"We're taking over" JD vance Drops Save ACT BomShell!
Vance Unveils Possible Way To Pass SAVE America Act In Senate
Vice President JD Vance says the Trump administration has explored an unusual Senate procedural maneuver that could help advance the SAVE America Act, but acknowledged that a small group of Republican senators remains an obstacle.
Speaking on Newsmax’s “Carl Higbie FRONTLINE” recently, Vance said the White House has examined whether he could use his constitutional position as president of the Senate to preside over the chamber and issue a ruling contrary to the advice of the Senate parliamentarian.
“So, we’ve actually looked into this. As the president of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution, there are things that we can do,” Vance said.
“We can take over the Senate chair. I can occupy the chair. We can overrule the parliamentarian. Those things are very possible.”
The parliamentarian advises the Senate’s presiding officer on the chamber’s rules and precedents but does not independently issue binding rulings.
“So, we’ve actually looked into this. As the president of the Senate under the U.S. Constitution, there are things that we can do,” Vance said.
“We can take over the Senate chair. I can occupy the chair. We can overrule the parliamentarian. Those things are very possible.”
The parliamentarian advises the Senate’s presiding officer on the chamber’s rules and precedents but does not independently issue binding rulings.
The House passed the legislation 218-213 on Feb. 11, with nearly all Republicans supporting it and all but one Democrat opposing it.
The measure would require applicants registering to vote in federal elections to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship.
It would also establish a federal photo-identification requirement for voting and direct states to take additional steps to identify and remove noncitizens from their voter rolls.
Supporters argue that the requirements would strengthen election safeguards and public confidence in federal elections.
Republicans have considered several ways of advancing the bill without obtaining 60 votes.
One option involved incorporating election provisions into budget reconciliation legislation, which can generally pass with a simple majority but is subject to strict limits under the Congressional Budget Act and the Senate’s Byrd Rule.
Trump has repeatedly pressed Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and other Republican senators to find a way around the impasse.
He has also advocated eliminating or changing the legislative filibuster to make it possible for Republicans to pass the measure without Democratic votes.
Vance said the principal resistance is coming from a relatively small number of Republicans who want to preserve existing Senate procedures.
“The problem is not the majority of GOP senators,” Vance said. “It’s that you’ve got a few holdouts who just don’t want to do that because they’re so committed to these archaic rules.”
Advertisement
He argued that Republicans who preserve the filibuster are assuming Democrats would do the same if they regain control of the Senate.
Vance pointed to former Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who resisted attempts by Democratic leaders during the Biden administration to create exceptions to the filibuster for voting legislation.
Vance argued that their experience illustrated the political pressure lawmakers can face when breaking with party leadership on major procedural fights.
He also predicted Democrats would eventually seek to eliminate the filibuster to advance priorities such as statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, changes affecting the Supreme Court and federal election legislation.
For now, Vance acknowledged that the White House has not secured enough Republican support to carry out the procedural strategy it has examined.
“We need to end the filibuster to save American elections,” Vance told Newsmax. “It’s the smart and also the patriotic thing to do.”
ICE RELEASES IRANIAN EX-SOLDIER ONCE FLAGGED AS A SNIPER — MONTHS AFTER DHS VOWED HE WOULD REMAIN IN CUSTODY
ICE RELEASES IRANIAN EX-SOLDIER ONCE FLAGGED AS A SNIPER — MONTHS AFTER DHS VOWED HE WOULD REMAIN IN CUSTODY
Ribvar Karimi was swept up in a high-profile ICE operation targeting Iranian nationals in 2026. DHS said he had served as an Iranian Army sniper and was removable from the United States. Months later, he was reportedly released — reopening questions about what happened inside his immigration case and why the government’s earlier hard-line language did not match the eventual outcome.
When Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Iranian national Ribvar Karimi in rural Alabama in June 2025, the Department of Homeland Security announced the case in unusually dramatic terms.
Karimi, DHS said, had reportedly served as an Iranian Army sniper between 2018 and 2021.
Officials also said he was carrying an identification card from the Islamic Republic of Iran Army at the time of his arrest.
The arrest occurred in Locust Fork, Alabama, during a broader multi-state enforcement operation in which federal authorities detained Iranian nationals amid heightened tensions between Washington and Tehran.
DHS said Karimi had entered the United States in October 2024 on a K-1 fiancé visa, but had not completed an adjustment of status after entering the country.
