Last updated 5 days ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
President Donald Trump wrote his party’s leaders in the Senate: “It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,'” he wrote, “and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!”
Trump’s call to detonate a century-old legislative norm has forced a national conversation about a procedure that is as powerful as it is misunderstood.
How the Filibuster Works
To grasp the stakes of the 2025 shutdown and the calls to abolish the filibuster, one must first understand the mechanics of this powerful and peculiar legislative tool. It is not a formal rule but a tradition, born from the absence of rules, that has come to define the modern Senate and the very possibility of passing laws in the United States.
At its core, the filibuster is any tactic used by a senator or group of senators to delay or block a vote on a piece of legislation or a nomination.
The most famous method is the talking filibuster, where a senator holds the floor by speaking for an extended, and potentially unlimited, period. The possibility for this tactic exists because, unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate’s rules place very few limits on a senator’s right to debate.
Once recognized by the presiding officer, a senator may speak for as long as they wish on almost any topic, effectively preventing the chamber from moving on to other business or, crucially, to a final vote.
It is a common misconception that this right to extended debate is a hallowed principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In reality, the filibuster is mentioned nowhere in the nation’s founding document.
The Constitution specifies that a supermajority—a threshold greater than a simple majority—is required for a few, high-stakes actions: ratifying treaties, overriding a presidential veto, and proposing constitutional amendments.
For the routine business of passing laws, the Founders largely envisioned a system of simple majority rule. The filibuster is a procedural artifact of the Senate’s own rules, not a constitutional mandate.
The 60-Vote Hurdle
For more than a century after its founding, the Senate had no formal mechanism for a majority to cut off a determined minority’s attempt to talk a bill to death. This changed in 1917 with the adoption of Senate Rule XXII, better known as the cloture rule.
Cloture (a term meaning “closure”) is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on the consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster.
The process begins when at least 16 senators sign and present a motion to invoke cloture. The Senate typically votes on that motion two days later. To be successful, the cloture motion must gain the support of a supermajority of three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn—which, in the 100-member Senate, means 60 votes.
If 60 senators vote in favor of cloture, the filibuster is broken, but debate does not end immediately. Instead, the bill enters a “post-cloture” period, where a maximum of 30 additional hours of consideration is permitted.
During this time, senators can still offer amendments and use their allotted speaking time. While this 30-hour cap prevents indefinite delay, it can still be used as a potent tool to slow the Senate’s work and drain the majority party’s valuable floor time, demonstrating that even a bill with the support of 60 senators can be significantly delayed by a determined minority.
The Modern “Silent” Filibuster
The enduring image of the filibuster—popularized by the 1939 film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington—is that of a lone, passionate senator speaking for hours on end, physically exhausting themselves for a cause. While this “talking filibuster” can still occur, it is now exceedingly rare.
The modern filibuster has evolved into a far less dramatic but more pervasive procedural weapon.
This transformation was largely driven by a procedural change in the 1970s known as the “two-track system”. Before this change, a talking filibuster would bring all other Senate business to a complete halt.
The two-track system allows the Senate to set aside a piece of legislation that is being filibustered and move on to consider other, unrelated bills. This innovation had a profound and paradoxical effect: by making the filibuster less disruptive to the overall functioning of the Senate, it made it much easier and less politically costly for the minority party to use.
As a result, the filibuster has morphed from an act of physical endurance into a routine requirement for a supermajority. Today, a senator can filibuster simply by notifying their party’s leader of their intent to do so.
The majority leader, knowing that they cannot end debate without 60 votes, will typically not even bring a bill to the floor for consideration unless they have already secured commitments from a supermajority.
This “silent” or “procedural” filibuster means that the mere threat of obstruction is now as powerful as the act itself.
This evolution has fundamentally altered the nature of the Senate. The focus has shifted from the act of debate and persuasion to the simple arithmetic of the cloture vote.
