3 hours ago
8
As Republicans and Democrats battle for the upper hand in the federal government shutdown, President Donald Trump has zeroed in on a new target for potentially breaking the deadlock: eliminating the Senate filibuster.
In two Truth Social posts, Trump urged senators to end the chamber’s longstanding practice of requiring 60 votes to proceed to final consideration of legislation. The 60-vote threshold means that Republicans cannot simply rely on their own senators to pass legislation to fund the government; they also need to secure backing from seven or more Democrats, given the chamber’s 53-47 partisan breakdown.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items- list 1 of 3‘Will they change course?’: US Senate in deadlock over government shutdown
- list 2 of 3Trump calls for Senate to scrap filibuster tactic to end the gov’t shutdown
- list 3 of 3Republicans push back against Trump’s call to end the Senate filibuster
Democrats have not supported a bill to continue federal funding during the shutdown, which has now entered its second month. Democrats are using the leverage they have from the filibuster requirement to push Republicans to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.
“Terminate the filibuster, not just for the shutdown, but for everything else,” Trump wrote on November 2 on Truth Social. He said Democrats would end the filibuster “immediately, as soon as they get the chance. Our doing it will not give them the chance.”
In parliamentary lingo, the process of using a simple majority vote to eliminate the filibuster has been called the “nuclear option”.
A president pushing to “nuke” the filibuster can make a difference, said Arizona State University political scientist Steven Smith. President Woodrow Wilson supported the first of several filibuster workarounds, which was enacted in 1917, Smith said.
Although Trump has secured congressional Republicans’ support on most issues during his second term, Senate Republicans have not acceded to his desire to end the filibuster.
The top Senate Republican, Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota, has reiterated his opposition to eliminating the filibuster. He is joined in opposition by several other Republicans, including Senator John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
The filibuster forces us to find common ground in the Senate. Power changes hands, but principles shouldn’t. I’m a firm no on eliminating it. https://t.co/b4YZKeauw3
— Senator John Curtis (@SenJohnCurtis) October 31, 2025
If these Republicans hold firm against eliminating the filibuster, Trump will not have enough votes to end the practice.
“We do not seem to be any closer to ‘nuking’ the legislative filibuster than we have been for decades,” Smith said.
What is the filibuster, and how does it work?
The filibuster was not established by a specific act, and it is not in the US Constitution.
The Constitution delegates internal rule-setting to the Senate itself, and for much of its history, a senator could block action by filibustering.
It took until 1917, when the Senate voted to create a process known as cloture, by which a two-thirds supermajority of senators present and voting could cut off a filibuster and move on to other business. Then, in 1975, the Senate voted to lower the supermajority to three-fifths of senators serving overall, establishing its current level of 60 senators.
Those 60 votes have become a significant hurdle in a chamber that has not often had one party hold that many seats, especially in recent years, as the two parties have become more polarised.
How could senators deploy the nuclear option?
The nuclear option’s mechanics are complex even by the standards of parliamentary manoeuvres, requiring a series of carefully choreographed steps. The gist is that the majority party would move to change the supermajority rule through a series of votes that require only a simple majority.
The nuclear option does not have to entirely eliminate the filibuster. It could be used to eliminate it only for certain purposes – a tactic that has been used by both parties in the past dozen years.
In 2013, Democrats deployed the nuclear option to approve most executive branch and judicial nominees, after the chamber’s Republican minority refused to approve many of President Barack Obama’s appointees.
But the effort left Supreme Court justice nominations to meet the 60-vote threshold. That restriction fell in 2017, nuked by Republicans.
With all appointments now handled by a simple majority, ordinary legislative business remains subject to the 60-vote margin.
Does the filibuster have staying power?
It would be possible to narrow the filibuster further by eliminating it for the spending bills at issue in the shutdown fight without eliminating the practice for all legislative business. Some Democrats tried during Joe Biden’s presidency to end the filibuster for voting-related legislation, which would have benefitted a Democrat-backed election bill, but they did not succeed.
One argument against ending the filibuster is that today’s political majority could become tomorrow’s political minority.
Republicans have historically appreciated the filibuster more than Democrats have, since the filibuster makes it harder to create new federal programmes, which is a common goal of Democrats.
Democrats have a different reason for preserving the supermajority rule. Each state receives two Senate seats, regardless of population. Because most states today tend to vote the same way for president and Senate, and because more states are reliably Republican than reliably Democratic, Democrats are at a long-term disadvantage in the Senate. As a result, Democratic senators will want to have continued access to the filibuster.
Another argument against eliminating the filibuster: It gives any single senator greater power within the chamber. Many senators would be loath to give up a significant amount of personal leverage by ending the filibuster, even if it were to benefit their party.
