Treasury Secretary Urges Filibuster Repeal Amid Possible Government Shutdown
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is encouraging Senate Republicans to consider abolishing the filibuster if Democrats lead to another government shutdown in January.
Bessent argues that the recent shutdown demonstrated how the filibuster, which typically requires 60 votes for most legislation, has turned into a tool for obstruction rather than meaningful debate. He points to significant consequences, including an $11 billion loss to the economy, an anticipated 1.5 percentage point dip in GDP growth for the fourth quarter, 9,500 canceled flights, and delays in pay for 1.4 million federal workers as clear evidence of the costs involved.
This position is significant, as it highlights support from high-level officials in the Trump administration for potential changes that could affect Congressional power dynamics and facilitate legislative efforts by the Senate majority. Rather than just grumbling about legislative gridlock, Bessent casts the filibuster as a potential vulnerability for Republicans.
Interestingly, his argument doesn’t solely hinge on constitutional or procedural norms. Instead, he approaches the issue from a game theory perspective. He suggests that Republicans have maintained the filibuster out of a sense of cooperation, while Democrats have readily adjusted Senate rules when it benefits them.
Bessent notes, “In any strategic competition, deterrence only works if both sides believe in the other side’s willingness to act.” He references how Democrats ended the filibuster for most judicial nominations in 2013, and then Republicans did so for Supreme Court nominations in 2017. He recalls former President Obama calling the filibuster a “relic of Jim Crow,” asserting that these actions indicate Democrats would readily eliminate the rule if they regain power.
He applies a scenario similar to the prisoner’s dilemma, where cooperation would ideally benefit both parties, but there’s always an incentive to defect. Bessent worries that by holding onto rules which Democrats want to discard, Republicans might find themselves at a disadvantage.
Bessent suggests a strategic move: rather than outright abolishing the filibuster now, Republicans should leverage the threat of doing so. This kind of commitment could strengthen their bargaining position and even prolong the filibuster’s existence. He states, “Paradoxically, a credible threat to eliminate the filibuster is likely to sustain it longer than any previous open-ended appeasement.”
He specifies certain conditions; if Democrats fail to negotiate sincerely and provoke another shutdown by the January 30 deadline, he argues Republicans should swiftly move to repeal the filibuster. Bessent presents this as an economic necessity, asserting that procedural traditions shouldn’t overshadow essential governmental functions.
He highlights the filibuster’s somewhat random origins—it wasn’t originally part of the Constitution but instead emerged from an 1806 rule change that removed a majority vote mechanism to end debate. This created opportunities for minority party interference.
Bessent observes that both parties have already partially dismantled the filibuster before; each time, he argues, the Senate has adapted, providing voters a clearer understanding of which party is in control and which is obstructing progress.
Critics of abolishing the filibuster caution that Republicans might regret enabling fast-paced Democratic actions when the political landscape shifts again. Bessent counters this viewpoint as overly optimistic, arguing that Democrats wouldn’t need Republican consent to terminate the filibuster and that Republicans would likely do the same if they were obstructing Democratic initiatives.
This perspective adds a fresh layer to the discussion around filibuster repeal. It frames the issue more as a matter of strategic maneuvering than simply adhering to Senate tradition. With a new spending deadline approaching in January, Bessent’s commentary implies that if negotiations falter again, the idea of eliminating the filibuster could quickly become a viable option rather than just a theoretical consideration.
