WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats, advocates, students and leaders on Wednesday blasted attempts by President Donald Trump’s administration to do away with funding for minority-serving institutions in higher education.  

U.S. Sen. Mazie Hirono led a press conference outside the U.S. Capitol that called on the administration to fully fund and protect the more than 800 minority-serving institutions, or MSIs, which enroll millions of students of color. Many are from low-income households or are the first in their families to attend college.

“Donald Trump is doing all he can basically to dismantle support for education in this country, and what is happening to minority-serving institutions is part of this all-out attack,” the Hawaii Democrat said. 

“Under the false pretense of addressing discrimination, this regime is limiting access to higher education for underserved and underrepresented groups, and there are millions of students who are being served by these programs,” she added. 

Along with advocates, leaders and students, Hirono was joined by fellow Democrats: Sen. Alex Padilla, chair of the Senate Hispanic-Serving Institutions Caucus; Rep. Mark Takano, first vice chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus; Rep. Juan Vargas of California, of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; and Rep. Danny Davis of Illinois, of the Congressional Black Caucus. 

Padilla, of California, said MSIs are “better training the future leaders, entrepreneurs (and) servants” that communities need. 

“That’s what we’re standing up for. That’s what we’re fighting for, and that’s (why) we’re calling on Republican colleagues to join us, to push back on the threats of this administration and maintain our decades-long steadfast support of minority-serving institutions for the interest of these young people, their families, their communities and our country.” 

Takano, also of California, said “Congress funded these programs, and we will fight for them, and they cannot impound the funds.” 

He added that “Congress has the power of the purse, and we will make sure we hold this administration accountable.” 

Programs called ‘racially discriminatory’

Trump — who has sought to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies in schools — has proposed eliminating funding for minority-serving institutions, totaling $354 million, as part of his fiscal 2027 budget request.  

The U.S. Department of Education in September gutted and reprogrammed $350 million in discretionary funds that support MSIs, over claims that the programs for Black, Asian, Indigenous and Hispanic students and more are “racially discriminatory.”

The agency soon after moved to redirect $495 million in additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities, along with tribal colleges.

The Justice Department in December issued an opinion finding several grant programs for minority-serving institutions to be “unconstitutional.”

U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon concurred with the opinion, and the agency said later that month it was “currently evaluating the full impact” of the opinion on affected programs.

The president signed into law in February a spending package that funds the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year and also “increases funding for all Title III and V programs that support HBCUs, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Tribal colleges, and other minority-serving institutions,” per Senate Appropriations Committee Democrats’ summary. 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Thursday passed a measure that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haiti for three years, in a rare rebuke by the GOP-led Congress to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign.

Ten Republicans defected, including Reps. Maria Salazar, Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Rich McCormick of Georgia, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. 

Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with the GOP, also voted for the bill. 

The bill, which succeeded 224-204, came as Trump’s administration has sought to revoke legal protections for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, including Haitian nationals, amid his crackdown on immigrants without legal status.  

The bill now heads to the GOP-led Senate, and should that chamber pass the measure, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump. 

Discharge petition

The Democratic-led effort came to the floor under a discharge petition, which allows a bill to skirt Republican leadership and be brought to the House floor once it gains the signatures of a majority of House members.

U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley — a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus — brought forth the petition in January and it reached the 218-signature threshold in late March.

Pressley’s petition forced a floor vote on a bill from New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen. The version voted on by the House would require the secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for TPS until April 2029. 

Lawler, a New York Republican, was an original co-sponsor of Gillen’s measure.

Lawler, Salazar, Fitzpatrick and Bacon had also signed on to Pressley’s discharge petition.

The bill’s passage in the House came just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians. 

A federal judge in February blocked the termination of TPS for Haiti from going into effect — shortly before the designation was slated to end. 

TPS is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary to nationals who cannot safely return home. The deportation protection lets individuals legally work in the United States, with renewal cycles that range from six to 18 months.  