At the time, the government was unequivocal.
Karimi, DHS said, was removable and would remain in ICE custody while removal proceedings moved forward.
Months later, however, Karimi was out.
Local Alabama reporting in January 2026 said he had been released from federal immigration custody. Public details surrounding the precise conditions of his release and the final disposition of every part of his immigration case were initially limited.
The dramatic change immediately raises an obvious question:
How did a man DHS publicly highlighted as a former Iranian military sniper go from a showcase immigration arrest to freedom within months?
The answer appears considerably more complicated than the original arrest announcement suggested.
WHAT DHS SAID WHEN KARIMI WAS ARRESTED
Karimi was arrested on June 22, 2025.
DHS said he had served as a sniper in Iran’s regular army from 2018 until 2021 and possessed an Iranian military identification card.
He had entered the United States using a K-1 visa, which allows the foreign fiancé or fiancée of a U.S. citizen to enter the country for the purpose of marriage.
DHS said Karimi had failed to adjust his immigration status after entry and was therefore removable.
The agency included him in a broader announcement concerning 11 Iranian nationals detained across the United States. Other people named in that operation had markedly different backgrounds, including prior criminal convictions, removal orders and, in one case, alleged ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and Hezbollah.
That distinction matters.
Karimi was not publicly identified by DHS as an IRGC member.
Nor did the cited DHS announcement identify him as a known terrorist.
What DHS emphasized was his reported service in Iran’s regular army, his military ID and his immigration-status problem.
Those facts were enough to make his arrest a national headline.
But they were not the whole story.
HIS WIFE TOLD A VERY DIFFERENT STORY
Karimi’s American wife, Morgan Gardner Karimi, disputed the impression that her husband posed a threat to the United States.
She acknowledged his Iranian military background but said it had never been hidden from U.S. officials during the visa process.
According to her account, his military service was compulsory and had been disclosed during extensive screening before he received his K-1 visa.
She also said he had never fought American forces or U.S. allies.
“He was a sniper,” she acknowledged in an interview, while insisting that he had instead fought ISIS during his military service.
Iran maintains compulsory military service for many men, and service in the country’s regular armed forces should not automatically be conflated with membership in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which the United States has designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
That distinction became central to the controversy surrounding Karimi.
His wife maintained that the couple had followed the most important requirement of his K-1 visa: they married within the required 90-day period.
Their problem, she said, was that they had not yet filed his application to adjust status to permanent residency.
She blamed the delay partly on complications surrounding her pregnancy.
THE CASE WAS ALSO A FAMILY STORY
The arrest did not take place in a vacuum.
Morgan was heavily pregnant when ICE detained her husband.
She publicly pleaded for him to be returned home before the birth of their first child.
The couple had reportedly maintained a long-distance relationship for years before Karimi finally received permission to enter the United States.
They had met through the online game Call of Duty, later meeting in person during trips abroad before ultimately marrying in Alabama.
Karimi remained detained long enough to miss his child’s birth, according to subsequent accounts of the case.
The human side of the story complicated the government’s initial framing.
Here was a man DHS had highlighted in a national-security-themed enforcement announcement.
But his family portrayed him as a husband who had been extensively screened by the U.S. government before being issued a visa and who had not concealed his military past.
Neither portrayal alone answered the legal question.
That was ultimately for the immigration system to decide.
THEN CAME THE RELEASE
By January 2026, Alabama outlet 1819 News reported that Karimi had been released from ICE custody.
The report cited Cullman Daily and noted that details concerning his release and ongoing immigration proceedings were not fully public.
That makes one thing especially important:
Being released from ICE detention does not necessarily mean the original arrest was unlawful, nor does it automatically mean every immigration issue disappeared.
Immigration detention and immigration status are separate questions.
A person can be released while proceedings continue.
A judge can also grant immigration relief or reject the government’s attempt to remove someone.
Because public reporting about Karimi’s final legal posture has been fragmented, claims that he was simply “turned loose with no explanation” go beyond what the best available public evidence establishes.
But the reversal is still politically striking.
DHS had publicly used his case to demonstrate the administration’s aggressive national-security and immigration posture.
Months later, the person at the center of that announcement was no longer in ICE detention.
WAS HE REALLY A SECURITY THREAT?
This may be the most important unanswered question surrounding the case.
