so. The NDAA is another path. It's just, it's something that the president is adamant about. Senator Mike Lee from my home state of Utah has been helping lead the charge. And they look over at the house.

And it's passing on the Republican side of the aisle nearly, if not totally unanimously. So what is up with these two or three senators who think, oh, no, this is a bridge too far? You know, why? Why did they believe that? And you can't just give in to the hype and the anti- ID fight. There's a reason why so many people are fighting against identifying yourself when you vote. And it begs the question, doesn't that raise suspicions? It does for me. We spoke to Senator Rick Scott about all of this. He says you don't have to nuke the filibuster to get this done. You can just require Democrats to talk, like enforce the filibuster. Do you think that that's the tactic that they should take? And how long would it take? Well, it could go on and on, but at some points, you know, the Senate is either going to go into recess. or they're actually going to do their work. And you think of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, his famous scenes where he's out there till exhaustion and he collapses. That's the way it should be. That's the way I think America thinks it works. Right now the Senate is very lazy. They just raised their finger and say, nah, I'm not going to vote for that. Well, you know what? Force the vote. Force the debate. There are rules. And I agree with Senator Lee and Senator Scott. You don't need to change or amend the Senate rules. You actually have to play by the rules that were originally set. And those would require the senators to go to the floor and actually debate. And if they run out a debate and they run out of object, then at some point you're going to have a vote. And I think that's a healthy thing. You know, if it fails, then vote again and just keep doing it. That's the majority prerogative. That's the beauty of having the majority. But to just say, you know, we took a survey and a lot of people don't, you know, just if you don't want to do this, that isn't good enough, folks. They're taking a three-week recess. Here around July 4th, they should be at work actually working on this rather than and trying to figure out. If there's an amendment that gets over the finish line, do that. Right now, they're overseas. They're watching the World Cup. Come on. That's not putting America first. We don't have much time either creeping into mid-July here and midterms are around the corner. I just finally, before I let you go, Jason, your thoughts on the president's insistence here. I mean, he is adamant, not signing the housing bill, really tying future legislation and the successive future legislation to this Save America Act. What do you make of this insistence, even if things like the housing bill are popular?

Oh, well, the Save America Act is highly popular. It's even more popular. And so every single poll shows how popular the Save America Act is. I love that Donald Trump, the president, will hold the line and say, nope, this is a priority. It's a priority of mine. It should be a priority for the nation. That is a prerogative of a president, and I'm proud and happy and glad he's doing it. I think it sends a strong message and everything else on hold. But they should also. get rid of those recesses, which the president can accelerate and get those people back to work, too, if you really wanted to. Jason Chavitz, Jason in the House, Chafetz, thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. For over two decades, the Tunnel to Towers Foundation has been there for our fallen and catastrophically injured first responders, military, and gold star families. Born from the tragedy of 9-11, Tunnel to Towers provides mortgage-free homes to Gold Star and fallen first responder families with young children and built specifically adapted smart homes for catastrophically injured veterans and first responders. The Foundation also offers scholarships for college and trade school programs for... the children of Gold Star families, fallen first responders, and catastrophically injured veterans. And Tunnels to Tower is committed to eradicating veteran homelessness and helping America never forget September 11th. To learn more about the Foundation's mission, impact, and how you can support our nation's heroes, visit T2T.org. Hey, it's Will Kane, co-host of Fox and Friends Weekend. Join me as I share my thoughts on a wide range of topics from sports and pop culture to politics and business. The Will Kane podcast. Subscribe and listen now at Fox News Podcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Carol Roth with your Fox News Commentary. Coming up. This past Saturday, July 4th, as America celebrated its 250th birthday, the sun set on the Department of Government Efficiency. That was the end date for Doge laid out in President Trump's executive order, signed on his first day back in office, naming Elon Musk as its leader. The goal was to reduce federal spending by at least $2 trillion. Elon Musk, during a cabinet meeting last March, announced the discovery of fraud through the Small Business Administration. We're handing out loans, $330 million worth of loans to people under the age of 11. I think the youngest, Kelly, was a nine-month-year-old who got $100,000 loan. Fraudsters harvested and used kids' social security numbers. SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler introduced new age checks for loans. Elon Musk spoke to Fox business also last March about cuts to foreign aid programs. We started looking closely at USCID because they were completely violating the president's executive orders to suspend foreign aid, but in our view is a lot of corruption. Some of his claims were debunked, like this one from Elon Musk with reporters in the Oval Office last February. We've seen just crazy things like the...