‘A death sentence’

“Let us be clear about what deportation would mean — we would be sending parents back into danger, ripping our seniors away from their caregivers, faith leaders back into instability, and essential workers back into insecurity,” Pressley said at a Wednesday press conference she and Gillen held with colleagues and advocates regarding the effort. 

“To deport anyone to a country that is grappling with layered political, humanitarian and economic crises is unconscionable, it is dangerous and it is preventable,” Pressley added. 

“To deport anyone to Haiti right now is unlawful, and it would be a death sentence.” 

WASHINGTON — A federal court order last month to effectively axe a Biden-era student loan repayment plan capped years of chaos for more than 7 million student borrowers enrolled in the program.

The Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, plan marked a cornerstone of the Joe Biden administration’s loan forgiveness efforts but became mired in legal challenges from several GOP-led states. 

On July 1, federal loan servicers will start sending notices to borrowers instructing them to enter into a legal repayment plan within 90 days, the department said. Borrowers who do not switch within the 90-day window outlined by their servicer will be automatically placed into a new plan.

The agency issued guidance to borrowers in late March instructing them of the timeline and urging people to switch into a new plan. 

Here’s what borrowers need to know as they navigate next steps:

How did we get here? 

The program, introduced in 2023, sought to lower monthly loan payments for borrowers and forgive remaining debt after a certain period of time.

But millions of borrowers experienced chaos and confusion as they were forced to navigate complex court rulings, interest accrual on their debt and continued uncertainty over the plan’s fate.

Borrowers were placed in an interest-free forbearance in 2024 amid legal limbo, and the department resumed charging interest on the debt of those in the program in August 2025. 

President Donald Trump’s administration in December announced a proposed agreement to end the plan. 

The agreement stemmed from a legal challenge to the plan brought by Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma in 2024.

A federal judge dismissed that lawsuit in late February, striking down the administration’s efforts to axe the plan. 

But a federal appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision in March, effectively putting an end to the SAVE plan. 

Was the SAVE plan already slated for elimination? 

Congressional Republicans’ mega tax and spending cut bill signed into law by Trump in July 2025 includes a sweeping overhaul of the federal student loan system. 

Part of the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law phased out the SAVE plan by July 2028. 

I’m in SAVE. What are my new repayment options? 

Borrowers have several new repayment options, and can switch to a new plan prior to receiving the incoming notice from their federal loan servicer.

One option includes the Income-Based Repayment, or IBR, plan, which ties borrowers’ loan payment to their earnings. 

Borrowers also have the option to enter into two repayment plans stemming  from the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law — the Repayment Assistance Plan, or RAP, and the Tiered Standard plan — which will both launch July 1. 

Preston Cooper, senior fellow in higher education policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank, noted that whether IBR or RAP is a better deal for borrowers depends on their particular circumstances.

“I would recommend that if you are kind of earlier in your repayment journey, and you have a lot more interest because your balance is higher, the Repayment Assistance Plan is going to be your best bet,” Cooper said.

“If you’re later in your repayment journey, you’re closer to that 20 or 25-year mark for forgiveness, Income-Based Repayment is probably going to be your better bet,” he added.

Borrowers could also opt into a handful of other repayment options, such as the Pay as You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment plans. 

However, those two plans will be eliminated by July 2028 under Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law, meaning borrowers would have to switch plans again in two years. 

What other steps can I take in the meantime? 

Michele Zampini, associate vice president for federal policy and advocacy at the Institute for College Access & Success, said the best thing for a borrower to do is “just be proactive.” 

“Make sure, from a very base level, you can access your account, you know all the basics of where you stand, and then do some comparisons across what plan options you’re going to have,” said Zampini, whose organization aims to advance affordability, accountability and equity in higher education.   

Zampini also pointed to Federal Student Aid’s loan simulator as a good resource for borrowers to get specific numbers to compare across plans. 

