Senate Republicans Rick Scott and Mike Lee are urging House Republicans to reject a recent Senate funding deal unless it restores Homeland Security funding and includes the SAVE America Act. They believe the current package, which funds several departments but strips DHS and contains hefty earmarks, fails to protect borders, elections, and taxpayers.
The Senate package passed as a partial funding measure for five agencies, including the Pentagon, while leaving out the Homeland Security bill after intense negotiation. Scott and Lee argue the bill must be retooled to include a modified version of the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility Act, called the SAVE America Act, alongside DHS funding. Their stance puts pressure on House leaders to weigh security and integrity against the rush to avoid a shutdown. The choice facing Republicans is whether to accept a compromised deal or hold the line for core priorities.
Scott has been unmistakable in his criticism of the current deal and the Democrats who backed it, saying congressional Democrats would “NEVER fund DHS” and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He voted against the package twice, pointing to big spending levels that, he says, only add to the nation’s already staggering debt and betray promises of fiscal restraint. Scott also blasted the inclusion of billions in earmarks, arguing they reward the status quo and undercut conservative goals. “If House Republicans don’t put the DHS bill back in, add the SAVE America Act and remove the wasteful earmarks, Democrats win,” Scott said. “We must protect our homeland, secure our elections and end the reckless spending NOW!”
Sen. Mike Lee backed Scott’s objections and likewise rejected the package over earmarks and principle. He has pushed publicly for the SAVE America Act to be included with DHS funding, teaming up in spirit with House conservatives who want stronger election rules. “To my friends in the House GOP: Please put DHS funding back in, then add the SAVE America Act,” Lee wrote on X. That direct appeal aims to pin responsibility on House members to either defend homeland security and election integrity or accept a package many conservatives see as hollow.
The updated SAVE Act would tighten voting rules by requiring photo identification at the ballot box, demanding proof of citizenship for in-person voter registration, and removing noncitizens from voter rolls. Supporters say these measures are commonsense steps to restore confidence in elections and ensure only eligible citizens vote. Opponents claim changes are unnecessary or politically motivated, but the bill’s proponents frame it as a necessary fix to safeguard fundamental democratic processes. For many House conservatives, election security is nonnegotiable.
The current Senate compromise was shaped in part by a truce between former President Trump and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that stripped DHS funding from the package. That decision followed the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti during an immigration operation in Minneapolis and was intended to clear a path for Senate passage. Removing DHS inflamed conservatives who view border security as central to any funding deal, and it created new friction between Senate strategy and House priorities. Now the House faces a test of whether to accept the Senate’s terms or demand a return to stronger border funding.
Any attempt to add the SAVE America Act or DHS funding would send the bill back to the Senate, where Schumer and his caucus could reject the changes and restart the negotiation cycle. That risk raises the prospect of a prolonged funding standoff rather than a quick, temporary shutdown. A back-and-forth between chambers would not only delay funding for critical operations but also give Democrats more opportunities to press their own terms. For Republicans, the procedural reality is harsh: standing firm could lead to more conflict, while conceding could mean losing key policy wins.
The situation also places House Speaker Mike Johnson in a difficult spot, as several House Republicans are already calling for concessions from Democrats. Representative Anna Paulina Luna is among those pushing to insert the SAVE Act into the package, reflecting a broader conservative push in the lower chamber. House leadership will have to balance keeping the Republican conference together with the pragmatic need to pass funding measures. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders have warned they would block any fast-tracked attempts to alter the package when the House reconvenes.
The debate coming to a head in Washington centers on competing priorities: homeland security, election integrity, fiscal restraint, and avoiding disruption to government operations. Conservative senators and House allies are making a clear choice: protect borders and secure elections, or accept a deal that GOP critics say leaves too much on the table. The outcome will shape not just budget lines but how Republicans are judged on core promises to voters who want stronger security and accountability from their leaders.