20 million dead people in the Social Security database mocked is alive, many of whom were receiving benefits. One person was 360 years old. An old computer program used 1875 as a default birth year when it was missing or unknown, and there were dead people in the database from decades ago who appeared to be aging because their death year was never entered. None of those people were getting checks. Elon Musk left government at the end of May 2025. By November, the head of the Office of Personnel Management, Scott Cooper, said Doge didn't exist anymore with eight months left officially. He says now, efficiency is still the goal, but he can't make agencies stop spending. We've set a set of rules and policies, and we are helping manage them. So think about us as we are a power of persuasion part of the government, more so than a hammer where I can reach in and make changes on behalf of an agency. He spoke with Fox Business. So as of right now, I would look at it more like a strategic reshaping than a return to the old status quo. And correspondent, Derham Betelow. Now that Doge's formal mandate has wrapped up, agencies are filling mission critical gaps left by the massive cuts. So we're seeing this primarily at the Social Security Administration, which is bringing back staff to fix backlogged customer call centers and the energy department, which really needs personnel to handle nuclear waste on management as we continue with that nuclear mandate from the Trump administration to move forward in that direction. Yeah, I mean, from the beginning, there are criticism that these cuts were just too broad, that, you know, chainsaw instead of a scalpel. they just looked at raw numbers. They didn't look at what was actually working or wasteful or inefficient or what stuff you actually needed people for. So they found that as they went along. Like I said, Social Security Administration, that's where they really found that there is a need and they're bringing them back. Really, this should be looked at as something where it's, like you said, taking a chainsaw to it and seeing what works, what doesn't work, and then filling in the gaps now. So President Clinton eliminated 30 years ago, something like 400,000, 500,000 federal jobs, but he did that over several years. And a lot of that was just early retirement packages. So sometimes you do get administrations where they share this goal. And that goal is still obviously going to live on with the Trump administration. You spoke to somebody who's going to try to be instrumental in keeping it going. Right. So we did the interview with one agency that is going to go look at what exactly is working and not working. But I do want to really put it out there and highlight the fact that they can't actually go in and tell, for example. HHS, you have to cut this. This is the Office of Personnel Management, by the way. You know, we spoke with them this morning, and they were saying, really, we can speak with these agencies and we can suggest maybe we don't need this. Maybe we do need that. But they can't be like, you need to cut this. Yeah, and Doge never really had a legal mandate, right? It was just...

The heads of those agencies went along with it because that's what their job was under the Trump administration. They wanted to go along with what the president wanted and what Elon Musk wanted. Right, exactly. They were more accounting. That's what the Office of Personnel Management is doing. Scott Cooper, he was saying that they're going to continue that on. Keep in mind. According to Doge, they've already saved us $215 billion. Their goal was a trillion dollars, by the way. But Scott Cooper said they're going to continue to go in, just like you said, can't force these agencies to actually cut, but they're going to go in and look line by line and say, hey, these five things right here we're looking at, do you need to continue on with these programs? Or can we cut it? But I will say that they do have a lot of influence. So like you said, they can't force them to do it, but they can highly suggest like, hey, this looks like you really don't need it. Has anybody tried to quantify how much of these cuts produce net savings after that $215 billion? After you also throw in, you know, severance pay and legal costs and like you said, sometimes later rehiring and pushing costs on the state and local governments, for example. I mean, the number that's really out there that they're releasing is the $250 billion. The $215 billion represents what they've cut, but that doesn't take into effect all the other packages and payments that they've had to make out. So you're correct in that. We don't actually have a figure for that. We only have like the item agenda that they've cut. Also, I mean... The hard truth is that cutting administrative waste and clawing back unspent funds is just a drop in the bucket. You know, to truly move the needle. on our multi-trillion dollar debt, Washington eventually has to reform mandatory entitlement spending, you know, so specifically Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. So really, until Congress tackles structural entitlement spending and pairs it with pro-growth economic policies, we're really just, you know, playing at the margins. Yeah, and barely the margin. I was going to, that was going to be my next question. As you pointed in your story, the national debt is $39 trillion. And... Even if you take Doge, if that $215 billion is a true cut, that's like half a percent of the national debt that's growing much faster than that money ever could catch up. So I just don't know what if anything at this point can stop this big a snowball rolling down this big a hill. You know, and I ask Scott Cooper that because obviously $215 billion is a drop of the bucket like you said. I mean, it's better than nothing, but in context. Yeah. His response was, obviously, you know, this isn't all for show. This is also, to prove a point, this is how much.

