Four Senate Republicans joined every single Democrat to kill President Donald Trump’s chosen election integrity legislation for the second time — but Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) fired back with a procedural masterstroke that showed exactly what’s standing between the SAVE America Act and the president’s desk: the filibuster. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Thom Tillis (R-NC) once again crossed the aisle to block the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote in federal elections and a photo ID to cast a ballot. The amendment, offered by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as an attachment to the nearly $70 billion reconciliation package funding ICE and Border Patrol, needed 60 votes to clear the filibuster threshold. It never came close. Graham didn’t pull punches after the vote. “There’s no other reason to say you don’t have to have an ID,” he said. “It just makes cheating easier.” Lee then dropped the hammer and took aim at the “Zombie Filibuster,” the modern version of the filibuster that allows senators to obstruct legislation without maintaining a talking filibuster. “51 votes for the SAVE America Act during tonight’s budget reconciliation vote-a-rama,” Lee posted on X. “That means that but for the Zombie Filibuster, the House-passed SAVE America Act would now be on its way to the White House for President Trump’s signature.” “If they want to filibuster the SAVE America Act, make them speak,” he added. “And if we’re not willing to make them speak and do the hard work, then it is time to nuke the filibuster.” 51 votes for the SAVE America Act during tonight’s budget reconciliation vote-a-rama That means that but for the Zombie Filibuster, the House-passed SAVE America Act would now be on its way to the White House for President Trump’s signature https://t.co/3eVv6RpO3C — Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) June 5, 2026 Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had warned before the vote that “it’s about the math,” trying to manage expectations. What the math now shows is that even if the four Republicans voted for the bill, which has overwhelming public support, they still cannot get the bill through. Democrats, predictably, cried foul. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-CA) insisted “current safeguards are working” and dismissed the effort as an attempt to “ban vote by mail.” He also complained about transgender-related provisions being added to the amendment during Pride Month, claiming it was “offensive.” The American people want voter ID. A majority of the Senate wants voter ID. The only thing in the way is the filibuster. The argument against killing the filibuster is that if Democrats gain power, they will ram every conceivable change through the Senate, such as increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court and adding more states to the union that would pad their electoral numbers.

This piece is part of MI x DW, a collaboration that brings Daily Wire readers exclusive commentary and research from the Manhattan Institute’s world-class team of scholars. *** States are cracking down on illegal demonstrations, and radicals are panicking. Earlier this year, Utah enacted HB 331, which took several steps to enhance criminal penalties for crimes currently classified as misdemeanors. Arizona is close to sending a similar bill to the governor’s desk. These bills draw on a concept called “civil terrorism,” which I coined in early 2025 and have fleshed out since then, including in model legislation developed alongside my colleagues at the Manhattan Institute. Civil terrorism refers to the weaponization of “minor” crimes to intimidate or coerce law-abiding citizens into taking a political position. The best way to understand it is to consider its most common manifestation. Radical groups block a road en masse, chanting about their environmentalist, economic, or geopolitical views. They communicate to trapped drivers that no trip to the airport, their jobs, or their families will be spared from the threat of future disruption until some policy changes are made. Rather than persuading their fellow citizens to support the change, they threaten to make life miserable until enough people cry uncle and acquiesce. That is not how we communicate or settle political questions in our democratic system. We have robust First Amendment rights that allow us to channel strong, offensive, or controversial opinions into peaceable arguments — including in public spaces. But the First Amendment has never allowed people to shut down all other elements of American life so that some group can express itself with maximal ruthless effectiveness. We have laws that prohibit disorderly conduct, vandalism, trespassing, and more. And if those laws fail to deter repeat offenders or treat the minor crime of road-blocking by one person — a nuisance, not a menace — the same as road-blocking by 15 people, they should be updated. That is what civil terrorism laws do. Most Americans grasp this intuitively and recognize that civil terrorism laws present no First Amendment problem. Yet some organizations and media outlets seem invested in pretending otherwise. A recent attempted hit piece against me and the Manhattan Institute in WIRED made some