The modern filibuster is no longer primarily a tool to ensure the minority is heard, but rather a procedural hurdle that effectively requires 60 votes to pass almost any significant and controversial piece of legislation.
In doing so, it has transformed the Senate from a majoritarian body into a supermajoritarian one, where a minority of just 41 senators can exercise a de facto veto over the will of the majority.
A History Born from Accident and Abuse
The contemporary debate over the filibuster is often framed as a clash between preserving a sacred tradition and modernizing a dysfunctional institution. However, the history of the filibuster reveals that it is not a sacrosanct, founding principle but a procedural accident that has been repeatedly and pragmatically altered to suit the political needs of the moment.
Creation by Mistake (1806)
Contrary to the lore that the filibuster was part of the Founders’ grand design for a slow, deliberative Senate, historical evidence suggests it was created by mistake.
In 1789, the Senate’s original rulebook, like the House’s, included a “previous question” motion. This motion, while used differently at the time, was a procedural tool that could have evolved to allow a simple majority to cut off debate and force a vote.
In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr, in his farewell address, advised the Senate that its rulebook was cluttered and redundant. He singled out the previous question motion as unnecessary, and in 1806, the Senate followed his advice and eliminated it.
According to political scientist Sarah Binder, this was not a principled decision to protect minority rights; senators simply “got rid of the rule by mistake: Because Aaron Burr told them to”.
By removing the one tool that could have empowered a majority to end debate, the Senate inadvertently opened the door to the possibility of unlimited obstruction. Even so, the tactic was rarely used, with the first major, successful filibuster not occurring until 1837.
A Tool Against Civil Rights
For much of its history, the filibuster was most famously and effectively wielded for a single, controversial purpose: to kill civil rights legislation.
For nearly a century, Southern segregationist senators used extended debate as their primary weapon to block federal anti-lynching laws, to prevent the abolition of the poll tax, and to stall broader civil rights protections.
This dark history includes some of the most infamous moments in Senate lore. In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina conducted the longest individual filibuster on record, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in a failed attempt to block the Civil Rights Act of that year.
In 1964, a bloc of Southern senators staged a coordinated 60-day filibuster against the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964.
It was only after a bipartisan coalition, led by Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, successfully invoked cloture that the bill was allowed to pass—the first time a major civil rights bill had ever overcome a filibuster.
This history is a central component of the modern progressive argument for the filibuster’s abolition.
Taming the Filibuster: The Cloture Rule and Its Modifications
As the filibuster became a more potent tool of obstruction, the Senate made several attempts to regulate it. These changes were not born from abstract principle but from pragmatic responses to political crises.
1917 (Rule 22): The first major reform came at the outset of the United States’ entry into World War I. President Woodrow Wilson was enraged when a small group of anti-war senators filibustered his proposal to arm American merchant ships against German submarine attacks.
Wilson publicly decried the senators as a “little group of willful men” who had rendered the U.S. government “helpless and contemptible.”
Under intense public pressure, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, creating the cloture process for the first time. The threshold was set high, requiring a vote of two-thirds of the senators present and voting to end debate.
1975 (The 60-Vote Threshold): For decades, the two-thirds requirement made cloture exceedingly difficult to achieve. As the use of the filibuster increased in the mid-20th century, pressure mounted for another reform.
In 1975, the Senate, led by figures like Senator Robert C. Byrd, voted to lower the threshold from two-thirds of those voting to the current standard of three-fifths of all sworn senators, or 60 votes. This change established the 60-vote supermajority that defines the modern Senate.
The “Nuclear Option”: A New Era of Partisan Escalation
In recent decades, partisan polarization has led to an unprecedented use of the filibuster, particularly to block presidential nominations for the executive branch and federal courts.
Frustrated by this gridlock, both parties have resorted to a controversial procedural maneuver known as the “nuclear option.” This tactic involves using a simple majority of 51 votes to establish a new precedent for the Senate, effectively overriding a standing rule like the 60-vote requirement for cloture.
