On Monday’s CNN This Morning, the “Group Chat” sounded less like analysis and more like a Democratic messaging session.
Discussing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s claim that the SAVE Act is “Jim Crow 2.0,” CNN senior reporter Zach Wolf wasn’t troubled by the incendiary historical comparison. Instead, he fretted that Democratic Senator John Fetterman had gone “off message” by refusing to echo it.
Is the CNN motto still "Facts First"? Or is it "Keeping the Democrats On Message"?
Fetterman said: “I would never refer to the SAVE Act as, like, Jim Crow 2.0… I don't call people names or imply that it's some kinds of things as something gross about the terrible history of Jim Crow.” Wolf’s response?
ZACH WOLF: I think Fetterman is the most off-message Democrat in the chamber right now, which doesn't you know, he's he is saying what he believes and, you know, representing exactly what he believes. But that's not what most Democrats believe. So while he might be saying -- and I think most Democrats would get on board with what Schumer was saying.
Not: Is invoking Jim Crow responsible?
Not: Does that rhetoric trivialize actual Jim Crow?
But: Why isn’t he sticking with Schumer’s line?
CNN Frets Fetterman ‘Off Message’ for Rejecting Schumer’s ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ Line pic.twitter.com/TJUIsCe8vo
— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) February 16, 2026
Wolf went further, dismissing the bill as “a solution to a problem that literally does not exist,” adding that “all the voting experts you talk to say this is essentially unnecessary.”
“All” the experts? Which experts? From what institutions? With what political leanings? Viewers were given no names, no affiliations — just an appeal to unnamed authority.
Substitute host Pamela Brown reinforced the narrative, displaying a chart and claiming that instances of ineligible voting are “statistically insignificant.” The fine print revealed the source: the American Civil Liberties Union.
The ACLU is a liberal advocacy organization, not a neutral referee. Even taking the numbers at face value, CNN omitted an obvious point: in close elections, small numbers can matter. As the 2000 Florida recount demonstrated, razor-thin margins can decide the presidency.
Brown also described President Trump as “threatening to issue an executive order” mandating voter ID if Congress fails to act. “Threatening” is CNN’s term. Conservatives would call it promising to pursue what polls consistently show is a broadly-supported reform.
In just a few minutes, CNN amplified Schumer’s “Jim Crow 2.0” rhetoric, scolded a Democrat who declined to repeat it, invoked unnamed “experts” to declare the issue settled, and leaned on ACLU data to dismiss concerns — all under the banner of straight news analysis.
On CNN This Morning, the real problem wasn’t overheated Democratic rhetoric. It was a Democrat who wouldn’t use it.
Here's the transcript.
CNN This Morning
2/16/26
6:51 am ETPRESIDENT TRUMP: It's the Save America Act, and the Democrats are against it.
PAMELA BROWN: The Republican voting bill called the Save America Act is heading to the Senate where it's facing an uncertain future.SEN. BILL HAGERTY [R-TN]: I think the American public is with us on this one. We're looking at the talking filibuster. It's something that has not been used in a long, long time. It's a complicated process, but I think we're going to look at every way we possibly can to get this to the floor, to defeat the Democrats' obstructionism, and do something that makes common sense for Americans.
CHUCK SCHUMER: What they are proposing in this so-called SAVE Act is like Jim Crow 2.0. They make it so hard to get any kind of voter ID that more than 20 million legitimate people, mainly poorer people and people of color, will not be able to vote under this law. We will not let it pass in the Senate.
BROWN: And President Trump is already threatening to issue an executive order if it stalls, saying on social media, quote, there will be voter I.D. for the midterm elections, whether approved by Congress or not.
All right. The Group Chat is back. And just to be clear, because I think it can be confusing for people to kind of follow all of this. Polls show that actually a majority of Americans support some sort of voter voter I.D. to show that, yes, your name matches the voter rolls.
This goes further, though, as you well know, this goes further in that it makes you prove your citizenship. And Democrats are worried that this could mean that millions of Americans may not be able to vote because perhaps, if you're a woman who got married, and your name doesn't match, you know, it could create issues. When it comes to this legislation in particular, Zach, you heard there Senator Schumer saying say that this is Jim Crow 2.0.
But some in his own party, they don't agree with that message. They say it's not a winning message. Here's what Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat, said this weekend.
JOHN FETTERMAN: I would never refer to the SAVE Act as, like, Jim Crow 2.0 or some kinds of mass kinds of conspiracy. But that's part of the debate that we were having here in the Senate right now. And I don't call people names or imply that it's some kinds of things as something gross about the terrible history of like Jim Crow.
BROWN: What do you think?
ZACH WOLF: I think Fetterman is the most off-message Democrat in the chamber right now, which doesn't you know, he's he is saying what he believes and, you know, representing exactly what he believes. But that's not what most Democrats believe. So while he might be saying -- and I think most Democrats would get on board with what Schumer was saying.
This is a solution to a problem that literally does not exist. There is still no evidence, despite a decade of Donald Trump saying, that there is widespread voting by people who aren't citizens. Every state has their own ability, you know, their own operation, except for one, I think, to register voters.
So it's like, it's a it's a system that's been working.
BROWN: Yeah.
WOLF: And so creating a new layer for it. I mean, yeah, it makes sense that only citizens should be voting, but all the evidence suggests that only citizens are voting.
BROWN: Well, I mean, the cases where that hasn't happened, it's, like, statistically insignificant. It is so few, right?
WOLF: Right.
BROWN: And so --
WOLF: Exactly. I mean, all the voting experts you talk to say this is essentially unnecessary. There are those out there that support, you know, this kind of thing, and every state has its own thing.