“If there’s a plan that you want to move into that’s already open and available, if it’s one of the older plans, start moving now, if you can afford it,” she said. “And then, if you want to wait for the new plan to open … know what that payment estimate is going to look like, and then set yourself a reminder for July to check back and look at the enrollment process once that plan opens.” 

Amid the “total dissonance and chaos” borrowers in SAVE have experienced, Zampini said the department “has really shirked its responsibility in at least keeping borrowers updated and giving them clear information on what’s happening, when it’s happening, and what the implications are going to be for their payments and kind of their budgets and what they have to do and when they have to do it.” 

What about the plan to eliminate the department?

Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing counsel at the advocacy group Protect Borrowers, told States Newsroom she is “incredibly worried about borrowers not being able to figure out what to do, missing the deadline, getting put into a plan that they can’t afford, and then falling into default, which has, of course, incredibly onerous consequences.” 

The end of SAVE also comes as the Trump administration continues its efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, including through a series of interagency agreements that transfer several of its responsibilities to other departments. 

Under the most recent agreement, the Treasury Department will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

“The specifics of the plan with Treasury right now are about debt collection, but the overarching mission of dismantling the Department of Education at this moment means that there are not the people in place to oversee the servicers,” Yu said. 

Part of the administration’s efforts to do away with the agency included a reduction in force initiated in March 2025 that hit wide swaths of the department, including Federal Student Aid, or FSA. 

Yu also highlighted a March report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, which found that staffing reductions at FSA affected the government’s ability to determine how well student loan servicers are doing their jobs. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats this week blasted the Trump administration’s attempts to shift management of federal student loans from the Education Department to the Treasury Department, saying it would contribute to dysfunction in the student loan system.

In a Wednesday letter, the ranking members of five Senate panels — the committees covering banking, finance, education, federal spending and the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing the Education Department — called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to “immediately” rescind the interagency agreement announced in March.

The letter is part of Democrats’ efforts to stop President Donald Trump and his administration from outsourcing Education Department responsibilities to other agencies as part of the administration’s attempts to dismantle the department, which Congress created and only Congress can abolish. 

Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Ron Wyden of Oregon, Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, along with independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who caucuses with the Democrats, penned the letter. 

They are the respective ranking members of the Senate Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; Finance; Appropriations; the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.  

They argued the transfer would introduce “more dysfunction into the federal student loan system, worsening the ongoing student loan default crisis that the Trump Administration has already exacerbated.” 

An ‘illegal scheme’

Under the agreement, Treasury will take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multi-phase process toward Treasury taking on the entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio. 

The senators called the move an “illegal scheme” that “threatens to trap student loan borrowers, students, and families in chaos and bureaucracy, all while American taxpayers are left to foot the bill for Treasury to administer programs that (the Education Department) can and should administer itself, likely costing more money and burying borrowers and families in unnecessary red tape.” 

The lawmakers also emphasized the spending package Trump signed into law in February rejects the president’s calls to axe the agency — funding the Education Department at $79 billion this fiscal year. 

The senators point to the joint explanatory statement accompanying the measure, which states that “no authorities exist for the Department of Education to transfer its fundamental responsibilities under numerous authorizing and appropriations laws, including through procuring services from other Federal agencies, of carrying out those programs, projects, and activities to other Federal agencies.” 

The lawmakers gave McMahon and Bessent two weeks to respond to their inquiries on the logistics, timing, costs and implementation of the transfer. 

‘A hard reset’

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast said in a statement shared with States Newsroom on Thursday that the current approach to student loan management was not working.

“With the student loan portfolio approaching $1.7 trillion and defaults nearing 25 percent, now is the time for a hard reset in how the federal government provides and services student loans,” Keast said. 

“We are confident that our partnership with the Treasury, an experienced and proven fiduciary, will strengthen program administration and better serve American students, borrowers, and taxpayers,” she added.

The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education is moving out of its Lyndon B. Johnson headquarters building, the department announced Thursday, in another step toward dismantling the agency. 