The use of the nuclear option has been a tit-for-tat escalation, with each party setting a new precedent that the other later expands:
2013: Citing Republican opposition of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Senate Democrats, led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, triggered the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote threshold for all executive branch nominations and all judicial nominations except for the Supreme Court.
2017: When Democrats threatened to filibuster President Donald Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, retaliated by extending the nuclear option precedent to cover Supreme Court nominees as well.
2019: Republicans again used a majority vote to change the rules, this time to significantly reduce the post-cloture debate time for most lower-level executive and judicial nominees from 30 hours to just two.
This history demonstrates that the filibuster is not a static tradition but a fluid set of procedures that have been consistently altered by the party in power to achieve its political objectives.
The arguments about principle and tradition are often deployed strategically by the party in the minority, only to be discarded when they regain the majority and find the same rules inconvenient.
| Year | Event | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| 1806 | “Previous Question” motion eliminated | Accidentally creates the procedural opening for unlimited debate. |
| 1837 | First major filibuster conducted | Establishes extended debate as a viable, though rare, legislative tactic. |
| 1917 | Cloture Rule (Rule XXII) adopted | Creates the first mechanism to end debate, requiring a two-thirds vote. |
| 1957 | Strom Thurmond’s record filibuster | A 24-hour speech against the Civil Rights Act becomes a symbol of Southern resistance. |
| 1964 | Civil Rights Act filibuster overcome | A landmark civil rights bill passes after a 60-day filibuster is broken by a bipartisan vote. |
| 1970s | “Two-Track System” implemented | Lowers the political cost of obstruction, leading to a dramatic increase in filibusters. |
| 1975 | Cloture threshold lowered to 60 votes | Establishes the modern three-fifths supermajority standard for most legislation. |
| 2013 | “Nuclear Option” for lower court/executive nominees | Democrats eliminate the 60-vote rule for most nominations, setting a new precedent. |
| 2017 | “Nuclear Option” for Supreme Court nominees | Republicans extend the precedent to cover Supreme Court nominations. |
The October 2025 Shutdown: Healthcare Subsidies and a Government on the Brink
The abstract procedural debate over the filibuster exploded into a national crisis in October 2025, when a month-long government shutdown pushed the country’s political system to a breaking point.
The standoff crystallized how the modern filibuster has been transformed from a tool of deliberation into a weapon of pure partisan leverage, prompting Donald Trump’s demand to dismantle it entirely.
The crisis began on October 1, 2025, when funding for the federal government lapsed, triggering a partial shutdown.
The Republican-controlled House had passed a stopgap spending bill, but in the Senate, where Republicans held a 53-47 majority, the legislation stalled. It fell short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster organized by Senate Democrats.
The Democrats’ opposition was not primarily about the spending levels in the funding bill itself. Instead, they were using the filibuster as leverage to force Republicans to negotiate on an entirely separate issue: the looming expiration of enhanced premium tax credits for health insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
These subsidies, first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, were set to expire on December 31, 2025. Without an extension, millions of Americans who purchased insurance on the ACA marketplaces were facing the prospect of massive premium increases.
Democrats refused to provide the votes to fund the government until Republicans agreed to extend the subsidies. Republicans, in turn, refused to negotiate on healthcare policy until Democrats agreed to end their filibuster and reopen the government.
It was a classic political stalemate, with both sides blaming the other while the real-world consequences mounted. Federal workers missed paychecks, and the administration warned that funding for SNAP benefits could be paused, threatening the food security of millions.
Trump’s Demand: “Get Rid of the Filibuster, and Get Rid of It, NOW!”
Returning from a diplomatic trip to Asia, President Trump thrust himself into the center of the debate. In a series of posts on his Truth Social platform, he laid out a clear and aggressive demand.
“BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE GONE STONE COLD ‘CRAZY,'” he wrote, “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR – INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Trump’s stated rationale was a mixture of political frustration and a concern for national image. He claimed to have given the issue “a great deal of thought” on his flight home and recounted that foreign leaders had repeatedly asked him why “powerful Republicans allow” Democrats to shut down the U.S. government.
He saw the situation not as a complex legislative negotiation but as a simple matter of political will and strength.
His goal was purely tactical: to disarm the Democrats. By eliminating the filibuster, the 53-seat Republican majority would no longer need Democratic votes.
They could pass a funding bill with a simple majority, end the shutdown on their own terms, and strip Democrats of their primary point of leverage in the healthcare debate.
For Trump, the filibuster was not a tool for deliberation or compromise; it was a procedural weapon that the opposition was using as leverage, and his solution was to remove that weapon from the battlefield entirely.
The Republican Response: A Party Divided
Trump’s call for the nuclear option was met with immediate and forceful resistance from his own party’s leadership in the Senate, exposing a deep rift within the GOP.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a long-time defender of Senate traditions, publicly rejected the idea. He argued, as he had many times before, that the 60-vote rule “is something that makes the Senate the Senate” and “gives the minority a say in what happens in this country.”
His office quickly issued a statement confirming that his “position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged”.
Other institutionalist Republicans echoed this sentiment. Senator John Curtis of Utah posted that “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”.
In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, while careful not to directly criticize Trump, warned of the consequences. “The filibuster has traditionally been viewed as a very important safeguard,” he said. “If the shoe was on the other foot, I don’t think our team would like it”.
This public defense of the filibuster, however, masked a growing tension within the Republican party. While the Senate leadership and more traditional members sought to preserve the institution’s norms, they faced immense pressure from Trump and a populist base that increasingly viewed those norms as an unacceptable obstacle to achieving a conservative agenda.
The 2025 shutdown laid this conflict bare, pitting the party’s institutionalists against its activists in a fight over the fundamental purpose of legislative rules.
How Both Parties Changed Their Stance on the Filibuster
The intense debate over the filibuster in 2025 highlighted a stark reality of modern American politics: support for the procedure is almost entirely situational, not principled.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties have defended the filibuster when in the minority and attacked it when in the majority, deploying arguments about principle and tradition as weapons of convenience.
This strategic hypocrisy reveals that for most political actors, the filibuster is less a cherished philosophy of governance and more a procedural tool to be used or discarded in the pursuit of power.
The Republican Position: Principled Defenders or Strategic Obstructionists?
The official Republican argument for preserving the legislative filibuster is rooted in a conservative vision of government. Articulated by institutionalist leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Thune, and supported by think tanks such as The Heritage Foundation, this defense rests on several key pillars.
They argue that the filibuster forces moderation and encourages bipartisan compromise by requiring the majority to negotiate with the minority to reach the 60-vote threshold.
It is portrayed as a vital safeguard for the rights of the minority party and their constituents, preventing a “tyranny of the majority” and ensuring political stability by discouraging wild policy swings with each election.
This view casts the Senate in its traditional role as the “cooling saucer” of democracy, a deliberative body designed to temper the passions of the majoritarian House.
However, this public defense of principle is starkly at odds with the party’s actions and the demands of its base. The most powerful figure in the party, Donald Trump, has repeatedly called for the filibuster’s elimination to advance his agenda, a view shared by many Republican voters who see it as a frustrating impediment to conservative governance.
This internal conflict reveals a party torn between its institutionalist wing, which seeks to preserve Senate norms, and its populist wing, which prioritizes rapid policy implementation.
Furthermore, the party’s history demonstrates a pattern of strategic hypocrisy. When in the minority during the Obama and Biden administrations, Republicans used the filibuster more aggressively than any minority in history to block the Democratic agenda.
And when the filibuster stood in the way of their own top priority—confirming conservative judges—they did not hesitate to use the “nuclear option” to eliminate the 60-vote requirement for judicial nominees.
The Democratic Position: Champions of Majority Rule or Future Minority?
