WASHINGTON, D.C – CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten laid out polling this week that challenges Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s claim that strict voter ID rules amount to modern “Jim Crow” policy.

The discussion aired as Congress argues over the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. Enten’s numbers point to broad public support for photo ID at the polls, and that support holds across race, ethnicity, and party.

The SAVE Act has cleared the House and now sits at the center of Senate talks. The bill would require proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. It would also strengthen photo ID requirements in many places.

Republicans say the bill is about election integrity and stopping non-citizen voting. Schumer and other Democrats say it would block eligible voters, hitting minority communities and low-income voters hardest, especially people who may not have easy access to ID documents.

Schumer’s “Jim Crow” Warning

Speaking on the Senate floor, Schumer said he would oppose any package that includes the SAVE Act. He called it “Jim Crow type laws” pushed nationwide and described it as a “poison pill” that could blow up bipartisan deals. He framed Democratic resistance as a stand against voter suppression.

Enten’s Take: The Public Is Mostly On Board

Enten pointed to recent Pew Research Center polling that CNN has used in its coverage. The top-line number was clear: 83% of Americans support requiring a photo ID to vote. He noted that support has stayed high for years, sitting around the mid-70s since 2018 and rising to the current level.

Party Numbers Show Rare Agreement

Enten also broke down support by party, and it wasn’t the sharp split many expected on election policy.

• 95% of Republicans support photo ID requirements.
• 71% of Democrats support them.

Talking with anchor John Berman, Enten said this kind of overlap is unusual on a political issue that gets so much attention. His point was simple: the gap exists, but the common ground is bigger than many assume.

Support Holds Across Racial and Ethnic Groups

Enten also highlighted the racial and ethnic breakdown from Pew. These figures cut against the claim that voter ID is broadly seen as unfair in communities of color.

• 85% of White Americans support photo ID requirements.
• 82% of Latino Americans support them.
• 76% of Black Americans support them.

Enten described photo ID as a low-drama issue for most Americans. He said it isn’t a major point of conflict by party or race, based on what the polling shows.

A Pop Culture Moment That Helped the Segment Travel

The segment picked up extra attention after a reference to rapper Nicki Minaj, who has voiced support for voter ID on social media. Enten joked that the public is “with Nicki Minaj,” which helped the clip spread beyond the usual political crowd.

A Tough Spot for Democrats on Messaging

For Schumer and other Democratic leaders, the numbers create a messaging problem. Democrats often argue that opposing voter ID laws protects voters who face higher hurdles.

But when majorities of Black, Latino, and Democratic voters say they support photo ID, that framing gets harder to sell. Enten’s segment stood out because it used straightforward polling to challenge a familiar party argument, and it happened on a network many viewers see as friendly to progressive viewpoints.

Where the Fight Goes Next

The SAVE Act debate is happening while election integrity remains high on many voters’ lists, shaped by disputes from recent cycles and renewed attention under the current administration. The bill includes more than photo ID, especially the proof-of-citizenship requirement, but Enten’s polling breakdown suggests verification policies still have strong backing, including from many Democrats.

Enten’s analysis is a reminder for both parties that public opinion does not always match the loudest talking points in Washington. Schumer has drawn a hard line, and Senate procedure gives him ways to slow or block action.

Still, the data Enten highlighted adds pressure to explain why a policy with wide voter ID support is being described in the starkest terms.

As Congress moves through funding deadlines and broader policy fights, the voter ID debate shows something that gets overlooked: on some election rules, voters are more aligned than the politicians who speak for them.

The polling doesn’t decide the SAVE Act’s future, but it does narrow the gap between claims and what many Americans say they want.

Trending News:

Senate Democrats and White House Strike Deal to Head Off Shutdown

FLORIDA – Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino stormed back into conservative media with a message aimed at his own side. In his first show since leaving government, the longtime podcaster and Trump ally said parts of the MAGA movement are being used by people chasing money and attention. He accused them of turning real frustration into clicks, donations, and chaos, and he said he’s done staying quiet.