classic moves in trying to argue that civil terrorism laws are somehow violations of the First Amendment’s speech protections. It made some classic errors and employed some recurring misdirection, which is worth addressing. The piece’s subheader is self-refuting. It says that civil terrorism laws would “increase[e] penalties for minor crimes committed while people engage in constitutionally protected free speech.” If people are committing minor crimes, however, the fact that they are engaged in some expressive behavior is constitutionally irrelevant. There is no get-out-of-jail-free card for yelling about a political issue while you do something illegal. What is a “minor” crime, anyway? Just because something is classified as a misdemeanor now does not make it inherently unimportant — certainly not deserving of First Amendment protection, as if it were almost legal. Civil terrorists exploit the fact that some crimes are treated with kid gloves and hardly prosecuted. They violate precisely those laws in creatively destructive ways, knowing that they will face minimal consequences and can return to breaking the law repeatedly. Their sympathizers, like the author of the WIRED article, often emphasize that such lawbreaking is “nonviolent.” That’s a red herring. Many laws prohibit nonviolent actions because “violent” and “illegal” are not synonyms. Our laws protect against behaviors that erode the social fabric, such as subjecting thousands of people to needless traffic to make a political point. Americans have an interest in clean, functional, orderly public spaces, which is why vandalism can be prohibited — and treated as a serious crime when its message threatens further disruption or even violence. Click here for more Manhattan Institute content. Another common criticism is that civil terrorism stigmatizes protest by labeling some demonstrators as terrorists. But these laws don’t label individuals “terrorists” as a pejorative or put them on a list. Civil terrorism simply describes the application of terrorist logic through less-violent means: We will continue to make your life miserable until you adopt our political position. Doing that with guns and bombs is violent terrorism. Doing it with other unlawful actions is still dangerous. More importantly, highlighting the logic of terrorism at play alerts lawmakers and our fellow citizens that the disruptions won’t stop if we ignore them. To the contrary, civil terrorists regularly vow to “escalate.” Our policy response has to be a crackdown, rather than a backdown. Fretting about the invocation of terrorism or emphasizing the irrelevant (and arguable) element of nonviolence is a good sign that these critics don’t have much to go on. Frivolous First Amendment arguments attempting to extend constitutional protection to obviously illegal behavior shows that beyond all doubt. States have every right to ensure that their streets aren’t surrendered to radicals who only care about the Constitution when they can wield it in bad faith against law-abiding Americans. The movement to put civil terrorists in prison, investigate their organizers, and ensure that public spaces belong to the public again is gaining steam — and it is taking flak because it is over the target. *** Tal Fortgang is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute. 

A team of scientists in Italy is breaking the mold of a typical sourdough bread recipe … by using yeast from an ancient mummy as the key ingredient. And apparently it’s “very, very good.” Ötzi, the 5,300-year-old Iceman mummy, was found in 1991 on the border of Italy and Austria, where he was likely killed by an arrow to the shoulder. His body was famously preserved in the glacial ice of the Ötztal Alps, becoming Europe’s oldest natural mummy.  A new study of the Iceman mummy, published Wednesday in the journal Microbiome, reveals groundbreaking insights into the surprisingly active gut microbiome of the ancient mummy. Most notable was the living yeast discovered in the mummy’s guts, skin, and a “brownish” water. So the next step, naturally, was to make bread. “What we didn’t expect to find was yeast,” the lead author of the study, Mohamed Sarhan, told AFP. “If you tell anyone you have yeast, they immediately ask: Can we use it for bread?” The task resulted in three months of trial and error, but the researchers eventually created a loaf they called “very, very good.” “At first, the yeast hadn’t yet adapted to the flour environment, so nothing happened at all. We then continued over a longer period and refreshed it about every two weeks so that the yeast could slowly adapt. Eventually, we obtained a completely normal dough that rose within 24 hours — basically just like with ordinary yeast,” he said in a statement. The scientific accomplishment is just the beginning. Sarhan told Reuters the study shows the Iceman mummy as a “dynamic ecosystem” and there’s still much left to learn. “His body hosts living, metabolically capable organisms that are ⁠actively responding to their environment,” Sarhan said. “The cold-adapted yeasts are growing. Certain bacteria have colonized and persisted across his tissues for decades.” This isn’t the end of the borderline-cannibalistic endeavor. Get ready to crack open a cold one because mummy yeast beer might be next on the list. 

