“We need to end the filibuster right now… let’s get this absurd shutdown over with.” President Trump expressed via social media.
He went on, emphasizing in all caps, “Most importantly, we need to pass all the incredible Republican policies we’ve been waiting for.”
You could certainly compile your own list of what these “incredible Republican policies” might include around guns, abortion, tariffs, taxes, military strategies, and immigration regulations. If the Senate and House were to adopt Trump’s plan, those policies would breeze through Congress.
Now, perhaps it’s worth crafting a second list and considering what policies might emerge under a future administration led by Gavin Newsom or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You might see proposals like D.C. statehood, gun restrictions, court expansions, government-funded healthcare, and rolling back state right-to-work laws.
However, Senate rules usually demand that 60 senators agree to end debate before most legislation can proceed. This tradition is famously praised, like in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” as a highlight of democracy and a senator’s “right to speak.” They’re supposed to work until they reach an agreement.
This is what the Senate is designed for—a platform that promotes consensus on divisive issues, ensuring that most senators—and ideally most Americans—can back the outcomes. Alexis de Tocqueville, who explored America back in the early 1830s, cautioned against two major threats: Russia and the tyranny of the majority.
A move to abolish the filibuster could indeed pave the way for majority-rule tyranny and undermine minority rights.
It’s somewhat ironic that Democrats, who might seem to oppose Trump, are actually his allies when it comes to ending the filibuster; their main goal is simply to thwart his initiatives. Notably, two moderate senators, Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin, were sidelined for collaborating with Republicans to stave off filibuster changes. Back during Obama’s and Biden’s presidencies, they heavily pushed to eliminate the filibuster, despite once opposing it themselves. Biden has since called it a “naked power grab.”
Many Republicans defend the filibuster, recalling when Democrats controlled 60 seats and, with Obama in charge, they hastily rushed through the Affordable Care Act and other controversial measures.
If you’re curious why today’s Affordable Care Act demands so much taxpayer funding and frequent adjustments, it’s tied to the way it was passed—without bipartisan support.
Republicans also hold in high regard comments from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who pointed out that many dictators around the world have a Bill of Rights, but that alone doesn’t guarantee freedom. It’s the Constitution’s framework that ensures checks and balances among government branches. The filibuster serves as a safeguard against the whims of presidents, politicians, and public opinion.
Some might question how to avert future government shutdowns without abolishing the filibuster. A straightforward suggestion: halt lawmakers’ salaries and travel reimbursements until the government is back in business. That could solve the issue pretty quickly.
The Senate definitely requires reform to regain its standing as a deliberative body, but I don’t think we necessarily need rule changes—we need to adjust our approach. For starters, senators should stop blocking one another’s amendments. If you disagree—just vote against it. Honestly, why would an entire body refrain from debating proposed amendments? Why show up to an event if you don’t want to participate?
Senate Majority Leader John Thune highlighted two reasons against ending the filibuster.
“There simply aren’t the votes,” he remarked.
His other point was more impactful.
“It’s a bad idea,” Thune asserted.
Lamar Alexander, a former Republican senator from Tennessee who served from 2003 to 2021 and led the Senate Republican Conference from 2007 to 2011, is preparing to release a memoir titled “Senator Education: From JFK to Trump.”