Bongino’s comeback episode aired live in early February 2026. It was his first full broadcast since his rocky run as the FBI’s second-in-command under Director Kash Patel. The stream started late because of technical problems, but once it began, Bongino went straight into attack mode.

He called himself the “podfather” again and promised to “take back this movement.”

“I want to address the grifters out there who mistakenly thought I wasn’t coming back,” he said during the livestream. He also claimed the MAGA movement “has been hijacked by a small group of dipshits and bums and losers,” adding that they sell doom under the frame of accountability.”

Those comments matched what he posted online when he left the FBI. At the time, he said he wouldn’t let the movement be handed to “black-pillers, life-losers, grifters and bums.” In pro-Trump circles, “black-pillers” is slang for people who push nonstop defeat and cynicism, the opposite of the action-first attitude Bongino says the base needs.

Dan Bongino is back

Bongino’s time at the FBI drew heat from day one. He’s a former Secret Service agent who became a right-wing commentator with a huge audience. For years, he built his brand by attacking the “deep state” and promoting claims about election interference, January 6, and other flashpoint topics. When he landed the job in 2025, critics pointed to his lack of Fan BI background and his history of conspiracy-leaning commentary.

While in the role, he dealt with internal friction and outside pressure. Reports described disputes tied to high-profile issues, including review and release decisions around files connected to Jeffrey Epstein. Some online MAGA voices blasted Bongino and the bureau for not producing the kind of shocking disclosures they wanted. Bongino now says that outrage wasn’t all organic; he framed a lot of it as bad-faith attacks.

On the relaunch episode, he defended how the FBI handled sensitive cases, then pivoted hard toward his critics. He said too many influencers are more focused on drama, merch, and fundraising than on helping conservatives win, especially with midterm elections getting closer. President Trump also called into the show, praising Bongino and hinting that his media platform might matter more than his time in government.

A fresh fight over “grifting” inside MAGA

Bongino’s rant reopened a long-running argument in the pro-Trump world. Claims of “grifting,” meaning cashing in on outrage with products, subscriptions, or constant fundraising without real results, have followed the movement for years. Other figures have made similar complaints, but Bongino’s former insider status and blunt tone gave this round extra punch.

Many supporters applauded him and said someone needed to call out the worst actors. Others saw it as rich coming from a host who’s earned big money in the same media space, often covering the same themes.

The show also put a spotlight on a bigger split, expectations for what the Trump administration should deliver, and how fast. Some supporters say progress has been too slow on promises like draining the swamp or launching major investigations, and that frustration feeds the “doomer” attitude Bongino attacked. He pushed back by calling for unity and action, saying internal fights only help the opposition.

What it means for the midterms and the movement’s direction

Bongino framed his return as a push to get focused again. He wants Republicans thinking about winning elections, not tearing each other apart online. He said the movement should stick to core conservative beliefs instead of chasing the latest outrage cycle or turning on its own people.

It’s still unclear if his push will weaken the voices he’s targeting. The MAGA world is spread across podcasts, social media, and independent outlets, and no single person controls it. Still, Bongino has a loyal audience built overthe years, and that gives him real influence.

For now, he’s made his position clear. He sees an internal threat to MAGA that’s as serious as any outside enemy. And even without naming every target directly, he signaled that his post-FBI chapter won’t just be commentary; it’ll be a fight over what MAGA becomes next.

Related News:

FBI Deputy Director and Patriot Dan Bongino to Step Down

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Marjorie Taylor Greene is backing the federal arrest and indictment of journalist Don Lemon, setting off a loud fight over press freedom, protest coverage, and religious rights.

On Real Time with Bill Maher on January 30, 2026, Greene said she “completely supports” the case against Lemon, tied to his reporting on a disruptive anti-ICE protest inside a Minnesota church. She summed up her view in blunt terms: “That’s not journalism. That’s activism.”

The case stems from events on January 18, 2026, at Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. During a Sunday worship service, a group of protesters entered the church and interrupted the service. The demonstrators were protesting tougher Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions under the Trump administration.

Witnesses said the group chanted lines like “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good.” The church was targeted because one of its pastors reportedly also serves as a local ICE official. The disruption spread beyond the sanctuary, as congregants confronted the protesters, and people ended up spilling outside.

