Petulant Trump Won’t Sign Landmark Housing Bill. It Will Become Law Anyway

A bipartisan bill Trump refuses to sign will become law this weekend.

Petulant Defiance

Truth Social: I will not sign the Housing Bill, which has been fully approved by Congress and sent to the White House, in PROTEST over the fact that the United States Senate is not capable of passing THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is polling at 97% with the Republican Party, and very high with the non-politician Dumocrats. The Act states, quite simply, that to Vote a person must show PHOTO VOTER I.D., PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CROOKED, CORRUPT, & DESTABILIZING MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPTIONS for Military, Disabled, Illness, and Travel!). THE SAVE AMERICA ACT’S non-passage is CRAZY, and a serious threat to any politician who votes against it! If the Dumocrats, or any RINO (or worse!) working with them, do not allow a positive Vote on SAVE AMERICA, TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, and pass this, and every other Bill that true Republicans have ever dreamt of (In addition to the upcoming Budget BOMB and the 1929 catastrophic style DEBT CEILING BILL!). The Dumocrats will TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, if and when they ever get the chance to do so, in their very first hour – And I will no longer be able to call them Dumocrats again! The title of DUMB will revert to the Republicans who allowed this horrible calamity to happen to our Party, and our Nation, itself! MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Jul 10, 2026, 7:16 AM

The Wall Street Journal reports Trump Says He Won’t Sign Landmark Housing Bill

Congress passed the housing measure with big bipartisan majorities. But the president canceled the original signing ceremony last month and said he wouldn’t sign the bill until Congress passed stalled legislation to toughen voter-eligibility requirements. On top of the core voter-ID provisions, Trump wants to ban most mail-in voting nationwide. He also has demanded provisions ending transgender women’s participation in female sports and ending gender-related treatments for children.

Trump’s decision blindsided lawmakers who had been ready to declare the housing bill a rare bipartisan victory on a popular issue squeezing voters’ budgets. Real-estate industry leaders were also thrown off by the last-minute cancellation after they spent months lobbying to ensure certain provisions wouldn’t negatively affect their businesses.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson met with the White House later in June after which he told reporters he would send the bill to the president’s desk. Johnson transmitted the bill to the White House on June 29, starting a 10-day clock, excluding Sundays, for the president to sign the bill, veto it or let it become law without his signature.

The housing bill includes 50-some provisions aimed at making it easier to build homes and boost housing affordability. Home builders and developers say it could help at the margins. But most of the obstacles to housing production revolve around local zoning and building regulations that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to overhaul.

Even with Trump’s vow not to sign the bill, housing leaders are already preparing for it to become law. They are also trying to ensure that it doesn’t fizzle out as it gets implemented. 

National Housing Conference Chief Executive David Dworkin said his organization is using artificial intelligence for analyzing the bill’s provisions to offer the administration a blueprint for implementation as quickly as possible.

No Pocket Veto Here

A pocket veto allows a president to kill a bill by not signing it when there are less than 10 days left in the Congressional session.

That does not apply here. Once House Speaker Mike Johnson presented the bill to Trump, he had 10 days to sign it or veto it.

President Abraham Lincoln famously used a pocket veto to kill the Wade-Davis Bill on July 8, 1864. The congressional Reconstruction bill demanded that 50 percent of a Confederate state’s white male population take an “Ironclad Oath” of past and present loyalty to the Union before readmittance.

Had Lincoln vetoed the bill, it would have been possible for Congress to override it.

Bipartisan Signing Ceremony Cancelled

In June, after Trump refused to sign, a bipartisan celebration was cancelled.

If you think it’s stupid for Republicans to pass up an opportunity like that, well, so do I.

Trump Lies Regarding Save Act

1. The Act does far more than require an ID. It also kills most mail-in ballots.
2. Trump demanded and got provisions ending transgender women’s participation in female sports and ending gender-related treatments for children.
3. The ID requirements were purposely onerous on female and and minority voters, especially married women.

Point two, is just plain stupid, whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea. It made the bill a bit harder to pass.

I believe, but would rather not find out in Court, that points one and three are unconstitutional.

Here’s a three-point explanation.