DHS said Karimi had served as an Iranian Army sniper.
That is a serious fact if accurate.
But being a former soldier from an adversarial country does not automatically establish terrorism, espionage or criminal intent.
His wife said his service was compulsory and known to American authorities before his visa was granted.
Public reporting also distinguishes Karimi from another Iranian national detained during the same operation who DHS specifically described as a former IRGC member with admitted Hezbollah connections.
That difference can disappear easily in viral headlines.
“Former Iranian Army sniper” sounds dramatic.
“IRGC terrorist” sounds even more dramatic.
But they are not interchangeable descriptions.
A responsible news report should not turn one into the other without evidence.
THE K-1 VISA QUESTION
There is also nuance surrounding Karimi’s immigration status.
A K-1 visa requires the couple to marry within 90 days after the foreign fiancé enters the United States.
Karimi’s wife said they did.
After marriage, the foreign spouse normally seeks adjustment of status to become a lawful permanent resident.
DHS said Karimi had not completed that process and was removable.
His wife argued there was no specific 90-day deadline for filing the subsequent adjustment application and said their paperwork had been delayed while the family dealt with pregnancy complications.
That is far more complicated than the shorthand:
“Iranian sniper overstayed his visa.”
It also explains why an immigration judge — rather than the social-media framing of the arrest — ultimately mattered most.
WHY THE STORY MATTERS NOW
The case has renewed relevance because relations between the United States and Iran deteriorated dramatically afterward.
Washington and Tehran have since moved through war, military strikes, retaliation and difficult negotiations.
That environment makes stories involving Iranian nationals inside the United States particularly sensitive.
It also increases the danger of collapsing several separate categories into one:
Iranian citizen.
Iranian soldier.
IRGC member.
Terror suspect.
Visa violator.
They do not mean the same thing.
Karimi’s case is a useful example of why those distinctions matter.
DHS had legitimate authority to investigate immigration violations and national-security concerns.
At the same time, an arrest announcement is not a conviction.
And military service alone does not prove terrorist affiliation.
THE STRANGE POLITICAL TWIST
There is another element that makes the case unusual.
Karimi’s wife said the couple had actually supported Donald Trump and his immigration agenda.
She told reporters that they believed immigration enforcement would focus primarily on dangerous criminals.
After her husband was detained, she described feeling blindsided.
That adds an unexpected political dimension to the case.
The same administration whose immigration policies the family reportedly supported eventually detained Karimi, publicly highlighted his military background and sought his removal.
Months later, he was released.
For critics of the administration, that raises questions about whether the government used inflammatory language before the immigration courts had resolved the facts.
For supporters of tough immigration enforcement, it raises the opposite question:
If DHS believed Karimi represented enough of a concern to feature him prominently in a national announcement, why was the government ultimately unable or unwilling to keep him detained and remove him?
Both are legitimate questions.
Neither requires inventing facts.
WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW
The documented record supports several conclusions.
Karimi was arrested by ICE in Alabama on June 22, 2025. DHS said he had reportedly served as an Iranian Army sniper from 2018 to 2021 and possessed an Iranian military ID.
He entered the United States through the K-1 fiancé visa program.
DHS said he had not adjusted his immigration status and considered him removable.
His wife disputed any suggestion that he was hostile to the United States and said his military history was known during his visa vetting.
And by late 2025 or early 2026, he had been released from ICE detention, according to Alabama reporting.
What the public evidence does not establish is equally important.
There is no cited evidence here that Karimi was an al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or IRGC operative.
There is no cited criminal conviction tying him to terrorism.
And simply possessing an Iranian Army ID is not evidence by itself of a plot against the United States.
That is why the strongest version of this story is not:
“ICE RELEASES IRANIAN TERRORIST.”
The evidence does not support that.
A stronger and defensible headline is:
ICE RELEASES FORMER IRANIAN ARMY SNIPER AFTER HIGH-PROFILE ALABAMA ARREST — WHAT CHANGED?
For Facebook/thumbnail, tôi sẽ dùng:
ICE RELEASES IRANIAN EX-SNIPER
dòng dưới:
MONTHS AFTER VOWING HE’D STAY IN CUSTODY
Hoặc giật mạnh hơn:
ICE ARRESTED HIM AS A SECURITY CONCERN
MONTHS LATER, HE WALKED FREE