The Education Department said its “chronically underutilized” building is roughly 70% vacant and estimated the relocation — slated for August — would save taxpayers approximately $4.8 million a year in operating costs. 

The move marks the latest action from President Donald Trump’s administration to do away with the 46-year-old department as part of the president’s quest to send education “back to the states.” Much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurs at the state and local levels. 

The Education Department will move roughly one block away to a building the U.S. Agency for International Development previously occupied.

The Department of Energy will move out of its James V. Forrestal building nearby and take over Education’s headquarters building. 

“Thanks to the hard work of so many, we have made unprecedented progress in reducing the federal education footprint, and now we are pleased to give this building to an agency that will benefit far more from its space than the Department of Education,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. 

‘Next on the chopping block’

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, rebuked the relocation efforts as “one of the most overt actions by Secretary McMahon to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) and disregard the law, federal courts, and Congress.”

“Leaving the Lyndon B. Johnson headquarters building does not cut bureaucracy — it rearranges it,” the Virginia Democrat added. “This decision to close the Department’s physical building is not just a symbolic move — it reflects a broader effort to reduce the federal government’s role in ensuring people have equal access to a quality education.”

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents Education Department workers, blasted the announcement in a Thursday statement. 

“The message the Secretary’s announcement sends to our staff and the American public is clear — education is next on the chopping block,” Gittleman said. 

“But after more than a year of fighting back against this unlawful and unprecedented gutting of a Congressionally created agency, we know that the will of the people, congressional intent, and the law is on our side,” she added. 

Interagency agreements 

The announcement came just days after the administration said the Treasury Department would take over Education’s responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt — the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire, roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Prior to the agreement with Treasury, Education had announced nine other interagency agreements with the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior and State that transfer several of its responsibilities to those agencies. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court in July 2025 temporarily greenlit mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier that year. 

That plan was outlined in a March 2025 executive order, where Trump called on McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of her own department.

WASHINGTON — Mikayla Pivec said she worked more than 50 hours per week as a women’s college basketball player, but earned less than $8 an hour from a $1,600 monthly stipend.

The professional basketball player and former star at Oregon State University said she was testifying at Thursday’s U.S. Senate panel hearing on reshaping college athletics because “the NCAA has failed and continues to fail to protect and respect college athletes.” 

Pivec, who worked for a food delivery service and “collected cans” to make ends meet in college, played for Oregon State prior to the NCAA’s 2021 guidelines that allowed student-athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness, or NIL.

“NIL has helped some players, but most still earn less than $10 an hour and struggle to pay for basic necessities,” she told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. 

Pivec said “the lack of protections goes way beyond money,” noting that she had a foot injury that needed surgery and was denied an MRI “every single time” she requested one.

She is the co-founder and organizing director of the United College Athletes Association, a players’ association that aims to ensure college athletes are protected, educated and fairly compensated. 

Another ‘unfair system’

The college sports landscape continues to grapple with gender inequity in NIL deals, a patchwork of state NIL laws, booster collectives and the NCAA’s controversial transfer portal, among other issues. 

Just last year, a federal judge approved the terms of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust settlement that paved the way for schools to directly pay athletes.

At a White House roundtable this month, President Donald Trump vowed to imminently deliver an executive order aimed at reshaping college sports. 

“The current landscape is just replacing one unfair system for another,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the Senate HELP Committee.

“Short-term financial gain with NIL deals is overshadowing the value of an education and the value of Olympic and women’s sports,” the Louisiana Republican said. 

Employees?

The fierce debate over whether college athletes should be considered employees took center stage Thursday, drawing mixed attitudes from senators, experts, leaders and athletes. 

“I think the political dynamic is that Republicans and Democrats aren’t that far off from what we agree on — it’s just this one small issue that gets in the way from us passing something related to unionization and how we treat students-athletes, whether we treat them as employees or not,” said Sen. Jim Banks, an Indiana Republican. 