waste, fraud, and abuse we have going on, and it needs to continue. So the $215 billion is not supposed to be looked at, well, wow, we eliminated, you know, all the unnecessary spending and fraud, you know, going on right now in the government. It's also symbolic to get the ball rolling, you know, what it should look like in the future. So he did want to emphasize that, that it is being acknowledged that it is a drop in the bucket. And even just politically going forward, I wonder if there's a sense that some long-term... good will come out of this in future administrations from calling this stuff out and not just ignoring it and not saying it's inevitable and trying to root out waste and fraud is a goal that you should just have period all the time in government during any administration yeah exactly um again symbolic but also literal um you know 215 billion dollars isn't nothing that's what he wanted to say but like you said yeah it's for future administrations to say hey you know Let's look at this. We don't need to spend here. We don't need to spend there unnecessarily waste the taxpayers' money. Because at the end of the day, that's the whole point of this, is to root out the waste that are your tax dollars and my tax dollars that are not working for us. You know, that's the whole point. I also want to point out that the U.S. federal budget deficit is $1.25 trillion for the fiscal year. So that just goes to show you that. The $215 billion is not only just a drop in the bucket, but doesn't even cover the amount of spending that we're outpacing, you know, for what's being brought in. Again, not that money you should be wasted and people should be stealing it. Doja Charter wrapped up July 4th. That was the schedule. That's what the executive order was, I guess. The work, though, wrapped up like eight months ago. In November, was it mission accomplished or was it, okay, now we can do this without an actual commission? Or was it things aren't working out exactly like we hope. So let's just kind of let it die on the vine. So I cover this when it happened several months ago, as you pointed out. And the whole point was, I mean, first of all, like, you know, it's pretty obvious that when Elon Musk stepped away, it kind of changed things, the dynamic of the movement. But the movement did continue. It wasn't mission accomplished because it's never mission accomplished until the Trump administration would say they've rooted out all fraud and waste. So no, the answer to that is it's not mission accomplished. It was more of a reshaping. Like I said before, not going back to the old status quo and just saying that, yeah, like Elon Musk stepped away. So maybe we don't have this like, you know, pretty title of Doge and it being an informal agency. But the movement will continue for what it actually represents. So to answer your question, no, not mission accomplished. Also, not the end of Doge. It was more just like, we don't really need this fancy title. We can continue on with the movement on its own. John, let me ask you just one more thing since I know you cover, I understand you cover a lot of regulatory stuff. The Supreme Court last week gave President Trump, or gave President's period. more control over independent agencies. And I wonder, in this case, the Federal Trade Commission, so what happens in practical terms for corporations and for us under President Trump and what might happen under future presidents? I mean, let's say somebody, the next president or some future president hates mega mergers and is very anti-monopoly or once strict or looser fraud regulations. Are we going to see these wild swings in policy now at FTC or they're built in ways under the law so it's just marginal stuff that presidents can really do?

