A troubling scenario is unfolding. What once felt like an exaggerated fear is now edging closer to reality: Senate Republicans might trigger a filibuster to end the ongoing government shutdown.
This would represent a significant departure from tradition, paving the way for unilateral control in Washington.
Removing the 60-vote requirement for most Senate votes would empower the current Republican majority, and any future majority, to advance their agendas without needing the cooperation of the other party.
Despite the inherent risks, many Republicans seem to be relishing this potential move. For instance, Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri remarked recently, “I don’t want to see the children of my state go hungry because of the Senate process.” Meanwhile, Senator Rick Scott from Florida expressed a readiness to impose the filibuster, stating, “If I can’t do anything, that’s it. [Democrats] I’m going to force it.”
There are a few reasons this situation is becoming more likely. First, the Democratic Party is struggling to gain any leverage. In negotiations, one side needs to want something, and not much urgency has been shown by President Trump regarding reopening the government. For him, the shutdown seems to represent a chance to act unilaterally, laying off workers and saving funds. He’s indicated he won’t engage in talks until Democrats pass a resolution ending the shutdown.
Second, Democratic leaders feel their withdrawal from negotiations would be politically untenable. Those on the far left already perceive themselves as unable to challenge Trump effectively and face the daunting prospect of losing this struggle as the midterm season approaches. Hence, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer recently broke from tradition, refusing to accept a clean continuing resolution, which might inadvertently set the stage for Republicans to dictate the end of the shutdown.
Third, the real implications of the shutdown are about to intensify. Essential state and local services like food assistance and public health clinics are beginning to cease operations. The broader economic landscape will likely take a hit. Additionally, unresolved issues concerning Affordable Care Act subsidies may lead millions to face increased premiums or even loss of coverage as enrollment opens.
This situation will likely amplify public pressure on the Senate, leading Republican leaders to consider the filibuster’s elimination as an easier path forward.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune previously promised to protect the filibuster while in office. Yet, it’s curious that he hasn’t reiterated this commitment during the ongoing shutdown. Trump has remained quiet on the matter thus far, but his history suggests he may soon advocate for ending the filibuster once again.
However, scrapping this procedural safeguard would have dire and lasting ramifications. Once gone, neither party would have any motivation to reinstate it while in power.
The filibuster exists to uphold the Senate’s role as a deliberative body. Its removal would obliterate the last checks that encourage compromise and curb the most extreme tendencies of each party. Even a minor exception to alleviate the shutdown could set a precedent for future majorities to enact significant legislation without necessary collaboration, further deepening the national divide.
So, what can be done to avert this crisis? We need a display of integrity and bravery from bipartisan leaders.
Perhaps it could start with a coalition of thoughtful Republican senators and pragmatic House Democrats who aren’t willing to leverage their reputations in a high-stakes shutdown fight. Figures like Senator Susan Collins from Maine and practical House Democrats like Representative Josh Gottheimer from New Jersey could take the lead.
Remember how the bipartisan Infrastructure Deal came about? A group worked together to shape a plan as a viable alternative to the broader Build Back Better initiative, and they were ready to push for it when necessary.
We need a similar effort now—a coalition that will start crafting a realistic agreement to reopen the government, even if it seems unfeasible at the moment. This way, when public sentiment peaks and pressure mounts, pursuing drastic measures won’t seem like the only escape route.
Any agreement will require compromise. This means neither side emerges as the outright victor in this battle. However, it would prevent the country from falling into an irreversible debacle. Isn’t that a shared goal worth striving for?
