The State of the Union is, at its core, a declaration of intent. Every president, from Reagan to the present day, uses the platform to articulate what they hope to achieve – both for the nation and through the cooperation of Congress. These aspirations, however, are always tethered to a more fundamental goal: securing and maintaining political power.
President Trump’s recent address laid bare this dynamic. He presented Congress with two specific requests: passage of the SAVE Act, mandating proof of citizenship for voting, and a ban on congressional stock trading. Simultaneously, he issued a clear warning – he intends to control tariff policy, regardless of constitutional precedent.
Trump boldly asserted his intention to reshape the nation’s economic foundation, suggesting tariffs could ultimately replace income tax. This ambition reflects a broader pattern throughout his presidency: an unprecedented expansion of executive power. He essentially directed Congress to cede its authority over trade, declaring, “Congressional action will not be necessary.”
The Constitution grants Congress the power to impose tariffs, a point recently affirmed by the Supreme Court. Yet, Trump moved forward with new tariffs anyway, citing a different legal justification. This move underscores his desire to control the legislative agenda, a common ambition among presidents, but one met with resistance from some within his own party.
Many Republicans, particularly those representing districts negatively impacted by the tariffs, are hesitant to relinquish congressional control. They seek to reclaim that power, or at the very least, publicly register their opposition. A recent House vote demonstrated this tension, attempting to overturn a rule blocking the unwinding of existing tariffs, and even proposing a rollback of tariffs with Canada.
Despite these efforts, the majority of Republicans remain supportive of the tariffs, aligning with Trump’s wishes. This illustrates a crucial point: the President’s vision often prevails, even in the face of legal rulings and internal party disagreements. The SAVE Act, however, represents Trump’s most fervent legislative desire.
The SAVE Act aligns perfectly with Trump’s narrative surrounding illegal immigration, his unsubstantiated claims of a stolen election, and accusations of widespread voter fraud. He painted a stark picture, alleging, “They want to cheat. They have cheated. And their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat.”
However, evidence of widespread voter fraud remains remarkably scarce. A study by the conservative Heritage Foundation found only 39 instances of voting fraud in the swing state of Pennsylvania over the last three decades. Despite this, the SAVE Act has already passed the House, leaving its fate in the hands of the Senate.
Speaker Johnson believes every Republican senator favors the Act, framing its passage as a matter of common sense. He anticipates a broad appeal, suggesting Democrats will be compelled to support it due to its popularity. But the path forward is far from certain, hinging on the Senate’s willingness to overcome procedural hurdles.
Crucially, Trump did not call for an end to the Senate filibuster in his plea for the SAVE Act’s passage. While fifty GOP senators currently support the bill, reaching the necessary 60 votes to break a filibuster remains a significant challenge. Senate Majority Leader Thune remains steadfastly opposed to altering the filibuster rules.
Some Republicans, like Senators Lee and Cruz, advocate for a “talking filibuster,” requiring senators to actively debate and hold the floor to sustain an objection. This would force a vote, eliminating the possibility of silent obstruction. However, unifying the Republican conference around this approach proves difficult, as maintaining complete consensus on every vote is a constant struggle.
Adding to the complexity, friction exists between House and Senate Republicans, with some senators resenting the House’s pressure to abandon the filibuster. The right to filibuster is a deeply cherished privilege in the Senate, and subjecting the chamber to prolonged debate could open the door to unsettling amendment votes, particularly for vulnerable senators facing reelection.
Therefore, while passing the SAVE Act is a key aspiration for Trump, his stance on the filibuster remains ambiguous. His second major request – a ban on congressional stock trading – garnered surprising bipartisan support, even earning applause from Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker Johnson has pledged to move the bill “as aggressively and as quickly as we can,” but acknowledges the need for sufficient votes. Currently, the House lacks that support, rendering the proposal an aspiration for the time being. If the votes materialize, Johnson intends to bring the bill to the floor.
As the old adage goes, the president “proposes” and Congress “disposes.” It’s entirely possible that even a Republican-controlled Congress will reject some of Trump’s legislative ambitions. Yet, this does not diminish the power of presidential aspirations – even presidents are allowed to dream.