I think it's marginal. I don't think that you're going to see a precedent or even a chilling effect. I think it's going to be very siloed. I don't think that we can look at this as like a sweeping mandate. Dan Patelow, Fox Business Correspondent. Thanks, Darren. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. I'm Gianno Jalosi with your Fox True Crime Minute. Ohio authorities uncovered a house of horrors after serving a man in the home a warrant for indecent exposure. When police went to the Vinton County home of Gary Siders, the second, they found 16 children ranging in age from 18 months to 18 years. Living in a feces-filled home allegedly kept isolated in a 12-by-12-foot room. Police are now trying to unravel the case but say the children can barely speak. Reports say the 18-year-old is developmentally disabled and unable to even write her name. Attorney General Andy Wilson says the children have never been enrolled in school telling reporters the feces-filled room, quote, really looked third world, adding, I cannot get the smell off me. Seven children were hospitalized in the Columbus area, including two who were taken to trauma centers, ciders, his 33-year-old wife, Elizabeth, and his parents, Gary Sr. and Christina, were arrested last week and faced multiple charges of endangering children. There's more on the story at foxnews.com or subscribe to the Fox True Crime podcast. I'm Gianno Jalosi with your Fox True Crime Minute.

Who helps America go farther? Fly higher. Dream even bigger. People do. Since 1879, our people have been more than a source of energy. They've been a source of progress. Today, that same progress is helping deliver record U.S. energy production. Fueling the workers, the makers, the boundary pushers, and risk takers who spark the breakthroughs that move America forward. Learn more about what our people do at chevron.com slash USA 250. From the Fox News Podcasts Network, subscribe and listen to the Trey Gaudy podcast. Former federal prosecutor and four-term U.S. Congressman from South Carolina brings you a one-of-a-kind podcast. Subscribe and listen now by going to Fox News Podcasts.com. Subscribe to this podcast at Fox News Podcasts.com. It's time for your Fox News Commentary. Carol Roth. What's on your mind? With the IPO of SpaceX on June 12th, there has been endless commentary on Elon Musk's status as the world's first U.S. dollar trillionaire. But in my eyes, his greatest accomplishment in wealth creation is not what he's done for his own wealth, but what he's done for others. It's been reported that in Going Public, SpaceX has created wealth not just for Elon Musk, but for many employees. In fact, it's estimated that Going Public has made millionaires, at least on paper, of more than 4,000 SpaceX employees, which includes not just high-level executives, but employees enrolls from cafeteria workers to contract workers. In a time when corporations are deemed, quote, greedy by the mainstream media and progressive politicians, where ownership of tangible items is being replaced by subscriptions and where government deficits and fed money printing have degraded purchasing power. It's refreshing to see loyal, hardworking Americans across job functions be able to participate in authentic wealth creation for themselves and their families. About a decade ago, Juan Hernandez took a contract welder job at a company with which he was not familiar, SpaceX. He was offered a stock grant as part of his SpaceX pay package, and now his holdings are valued in the seven figures. If that wasn't amazing enough, he shared an interview that his positive experience has led him to teach investing to his three children. Now, SpaceX may be the highest profile company to share wealth creation with its employees, but it's hardly the only one. Private equity company KKR, spearheaded by partner Pete Stavros, has made it a mission to share wealth creation with a wide variety of employees of the company in which it invests. One of several examples is when KKR sold CHI overhead doors to steel producer New Corps a few years ago.

It was reported that the company's hourly employees, including factory employees, received between $20,000 and $800,000 before taxes, with $360 million total going to employees, the majority of whom were non-C-suite employees. Creating win-win situations is great for everyone involved. Employees help build businesses and are often frontline ambassadors. Having them have skin in the game is a low-risk way through equity or similar structures to create great outcomes for businesses, their employees, and their customers. Elon Musk and his team are not just building rockets, they're building wealth. Other companies should not just study SpaceX's outcomes, but the incentives of the team that helped get them there. Hopefully, we'll see many more companies, whether startups, mature companies, or those that go through a change of ownership, let their employees participate in ownership and wealth creation. I'm Carol Roth, author of You Will Own Nothing. You can connect with me at carolroth.com slash news.

You've been listening to the Fox News Rundown. And now, stay up to date by subscribing to this podcast at foxnewspodcasts.com. Listen ad-free on Fox News Podcasts plus on Apple Podcasts. And Prime members can listen to the show ad-free on Amazon music. And for up-to-the-minute news, go to foxnews.com. Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on it? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate.