2 months later, Trump’s brazen SAVE Act bluff unravels in embarrassing fashion
On March 8, the president said he would not sign any other bills until the anti-voting package reached his desk. He didn’t mean a word of it, apparently.
During a recent briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared categorically that Donald Trump “does not bluff.” This was certainly in line with the image the president and his team have long been eager to convey to the nation and the world: When the Republican makes threats and issues ultimatums, everyone should fully expect him to follow through.
Those who follow Trump’s actual approach to governance clearly know better — there’s a reason the “TACO” meme caught on — and one of the more embarrassing examples is coming into focus.
Exactly two months ago, the president used his social media platform to promote a far-right legislative proposal that he called the Save America Act, which would make it harder for voters to register to vote, make it harder for voters to cast ballots and, for some reason, would also impose new discriminatory measures targeting transgender Americans. His March 8 missive was one of several online items related to the bill, except this one included a unique vow.
“I, as President, will not sign other Bills until this is passed,” Trump wrote.
In other words, as far as the president was concerned, he would refuse to sign every bill that cleared the Republican-led Congress, indefinitely, until his anti-voting, anti-transgender package reached his desk.
Except, two months later, we now know that he didn’t mean a word of it. In the days and weeks that followed his online declaration, Trump signed one bill into law, then another, then another. He proceeded to sign four more bills into law without any mention of the March 8 pledge.
In other words, the president who “does not bluff” was clearly bluffing. He said he would not sign other bills until the Save America Act cleared Capitol Hill, and then he signed seven bills without giving his vow so much as a passing mention.
As for the anti-voting, anti-trans package the president remains desperate to sign, he’s going to have to start lowering his expectations. The New Republic reported Thursday:
It seems that no one is coming to rescue the SAVE Act.
Weeks after Donald Trump stressed to his party that passing that voter restriction bill was the “most important thing” they could do, Senate Republicans have shelved the legislation entirely, unable to bypass the Democratic filibuster that stands in the way of its potential passage.
This dovetailed with a Punchbowl News report that said the far-right proposal has been “shelved,” adding, “Now, even the bill’s most outspoken GOP supporters are acknowledging that another drawn-out Senate floor debate would be a futile exercise.”
No wonder Trump has quietly walked away from the threat he issued to lawmakers two months ago.
Trump’s tariffs keep losing battles in court — but he may still win the war
The U.S. Court of International Trade is the latest court to toss Trump’s tariffs. But the administration will keep going to this well, no matter how unpopular it is.
The U.S. Supreme Court in February struck down the Trump administration’s “Liberation Day” tariffs as illegal and unconstitutional. Soon thereafter, the administration invoked a different provision of federal law to impose new tariffs. Now, the U.S. Court of International Trade, which has jurisdiction over these issues, has ruled that the administration’s second effort to impose tariffs under this different legal provision is also flawed.
But before American small businesses and consumers can breathe a sigh of relief, the administration is likely to appeal. And instead of using the Supreme Court’s decision as cover for a retreat from tariffs, the administration seems committed to pursuing unpopular policies that are bad for an economy which is also seeing consumer prices spike because of events in the Middle East.When the Supreme Court ruled against the administration’s first effort at imposing tariffs, it found that the plain text of the Constitution vested Congress with the power to levy tariffs, and the limited authority the legislature had granted the executive under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the tariffs.
Despite the fact that the tariffs had taken roughly $166 billion out of the pockets of domestic business and, by extension, American consumers, the administration pressed ahead to take another swing at tariffs, this time invoking a provision passed by Congress in the early 1970s to deal with a different kind of crisis, what lawmakers back then described as a “balance-of-payments” deficit.
To understand why the administration’s efforts have failed so far the second time around, one has to understand the context in which Congress passed the provision that the administration invoked when issuing them. At the time Congress passed this authority, what is referred to as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, the U.S. had just come off the gold standard and the global economy was adjusting to a new economic monetary system. Members of Congress expressed concerns that this new system might harm U.S. economic interests if money did not flow smoothly throughout the global economy, sort of like a game of economic musical chairs.
Fifty years later, the new global economy functions far better than Congress expected it would, and there are no balance-of-payments concerns that could justify the tariffs imposed under Section 122. The language in the statute, written for a different time, empowers the president to impose temporary tariffs when there is a balance-of-payments issue. Making such an argument today is sort of like claiming the decline in the use of leaded gasoline, largely taken out of the economy in the 1970s, is a basis for justifying the new tariffs. More importantly, , and as the Court of International Trade ruled, there simply isn’t a balance-of-payments issue that would justify invoking Section 122.
Play
‘Trump losing it in every way’: Ari on gas crunch, war blues, GOP midterm panicMay 8, 2026 / 11:21
Admittedly, the language in Section 122 is vague. But that’s where the administration is in a legal bind, one similar to that which it found itself in when it argued in favor of the IEEPA tariffs.
Indeed, either the plain text of Section 122 cannot be invoked unless there is a clear balance-of-payments problem (which there isn’t), o the administration can say the term “balance of payments” means whatever the administration wants it to mean. Under that interpretation, the statute delegates too much authority to the executive, and is unconstitutional. In either case, the administration loses.
Still, even if this effort to impose ill-advised tariffs on American businesses and consumers should ultimately fail once again in the courts, the administration is determined to press on. It has commenced steps designed to impose tariffs under more and different provisions of federal law.
‘Chaos, incompetence, and governing by Truth Social’: Nicolle roasts Trump’s failed Iran operationMay 8, 2026 / 11:21
At some point, the administration will likely succeed in imposing new tariffs in a way that is consistent with the laws that might authorize them, even if such tariffs might be a mere shadow of the sweeping tariffs the administration issued in April 2025.
We saw something like this occur in the first Trump administration, when it issued a ban on travel from predominantly Muslim countries. A series of orders issued by the administration were halted in the courts at first, but the administration reissued new orders several times in an effort to pass legal and constitutional muster. In June 2018, nearly 18 months after the first such order went into effect, the Supreme Court, in a narrow, 5-4 decision, found for the administration, concluding that the revised approach was not inconsistent with federal law or the Constitution.
A similar pattern is likely to emerge here. Despite the evidence that the tariffs are unpopular, that the price of goods continues to soar and that the American people are unhappy with the state of the economy, the administration seems committed to imposing some kind of tariffs, perhaps for no other reason than to say that it did. Much as it was with the first Trump administration’s travel bans, when it comes to tariffs, the second Trump administration is likely to get something through that the courts will no longer block.
Of course, the administration can always simply go to Congress to seek approval for new tariffs. Such efforts are likely to fail even now, and if the Democrats should retake even one chamber in the 2026 midterms, new tariffs are most certainly doomed.
Perhaps that is why the administration keeps trying its hand at tariffs, hoping it can slip something through the courts. Whether it is through Section 122 or not, it is likely to succeed in some measure in the end.
While the current effort is stalled in the courts for now, at some point, the administration might get tariffs right, regardless of whether they are wrong for American businesses, consumers and the economy. For now, at least the Court of International Trade has given these tariffs the judicial thumbs down. But it seems unlikely the administration is going to take that as the final word on its mission to impose tariffs, regardless of how unpopular they are with the American people.
Trump Signs Order Expediting Drugs for Mental Health Treatment
President Donald Trump signed an executive order Saturday that he said “directs the FDA to expedite their review of certain psychedelics already designated as breakthrough therapy drugs.” A primary objective of the order is to speed treatment for veterans.
“The executive order I’m signing, we’re actually signing the executive order today, is really a moment,” Trump said. “These treatments are currently in the advanced stages of clinical trials to ensure that they’re both safe and effective for the American patients.”
The president said the executive order would implement “historic reforms to dramatically accelerate access to new medical research and treatments based on psychedelic drugs.” Citing the elevated veteran suicide rate, the president added: “In many cases, these experimental treatments have shown life-changing potential for those suffering from severe mental illness and depression, including our cherished veterans.”
“And the nice part is we’re actually doing this early, but it has been going on. Research has been going on for quite some time. But, you know, usually with things like this, nothing ever happens, no matter how the research ends up, but we’re changing that. This order will clear away unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles, improve data sharing among the FDA and the Department of Veterans Affairs, and facilitate fast rescheduling of any psychedelic drugs that become FDA approved,” Trump continued.
The president said “in 2024, a study from Stanford University, 30 special operation veterans with traumatic brain injuries underwent — it’s called ibogaine treatment — ibogaine, remember the name,” noting that they “experienced an 80 to 90% reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety within one month.”
“In Texas, Republican leaders have already committed $50 million to the ibogaine research. And today, the federal government is making a $50 million research investment in its own. And so that was just approved just last night,” Trump announced.
“We’re also opening a pathway for ibogaine to be administered to desperately ill patients under the right to try law,” Trump said.
