The proposed maneuver sounds dramatic, but its leading advocate says the votes still are not there.
Vice President JD Vance said he and President Trump have “wargamed” ways to pass the SAVE America Act.
In an interview with Vince Coglianese released Tuesday, Vance described discussions about taking control of Senate floor proceedings.
He said one possibility involved assuming the chair himself and removing the Senate parliamentarian.
Vance asserted that he has the authority to make that move, but predicted Republican defections would defeat it.
“Four, five, maybe ten” Republican senators might join Democrats to overrule a new chair, he said.
That calculation, according to Vance, is the real obstacle facing legislation Trump has long prioritized.
The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship and valid identification before registering for federal elections.
It would also limit mail-in ballots, with exceptions for illness, disability, military service, and travel.
Supporters frame those requirements as safeguards to ensure that only citizens decide American elections.
The bill has stalled in the Senate amid opposition from Democrats and some Republicans.
Vance rejected the idea that removing a single Senate official would solve that political problem.
“There is no shortcut,” he said, arguing that Republican senators willing to side with Democrats could block the effort.
He described the parliamentarian as a bureaucrat while directing his criticism toward members of his own party.
If 50 Republican senators remained united with the vice president, Vance argued, they could remove the parliamentarian.
He said that same alignment could eliminate the filibuster, pass the SAVE America Act, and advance additional measures.
But the vice president said he had already examined that approach in detail and found it unworkable.
“We have wargamed this to every detail,” Vance said, explaining that he had wanted to act months earlier.
He said they decided the maneuver would go nowhere because several Republicans would stand with Democrats.
That admission places the focus squarely on Senate votes rather than an unelected procedural official.
Vance said he and Trump had “obsessively” considered how to get the legislation through the chamber.
He specifically named four Republicans he believes would vote with Democrats to stop the bill.
He named Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, and Lisa Murkowski as those four Republican senators.
Those names came from Vance’s prediction; the supplied account does not include responses from the senators he identified.
Vance also criticized what he called “mediocre Republican senators” while discussing the political path forward.
His comments marked a public confrontation with fellow Republicans over both election policy and the Senate’s rules.
Removing the parliamentarian and eliminating the filibuster would be major procedural moves, even under Vance’s own proposed scenario.
His stated concern is that an immediate floor fight would expose insufficient support without passing the bill.
Its mail-ballot limits would retain the stated exceptions for voters facing illness, disability, military duties, or travel.
Whether those provisions advance now depends on senators’ votes and their willingness to change Senate procedure.
Vance previously posted that election integrity was “not a partisan issue” and called for passage of the act.
Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin offered a similar account of the impasse in a discussion last month.
Johnson blamed Democrats for blocking the measure and said Republicans lacked votes to overcome the filibuster.
He said his party supported election integrity and voter identification, while Democrats would not vote for the bill.
Utah Senator Mike Lee has separately criticized the Senate’s frequent recesses as a “lost opportunity” this year.
Lee said senators repeatedly promised to address the bill when time allowed, despite knowing debate could take weeks, Breitbart News reported.
He pointed to work on Department of Homeland Security funding and other priorities as reasons it had been deferred.