Don Lemon’s Role and the Backlash

Don Lemon, the former CNN anchor who now runs an independent online platform, was at the church with a producer. He live-streamed parts of what happened. Lemon said later that he knew about the protest ahead of time, but claimed he was there to report, not to join in.

Afterward, Lemon drew sharp criticism for comments about the churchgoers. In interviews, he described some reactions as “entitlement” and compared what he saw to “white supremacy.” Those remarks drew fast pushback from conservative voices.

The U.S. Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, opened a civil rights investigation soon after. On January 29, 2026, federal agents arrested Lemon in Los Angeles while he was covering the Grammy Awards.

Three others were also arrested: journalist Georgia Fort, Trahern Jeen Crews, and Jamael Lydell Lundy. A federal grand jury later indicted nine people total, including Lemon, in connection with the church protest.

Charges Against Lemon

Federal prosecutors charged Lemon with two offenses under civil rights laws:

1. Conspiracy to Deprive Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)
   Prosecutors allege coordination to interfere with protected rights.
2. Interfering with Religious Freedom (18 U.S.C. § 248, under a FACE Act provision extended to places of worship)
   The charge accuses him of using force, threats, or intimidation to interfere with First Amendment religious rights.

The indictment argues that Lemon’s presence, recording, and live-streaming helped fuel the disruption, even if he did not chant or block church members himself. Prosecutors point to his prior knowledge and claim the live coverage supported a “coordinated attack” on the service.

Lemon was released without bail after his first court appearance. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, said the defense will fight the case aggressively. Lemon also spoke after his release, saying: “I will not be silenced.”

Legal Views Split on Press Freedom and Religious Rights

Legal observers are divided, and the split is sharp.

Press freedom groups warn of a dangerous precedent

First Amendment advocates and press freedom groups, including the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, criticized the charges. They argue journalists have the right to cover protests, even disruptive ones, and say the government is stretching criminal law when no violence occurred. One expert also pointed to a Minnesota magistrate judge who initially rejected charges against Lemon, saying there was “no evidence” of criminal conspiracy.

Supporters of the case point to the FACE Act and church rights

Conservative legal commentators say the prosecution is justified. They argue the FACE Act is meant to protect religious exercise from intimidation and interference.

In their view, disrupting a service on private property can cross a legal line, even if someone claims they were only reporting. Some compare it to prosecutions tied to blocking access to clinics or other protected locations.

Others say intent will decide the outcome

Middle-ground constitutional scholars describe the case as difficult and fact-heavy. They say the key issue may be Lemon’s intent and whether his actions actually helped interfere with worship.

Reaction From Democrats, Media Figures, and Celebrities

The arrests triggered strong criticism from prominent Democrats, journalists, and celebrities, many of whom framed the case as retaliation against critical reporting.

• Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said Lemon and Fort were “simply doing their jobs.”
• Jane Fonda called it “one page more out of [an] authoritarian playbook.”
• Press freedom organizations warned the case could create a “chilling effect” on reporting under the current administration.
• Several Democratic lawmakers and media figures described the charges as “troubling” and an attack on constitutional rights.

Supporters also started fundraising for Lemon’s defense, including a “Lemon-Aid” legal fund campaign.

Greene’s Argument: “Not Journalism”

On Real Time, Greene said Lemon crossed the line by entering a church during worship and then criticizing the people inside afterward. She argued the conduct violated the FACE Act by interfering with the right to worship.

“He went into a church, disrupted their worship, and then later in an interview compared them to white supremacists,” Greene said. “That’s not journalism, that’s activism.”

She also rejected claims that the First Amendment protects his actions in this context, saying it doesn’t cover “going in and harassing people in the middle of church.”

Greene’s comments match the view of other Republican voices who see the protest as an unacceptable intrusion into a sacred space. With immigration enforcement already a major political fight, the Lemon arrest has turned into a larger battle over where protest ends, where religious liberty begins, and what protections apply when journalists cover confrontations in real time.

Trending News:

FBI Investigates Who’s Funding and Coordinating ICE Protests and Attacks