“Today’s order will ensure that people suffering from debilitating symptoms might finally have a chance to reclaim their lives and lead a happier life, just lead a happier life,” he added.
Two weeks ago, Trump signed a sweeping executive order aimed at tightening federal oversight of election integrity, directing multiple agencies to expand voter eligibility verification and impose new controls on mail-in ballots.
The order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” outlines a series of measures that would increase coordination between federal agencies and state election officials, while also establishing new procedures for how ballots are distributed and tracked through the mail system.
At the core of the directive is a requirement that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), working with the Social Security Administration (SSA), compile and transmit lists of individuals confirmed to be U.S. citizens to state election authorities. These “State Citizenship Lists” would be generated using federal databases, including immigration and Social Security records, and updated regularly ahead of federal elections.
According to the order, the lists are intended to help states verify voter eligibility, though inclusion on the list would not automatically register an individual to vote. State laws and procedures would still govern registration requirements.
The order also calls for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prioritize investigations and potential prosecutions related to election law violations. This includes cases involving the distribution of ballots to individuals deemed ineligible to vote, as well as any actors—public or private—who may be involved in producing or sending such ballots.
In a significant expansion of federal involvement in mail voting procedures, the directive instructs the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to develop new rules governing the handling of mail-in and absentee ballots. Within 60 days, the Postmaster General is required to initiate a rulemaking process that would standardize ballot tracking and verification measures nationwide.
Under the proposed framework, all mail-in ballots would be required to use specially marked envelopes designated as official election mail. These envelopes must include unique tracking barcodes and meet specific design standards set by USPS to ensure compatibility with automated processing systems.
Trump Says He’s in No Hurry to Make Deal With Iran
The president gave an update on negotiations between Washington and Tehran in a weekend interview.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a Cabinet meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 26, 2026 in Washington. This is Trump's second Cabinet meeting of 2026 and the first since the United States and Israel began attacking Iran on Feb. 28, 2026. Chip Somodevilla/Getty U.S. President Donald Trump, in an interview published on May 30, said that he is in no hurry to make a deal with Iran to end the war, saying that neither Washington nor Tehran has signed an agreement yet.
“I’d like to say I’m in a hurry because gasoline prices are going to come tumbling down, but if you’re going to be in a hurry, you’re not going to make a good deal,” Trump told Fox News. “And slowly but surely we’re getting, I think, what we want, and if we don’t get what we want, we’re going to end it a different way.”
For weeks, the United States and Iran have been working to come to an agreement that would end the war, which started in February, as the conflict remains in a ceasefire. On May 29, Trump released the terms of a deal with Tehran and said he would be making a final decision soon.
Story continues below advertisement
Along with demanding that Iran not obtain a nuclear weapon, Trump said in a post on Truth Social that the Strait of Hormuz must be opened “in both directions” and that Tehran must “complete the immediate removal and/or detonation of any mines that are left.”
Since the start of the conflict, the strait has effectively remained shut down, sending oil and gas prices surging, as the strait allows for the transit of about a fifth of the world’s traded oil and natural gas. As of May 31, gas prices in the United States averaged $4.34 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association.
A White House official told The Epoch Times on May 29 that a White House meeting in the Situation Room on Iran lasted approximately two hours. No details were provided.
Related Stories
Organizers Say Trump to Open 250th Event, Some Artists Withdraw
Trump Admin to Modernize Airport Infrastructure in 43 States
Iran on May 31 claimed that the country’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) shot down a U.S. military drone that entered its airspace, in comments carried by state-run Tasnim News. The U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) has not publicly commented on the incident.
A top Iranian official, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, also said on May 31 that Tehran’s military force is “pushing back the enemy in a great and history-making war,” referring to the United States, according to state-run media. He also claimed that the United States has retreated from the conflict while pushing a narrative of unity in the Iranian regime.
Story continues below advertisement
In his May 29 post on Truth Social, Trump also wrote that mines would be removed from the strait and that ships trapped there may start to go home.
“Say HELLO to your wives, husbands, parents, and families from me, your favorite President!” he said.
On May 30, War Department Secretary Pete Hegseth said the United States would restart attacks against Iran if no deal can be reached and that the military’s ammunition stockpiles are being replenished.
“Our ability to recommence if necessary ... we are more than capable,” Hegseth told reporters in Singapore. “Our stockpiles are more than suited for that, both there and around the globe, so we’re in a very good place.”
The Pentagon head said that Trump was “patient” and that the president wants to make a “great deal” that ensures that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.
Reuters contributed to this report.