A bipartisan bill on pause in the U.S. House looks to create a national framework for college athletes’ compensation and would prohibit college athletes from being classified as employees. 

The measure would also give broad antitrust immunity to the NCAA and college sports conferences.

Sen. Chris Murphy, who has advocated for collective bargaining, said he does not want Congress “in the business of micromanaging college athletics and how compensation works.”

“That just doesn’t feel like our role,” the Connecticut Democrat said, while blasting the bipartisan bill as an “effort to put the big schools back in a position where they can collude and wage-suppress.” 

Trayvean Scott, vice president of Intercollegiate Athletics at Grambling State University in Louisiana, pointed to a “strain” that athletic departments, and under-resourced institutions in particular, would begin to face as a consequence of student-athletes becoming employees.

“When you look at that, my belief is that roster spots will start to be reduced, specifically to those non-revenue sports, specifically on the men’s side,” he said. “For an institution at Grambling State University, where we have 15 Division I sports, that means baseball is probably going to go first.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans on Tuesday were waiting to hear back from Democrats after they sent them a new offer to fund the Department of Homeland Security, which has been shut down since mid-February. 

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said the proposal would fund many of the agencies within DHS, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard, but wouldn’t provide new spending for some immigration enforcement and deportation activities. 

Those programs, mostly run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, received tens of billions of dollars in Republicans’ 2025 “big, beautiful” law, largely exempting those federal workers from the shutdowns.

Thune said the offer currently on the table would leave the door open to the House and Senate moving another budget reconciliation bill through that complicated process to provide additional funding for immigration and deportation programs.

The special legislative pathway would allow GOP leaders to move a bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote as long as they adhere to its rules. That would skirt the need for Democratic votes to get beyond the 60-vote legislative filibuster that applies to other bills. 

Pressure for a bipartisan deal to fund DHS mounted in recent days after security lines at airports throughout the country ballooned into multi-hour waits, leading passengers to miss their flights and face expensive rebooking fees. Union leaders on Tuesday demanded lawmakers reach a deal to fund the Transportation Security Administration, which is part of DHS.

SAVE Act as well

A possible reconciliation package, Thune said, could include elements of the SAVE America Act, an elections bill backed by President Donald Trump that remains stalled in the Senate amid Democratic opposition.

“This is a really good outcome, where we’ve moved the Democrats a long way in our direction,” Thune said. “And I think also an understanding that reconciliation could be a possibility in terms of additional funding and for perhaps addressing the SAVE America Act.”

Thune said the DHS spending bill wouldn’t include any of the overhauls to immigration enforcement that Democrats have advocated for since federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January.  

“What was pretty clear is that they didn’t want funding,” he said. “So if you’re not going to have funding, I don’t know how all of a sudden now you can demand reforms, because I think for them, that was the issue.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said during an afternoon press conference Democrats would prepare a counteroffer that would include changes to how ICE functions. 

“This does not have any reforms in ICE. But negotiations are ongoing and they’ve sent us an offer and we’ll be sending them an offer back,” the New York Democrat said. “And I can assure you it will contain significant reform in it.”

Schumer outlined what he described as “common sense” changes to immigration enforcement activities in late January after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.

Dems stick to immigration reforms

Senate Appropriations Committee ranking member Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she will continue to press for “modest reforms” to immigration activities during negotiations over the DHS spending bill.  

“If we are talking about funding any part of ICE or CBP, we absolutely must take some key steps to rein them in. The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that,” she said. 

Murray later added that negotiators “have made some progress and the White House has already agreed to some steps” but that the entire point is that “reforms must make it into law.”

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, said the Trump administration has “created this problem in which it’s really hard to address an immigration enforcement operation that’s out of control because it is funded out of almost every part of the DHS budget.”

Murphy said his sense is that Democrats are “still firm on our insistence that we’re not going to fund an immigration enforcement operation without reform.”

Republicans argue for deal

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said the latest DHS funding offer represents what Democrats have “asked for multiple times” and that Trump has signed off on it. 

