The U.S. Senate Dilemma
Many Americans, including President Trump, recognize that the U.S. Senate isn’t functioning as it should. What used to be a straightforward process requiring a simple majority of 51 votes has shifted to needing 60 votes for nearly all significant measures.
Supporters argue this structure is meant to protect minority rights—the “world’s largest deliberative body,” they say. However, the reality is that this 60-vote threshold is a rule the Senate created last century and it could be changed at any moment.
As a point of contention, some claim the filibuster has evolved from a physical stamina test into a convenient way to stall or entirely derail the “America First” agenda.
According to Article 1, only seven situations require a supermajority: overriding a veto, ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, expelling a member, proposing constitutional amendments, and a couple of unclear quorum rules. Notably, passing regular legislation isn’t included.
The idea of unlimited debate that sparked the modern filibuster was never intended to create a supermajority requirement—it was, in fact, quite accidental. Back in 1806, the House of Representatives eliminated the so-called “previous question” motion, a suggestion from Aaron Burr that aimed to simplify the Senate’s rules. At the time, nobody grasped its significance. The filibuster, which didn’t really come into play until the 1830s, was seldom used then as it demanded extensive endurance; senators would have to speak continuously for days—until they literally collapsed.
The Filibuster as a Weapon
Things took a turn in 1917. On the brink of WWI, public outcry ensued when 11 anti-war senators filibustered President Wilson’s proposal to arm merchant ships. Wilson insisted on action, leading the Senate to adopt Rule XXII, the first closure rule, enabling two-thirds of senators to end debate.
Rather than curbing interference, this rule paradoxically amplified it. For the first time, minorities didn’t need to exhaust themselves speaking; they could simply hold it hostage. Consequently, the majority needed a supermajority to proceed.
Over the years, the Senate revised its filibuster rules several times. In 1975, the closure requirement dropped from two-thirds to three-fifths, or 60 votes. Then, in 2013, the Democrats removed the filibuster for most presidential appointments. Following suit, Republicans did the same for Supreme Court nominees in 2017.
These changes highlight a crucial truth: the filibuster is not a hallowed custom. It’s a rule that can be altered or abolished by a simple majority vote at any time.
The Misconception of “Unprecedented Change”
Supporters of the filibuster often present the idea of eliminating the 60-vote requirement as radical.
In reality, it would revert to the process that governed the Senate for the first 128 years—a system of open-ended debate with no supermajority necessary to pass legislation.
Advocates also suggest that the filibuster fosters compromise. However, history tells a different story. Major legislative milestones in the past century, such as Social Security and the Civil Rights Act, were all passed when the filibuster was de-emphasized or bypassed entirely.
Right now, what we face isn’t reasoned discussion; it’s sheer gridlock. The existing rule offers 41 senators—representing merely 11% of Americans—the power to obstruct the desires of the rest. The Senate already offers protections for smaller states through equal representation and extended terms. Adding a 60-vote requirement into everyday governance wasn’t what the framers envisioned.
A Possible Solution
So, what’s the answer? The Senate could return to requiring only a simple majority vote for bills. Sure, debate can go on forever if that’s the choice, but a genuine filibuster should conclude when either the minority’s patience—or the public’s—runs out. Or, they could keep things as they are and watch President Trump’s “America First” policies stagnate for years to come.
The filibuster isn’t some inviolable constitutional guarantee. It emerged in 1917 as an experiment that ultimately failed after 108 years. It’s a Senate creation, and the Senate can certainly change it again.