1. Congress Lacks Authority to Impose Voter Qualifications.

The U.S. Constitution delegates the power to set voter qualifications—such as age, residency, and citizenship—to the states, with limited federal overrides via amendments (e.g., the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, or age).

The SAVE Act’s proof-of-citizenship requirement effectively establishes a new national qualification for voting by mandating documentation that verifies citizenship status, which exceeds Congress’s role under the Elections Clause. This clause allows Congress to regulate procedural aspects like how elections are conducted, but not who is eligible to participate.

In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (2013), the Supreme Court struck down a similar state-level proof-of-citizenship requirement for federal elections, ruling it conflicted with the NVRA’s simpler attestation process.

By amending the NVRA to impose such a requirement nationwide, the SAVE Act is overreach.

2. Violation of the National Voter Registration Act and Supremacy Clause Issues

Although the SAVE Act seeks to amend the NVRA, it would conflict with the NVRA’s original intent to streamline registration and reduce barriers.

The NVRA requires only a sworn attestation of citizenship under penalty of perjury, and courts have invalidated stricter state measures as preempted by federal law.

Kansas’s similar proof-of-citizenship law, for instance, was ruled unconstitutional after blocking over 30,000 eligible voters.

The SAVE Act’s nationwide mandate could be seen as an end-run around these rulings, potentially violating the Supremacy Clause by forcing states to adopt federal standards that disrupt their own election administration without clear constitutional justification. This preemption of state processes, including online and mail-in registration, would impose unfunded burdens on local officials and expose them to legal risks, further straining the federal-state balance.

3. Undue Burden on the Fundamental Right to Vote

Voting is a fundamental right protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and laws imposing severe burdens must survive strict scrutiny—meaning they must be narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest.

The SAVE Act would disenfranchise millions of eligible citizens, especially women and minorities who lack easy access to required documents.

Estimates suggest 21 million Americans don’t have readily available proof of citizenship, with disproportionate impacts on women (due to name changes), low-income voters, rural residents, students, older adults, and minorities.

Requiring in-person submission and excluding common IDs like student or state-issued cards adds barriers, potentially amounting to a modern poll tax if obtaining documents incurs costs (violating the 24th Amendment).

Non-citizen voting is already illegal and exceedingly rare (e.g., audits in Georgia and elsewhere found negligible instances), so the Act’s burdens far outweigh any demonstrated need, failing constitutional tests under cases like Anderson v. Celebrezze (1983).

On March 4, I cited Three Reasons the Save Act Is Unconstitutional

The SAVE Act won’t pass, and that’s a good thing.

Synopsis

While the Act aims to enhance election integrity, its unconstitutionality stems from encroaching on state powers, conflicting with established federal law, and erecting discriminatory barriers to voting.

The purpose of the act is to disenfranchise women and minorities who tend to vote Democratic.

The act is not about “voter ID” or it would not be written the way that it was.

If Trump tries to do this by Executive Order as threatened, there is a near 100 percent chance of swift court strike down, and the Supreme Court will not come to Trump’s aid. [Note this has indeed played out because Trump did try Executive Orders]

I am proud of my call because the consensus opinion at the time was the SAVE Act would pass by the end of this year.

Polymarket now has the odds of passage at 8 percent.

That’s too high. There are not enough votes to pass. It needs 60 votes to clear then Senate when it’s doubtful there are even 50.

There are at most 45 votes for changing the rules to kill the Filibuster.

Court Strikes Trump’s Executive Order on SAVE Voter-Verification System

On June 22, 2026, I reported Court Strikes Trump’s Executive Order on SAVE Voter-Verification System

The League of Women Voters prevails over Trump in court.

That was the easiest prediction in the world.

The nomenclature is confusing. The SAVE Voter-Verification System is part of the SAVE Act, but Trump tried to do it by Executive Order as well.

Trump’s Voting Claims Are False

Also see Trump’s Voting Claims Are False. So What Is the Save Act Really About?

The SAVE Act is dead. Either get over it or cheer to your liking.

I have been cheering the demise from the beginning. Had Republicans opted for bills with simple voter-ID provisions, I could have supported them.

But I refuse to support any legislation, by either party, whose sole intent is voter suppression to steal an election.

That’s what the SAVE Act is. And I am tired of Republican lies to present that unconstitutional monstrosity as a popular voter-ID bill.