Washington, D.C. – February 20, 2026 – The White House has released a resurfaced video clip from 1996 featuring then-Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) advocating for stricter identification requirements to combat fraud by non-citizens in government benefits programs.
The move comes just days ahead of a Senate vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, a Republican-backed bill aimed at mandating proof of U.S. citizenship for federal voter registration. In the 1996 footage, originally from a House floor debate on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, Schumer emphasized the need for documents such as Social Security numbers or driver’s licenses as “essential anti-fraud measures.” He argued that such checks were necessary to prevent non-citizens from exploiting benefits, stating, “This is an anti-fraud amendment.”
The White House shared the clip on February 17, 2026, via social media, highlighting what it describes as a stark contrast to Schumer’s current opposition to similar requirements for voting.
The SAVE Act, which passed the House earlier this month, would require individuals to provide proof of citizenship—such as a passport, birth certificate, or other official documents—when registering to vote in federal elections. It also directs states to remove non-citizens from existing voter rolls and mandates photo ID at the polls.
With Republicans now holding a majority in the Senate following the 2024 elections, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has scheduled the bill for a vote next week, framing it as a “common-sense” step to enhance election security.
Republicans have pointed to public opinion polls showing strong support for voter ID laws, with recent surveys indicating that 80–84% of Americans favor photo identification requirements at the polls, including majorities across party lines and demographic groups. Proponents argue that the measure addresses rare but documented instances of non-citizen voting and aligns with ID requirements for everyday activities such as buying alcohol or checking out library books.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this sentiment in recent remarks, stating, “You need an ID to purchase alcohol. You need an ID to go to the library and check out a book. So the president thinks you should have an ID to vote in our nation’s elections.”
Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Schumer, have vehemently opposed the bill, labeling it “Jim Crow 2.0” and warning that it could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters. Schumer has argued that requiring a paper birth certificate or passport is overly burdensome, noting that nearly 50% of Americans lack a passport and that millions do not have easy access to their original birth certificates.
“All told, more than 21 million Americans could be disenfranchised,” Schumer stated in a recent post on X, calling the legislation “dead on arrival” in the Senate and accusing Republicans of spreading “lies” about voter rights.
Critics of the SAVE Act emphasize that non-citizen voting is exceedingly rare, with studies showing virtually no instances of widespread fraud in U.S. elections. They contend that the bill disproportionately impacts low-income voters, communities of color, and individuals who have changed their names due to marriage or other reasons, despite provisions allowing affidavits in some cases.
Schumer has dismissed the resurfaced video as irrelevant, pushing back against what he calls Republican “gaslighting” and maintaining that the SAVE Act represents discriminatory restrictions reminiscent of historical voter suppression efforts.
The debate has intensified amid broader discussions on election integrity, with Republicans accusing Democrats of hypocrisy—citing Schumer’s past statements—and Democrats warning of potential barriers to voting access.
As the Senate prepares to vote, the outcome could hinge on a handful of moderate senators, including Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has expressed support for some voter ID measures but also concerns about implementation.
The White House’s release of the 1996 clip has gone viral, amassing millions of views and sparking heated exchanges on social media. Supporters of the SAVE Act view it as a timely reminder of bipartisan consensus on fraud prevention, while opponents see it as a selective use of history to advance a partisan agenda.
This development comes against the backdrop of ongoing negotiations to avoid a government shutdown, where the SAVE Act has been floated as a potential attachment to funding bills, further complicating bipartisan talks.
