What did Donald Trump do today?

He threw a tantrum.

In an extremely rare moment of bipartisan agreement, Congress has passed a substantial piece of legislation aimed at improving Americans' ability to buy homes. A majority of both parties voted for the bill in both chambers. The shortage in housing has been a major driver of inflation. 

Trump was expected to sign the bill this afternoon. A signing ceremony for bipartisan legislation on an important topic might have provided him with an opportunity to change the subject. At the moment, most of his press is about the economic and military catastrophe of his war on Iran, or the withering mockery he's getting over his increasingly absurd attempts to shift blame for the presence of algae in the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool.

But just before he attended a tense meeting with Senate Republicans, who have started to abandon him on key issues, he posted an ultimatum: no housing bill until his pet election bill, the so-called "SAVE" Act, is passed.

Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT 

There's a slight problem with Trump trying to block bills this way, though: his signature isn't necessary. While Congress is in session, any bill sent to him becomes law automatically after 10 days (Sundays excluded) unless he explicitly vetoes it.  

 

Even if Trump did veto it, the bill passed with more votes than would be needed to override Trump's veto. 

This isn't the first time Trump has tried this tactic: back in March, he swore he wouldn't sign a single bill until the SAVE Act was passed. Congress ignored his attempt at a presidential filibuster, and he signed the defense funding bill he was threatening as soon as it was passed.

The SAVE Act would instantly disenfranchise tens of millions of legitimate voters, if it were allowed by courts to go into effect—which it almost certainly wouldn't. It would require voters to show not only photo ID like a driver's license, but also "documentary proof of citizenship," which in most cases would mean either a passport or a birth certificate matching their current legal name.

That means that, for example, a married woman who took her husband's name and didn't have a passport would not only have to be able to present her original birth certificate, but also court paperwork for her name change. Many people simply don't have those documents handy, or have lost them over the years, and getting replacements can take months. Anyone in that situation would be unable to vote in the 2026 elections.  

It would also ban mail-in ballots entirely, a system that nine states use as the main method of voting, and which all fifty states use to some extent. For example, it would completely disenfranchise voters in nursing homes or hospitals, or who were away from home during the early voting period in their local district. 

Why does this matter?

• American citizens being able to vote in American elections is not a "national emergency." 

• A president who chooses to throw a temper tantrum rather than sign a bill he wants to become law isn't emotionally stable enough for the job.   

• There's only one reason a politician tries to make it hard for citizens to vote.