Lankford said GOP senators “could” move additional spending on immigration enforcement through the reconciliation process, pointing to the funding they approved just last year in the “big, beautiful” law.

“We’ve had things like that, even in the last year, and then Democrats had things like that in the (Inflation Reduction Act) as well,” he said. 

North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said he believes Democrats “need to take” the deal on DHS funding. 

“They keep telling us they’ll go with us and now they need to do it,” he said. “They can’t keep trying to back up or change the deal. It’s time to get it done.”

Adding SAVE Act could be difficult

Republicans’ plan to use the complex budget reconciliation process to pass additional funding for immigration and deportation programs as well as elements of their voter identification bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act, could face headwinds. 

Any reconciliation bill would need the support of nearly every Republican in Congress, a complicated obstacle given the party’s especially narrow majority in both chambers. 

The reconciliation process is also arduous and filled with rules at nearly every turn, including that all of its elements must address federal revenue, spending, or debt. And those changes cannot be deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, cast some doubt on using the reconciliation process to move elements of the SAVE America Act, saying, “I don’t think that’s a good approach.”

West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said Republicans “are at the beginning” of figuring out what, if any, elements of the SAVE America Act can move through the reconciliation process. 

“It’s going to be difficult because it’s not a budgetary impact, it’s a policy impact. But that doesn’t mean some good things can’t move forward that would help with the integrity of the vote,” she said. “So we’ll just have to wait and see. I think reconciliation is probably something we’re going to be strongly considering when we get back.”

Citizenship proof

The legislation has several elements but generally would require Americans to prove their citizenship by showing a birth certificate or a passport when they register to vote. When voters try to cast a ballot they would need to show photo identification. And all states would be required to submit their voter rolls to a DHS database. 

The bill will not be able to make it through the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster given strong opposition from Democrats.

South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds said one option for moving “items” in the SAVE America Act through reconciliation would be to provide funding for states to implement some of its provisions. 

“I haven’t seen the specific language on it. I just know that in most cases, what you’re talking about is making money available,” he said. “The policy would not be included, but the resources would be made available because you can’t do policy in reconciliation, you do resources.”

Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno said GOP senators will “do whatever we can in reconciliation to get pieces and parts of” the SAVE America Act into law. 

And while he wasn’t entirely sure how Republicans would prove that those changes aren’t “merely incidental” to the multi-trillion-dollar federal budget, he said there is “a whole team of really, really smart people that will answer that question.”

Moreno said Republicans “don’t have to get every single thing in every single way” on the SAVE America Act. 

“You just keep the conversation going,” he said. “Eventually, the American public is going to punish Democrats who aren’t following up on 80-20 issues.”

WASHINGTON — Alan Armstrong, a Tulsa businessman, was sworn in Tuesday as Oklahoma’s newest U.S. senator.

Armstrong temporarily fills the seat of Markwayne Mullin, who was sworn in as U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary earlier Tuesday. 

The Senate on Monday confirmed Mullin’s nomination to lead the agency responsible for carrying out President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda. 

Armstrong was sworn in at the U.S. Capitol just hours after Oklahoma GOP Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed him to the post Tuesday morning at the Oklahoma state Capitol in Oklahoma City. 

Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, who serves as president pro tempore of the Senate, swore in Armstrong. Grassley joined Armstrong and his family in the Old Senate Chamber for a reenactment of the swearing-in shortly after. 

Armstrong has served as executive chairman of the board of directors for Williams. The major energy company is headquartered in Tulsa. 

Armstrong joins Oklahoma GOP Sen. James Lankford in the Senate and will serve alongside him until January 2027 — the remainder of Mullin’s term. 

Under Oklahoma law, Armstrong signed an affidavit earlier Tuesday vowing to not run for a full Senate term in 2026, the Oklahoma Voice reported. 

Earlier in March, Trump gave Oklahoma GOP U.S. Rep. Kevin Hern — who is running in November for the Senate seat — his “complete and total endorsement.”