The most partisan Democrats celebrated Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for reaching a major milestone as her likely 2026 Democratic opponent Graham Platner’s campaign faltered from the fallout of a fresh controversy. On Thursday, the Maine senator cast her 10,000th consecutive vote during a marathon vote-a-rama on President Donald Trump’s budget reconciliation package, which provides $69.5 billion in funding for ICE through 2029. The measure passed 52-47. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was the lone Republican who voted against it. The Senate chamber erupted in applause as Collins hit the milestone, drawing rare bipartisan praise.  “No matter what has been going on in the world or in her life, Senator Collins has never, never missed a vote in her entire Senate career. This is truly a remarkable milestone,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “Many of us try hard to make every vote. Senator Collins has actually done it.” Senator Susan Collins (R-ME, @SenatorCollins) 10,000 consecutive roll call votes. pic.twitter.com/GVMKpiQDf6 — CSPAN (@cspan) June 5, 2026 Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) backed up Schumer, calling the accomplishment an “impressive demonstration of endurance and determination.” “I salute you for it,” he said.  Collins, a moderate Republican who represents an increasingly blue state, was first elected to the upper chamber in 1996.  “Mainers are known for their work ethic, and they deserve a senator who works just as hard for them. Growing up in Aroostook County, I learned the value of hard work, perseverance, and honoring your commitments. I am proud to bring those values with me to the Senate every day,” Collins said of her 10,000 votes.   “Representing the state of Maine is the honor of a lifetime, and I will continue to serve with the diligence and responsibility that Mainers deserve,” she added.  Maine is considered a must-win state for Democrats seeking to flip the Senate and block President Trump’s second-term agenda. Collins has consistently defied conventional wisdom and political headwinds, winning four reelection campaigns with cross-over support in an increasingly polarized era. Schumer’s praise of Collins is especially notable as Democrats bend over backwards to defend Platner as he remains entrenched in controversy.  The Democratic Senate candidate engaged in a pattern of “intimidating and disturbing” behavior toward multiple women and lied about not knowing the meaning of his Nazi tattoo, according to a new report from The New York Times citing former girlfriends. Three of Platner’s ex-girlfriends described volatile and “toxic” relationships with the Senate hopeful, claiming he demeaned women, became physically threatening, and was repeatedly unfaithful. On one occasion, an ex-girlfriend accused Platner of twisting her arm, shoving her into a bedroom, and holding the door shut until she became “calm.”  “It didn’t cause an injury, it didn’t break my arm,” she told the Times.  In damage control, Platner strongly disputed claims of physical intimidation or violence.  “There are some allegations in this piece that I just want to be kind of unequivocal about, are simply not true,” Platner said on MS NOW. “Anything alleging physicality, anything alleging that I knew what my tattoo was, these are the statements of someone who’s politically motivated.” WATCH: Hayes asks Platner where there are any other damning texts or pictures out there that could potentially get dropped late in the race. Platner’s response: “I’m not worried about it.” pic.twitter.com/lL70UrAaAA — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) June 5, 2026 Earlier this week, Platner met privately with Senate Democrats in Washington as party leaders grew increasingly concerned about whether additional scandals could surface before the general election.  Yet even as Democratic leaders coalesce around Platner, fissures within the party continue to surface. “Graham Platner is a chronic liar who is mentally disturbed, sympathetic to Nazis, and dangerous to women,” Ally Sammarco, a Democratic political consultant, said. “I’m disgusted to see members of my party make excuses for his behavior because it’s politically beneficial. He should be nowhere near our party and the U.S. Senate. Graham Platner is a chronic liar who is mentally disturbed, sympathetic to Nazis, and dangerous to women. I’m disgusted to see members of my party make excuses for his behavior because it’s politically beneficial. He should be nowhere near our party and the U.S. Senate. — Ally Sammarco (@Ally_Sammarco) June 5, 2026

The political climate in California is changing. The Golden State is seemingly on the cusp of a red wave in the Los Angeles mayoral and statewide gubernatorial races. Californians’ deep concern about the prevalence of high-intensity wildfires plaguing their state is a major reason why. I previously argued that Governor Gavin Newsom treated California as a policy laboratory for all kinds of radical regulatory experimentation and that the results were overwhelmingly negative. Now there are signs of a state-wide reckoning. Polling indicates that California residents could put an end to the toxic mix of harmful policies crafted or enforced by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Newsom. The L.A. mayoral race has put this dynamic on full display. Former reality TV star and political outsider Spencer Pratt has made the Palisades Fire, which occurred under Bass’s watch, a central issue in the race. That fire, started by a deranged arsonist, caused damages estimated at over $28 billion and killed dozens of people. Bass’s team oversaw a response that policy experts have criticized as inadequate. At the time, the Washington Post editorial board argued that Bass’s city government “badly mishandled” the response, and, perhaps worse, that Bass tried to sweep evidence of her bungled response under the rug. Though it happened over a year ago, Spencer Pratt is not letting Bass off the hook for her role in the fire, which affected him personally. “If they didn’t burn my house down, I wouldn’t be running for mayor,” Pratt has said. That strategy is working for Pratt. While still slightly trailing Bass in recent polls, Pratt is slated to face Bass in a runoff election in November. Bass blamed climate change for the fires, which is no excuse for negligence. In fact, if Bass believes climate change is exacerbating wildfire risk, that arguably casts her in a worse light. If she believed that fires are now more likely to occur, due to climate change or any other reason, her decision to drastically reduce the L.A. Fire Department budget by $17 million before the fire was especially inexcusable. Bass not only refused to accept accountability but also attempted a cover-up. Bass reportedly altered an after-action report to downplay the role of poor political decisions in the fire’s impact. The original report, much of which Bass reportedly quashed, may have discussed the reservoir drained ahead of the fire that could have supplied 117 million gallons of water, and the insufficient availability of firefighters. Solely focusing on Bass, though, misses the larger point: In California, ideologically driven leftist policies have prioritized environmental regulations over brush-clearing measures. Faster vegetation growth translates to higher fire risk. Californians know this, but they have long faced an uphill battle in clearing brush from public land. As a general rule, California doesn’t clear brush from public lands for environmental reasons, and residents must apply for a permit to do so — a lengthy and cumbersome process. This is what happened in the Palisades Fire. Having not been cleared from public lands abutting residential areas, brush plants, which are evolutionarily engineered to burn, contributed to the fire’s rapid spread. Californians know that politicians are at least partly to blame for mismanagement and poor policymaking that cost over 20,000 of them their homes in the most recent major bout of wildfires in early 2025. That is why Democrats are at risk of losing their grip on power in California at the gubernatorial level, too. Republican candidate Steve Hilton is surging in polls among Californians and could be the first Republican elected governor of California in two decades. Hilton is not tiptoeing around challenging fire prevention issues. To the contrary, he is leaning in with ambitious proposals to use remote sensing technology and drones to detect and stop fires before they spread out of control. At the same time, Hilton has condemned California officials for putting ideology before people. Hilton has noted, “the California Coastal Commission also blocked fire prevention and mitigation measures in the exact hills that just burned, in order to protect a few thousand specimens of the Braunton’s milkvetch shrub.” He also got Californians’ attention, with his claim that the L.A. wildfires were “not a natural disaster” but rather “a man-made disaster.” Thanks to common sense axioms like these, he is currently the frontrunner in the race, much to the chagrin and surprise of California’s Democratic establishment. California is a solid blue state and has been for many years. A red wave there would mean a red wave could be possible anywhere. And apocalyptic scenes of wildfires, the most salient and striking example of policy failure in that state, are getting voters’ attention like never before. *** Sydney Rodman is a visiting fellow with the Independent Women’s Center for Energy and Conservation.