The modern Democratic argument against the filibuster is grounded in a progressive critique of American political structures. Advanced by organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice and the Center for American Progress, this case portrays the filibuster as a fundamentally anti-democratic tool.
Democrats argue that it thwarts the will of the majority, allowing a small number of senators from less populous states to veto legislation supported by senators who represent a vast majority of the American people.
They point to its shameful history as the primary weapon of segregationists to argue that it is a relic of Jim Crow that has long been used to block progress on civil rights and voting rights.
In an era of partisan gridlock, they contend, the filibuster no longer fosters compromise but instead incentivizes pure obstruction, rendering Congress incapable of addressing urgent national problems.
This position, however, is neither unanimous nor historically consistent. During the Biden administration, the push to eliminate the filibuster was famously blocked by moderate Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, who argued that it was a necessary tool to promote bipartisanship and prevent the very policy volatility that institutionalist Republicans warn about.
Like their Republican counterparts, Democrats have also demonstrated strategic hypocrisy. When they were in the minority during the Trump administration, they frequently used the legislative filibuster to block Republican priorities, including funding for the border wall and conservative judicial nominees.
In a striking example of this reversal, in 2017, a group of 27 sitting Democratic senators, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, signed a letter to Senate leadership urging them to preserve the 60-vote threshold for legislation, warning that its elimination would be detrimental to the institution.
This pattern shows that for both parties, the perceived value of the filibuster is directly tied to whether they are in the majority or the minority.
| Arguments FOR Preserving the Filibuster | Arguments AGAINST the Filibuster |
|---|---|
| Promotes Stability and Moderation: Prevents radical policy swings with each change in party control, forcing incremental and more durable change. | Causes Gridlock and Inaction: Prevents Congress from addressing urgent national problems, leading to public frustration and dysfunction. |
| Encourages Bipartisanship and Compromise: The need to reach 60 votes theoretically forces the majority to negotiate with and incorporate ideas from the minority. | Thwarts Majority Rule: Allows a minority of senators, often representing a minority of the population, to block the will of the democratically elected majority. |
| Protects Minority Rights: Gives the minority party a meaningful voice in the legislative process, preventing the “tyranny of the majority”. | Incentivizes Obstruction, Not Compromise: In a polarized era, it is used not to improve bills but to deny the other party any legislative victories. |
| Upholds Senate Tradition: Maintains the Senate’s unique role as a more deliberative and consensus-driven body than the House of Representatives. | Has a Racist and Unjust History: Was historically the primary tool used by segregationists to defeat civil rights and anti-lynching legislation. |
What Eliminating the Filibuster Would Mean for America
Eliminating the legislative filibuster would represent the most significant change to the rules of Congress in generations. While it would break the gridlock that has paralyzed Washington, it would also unleash a new set of powerful and potentially destabilizing forces.
The long-term consequences would be profound, fundamentally reshaping the nature of American lawmaking and ushering in an era where legislative paralysis is replaced by perpetual policy volatility.
An examination of key policy areas reveals that getting rid of the filibuster would trade one form of dysfunction for another.
A More Polarized Bench: The Impact on Judicial Appointments
The battle over judicial nominations provides a real-world case study of what happens when a supermajority requirement is eliminated. The use of the “nuclear option” in 2013 and 2017 to remove the 60-vote threshold for federal judgeships has already had a clear and measurable impact: a more polarized judiciary.
Freed from the need to secure votes from the minority party, presidents from both parties have been able to appoint judges who are more ideologically aligned with their own political base.
An empirical study from Emory Law found that after the filibuster was eliminated for lower court judges in 2013, President Obama’s appointees were measurably more liberal. This ideological shift translated directly into their judicial decision-making, with post-reform judges being more likely to cast liberal votes in politically charged cases involving issues like abortion and the death penalty.
Perhaps more insidiously, the study also found that the rule change had a polarizing effect on sitting judges. Ambitious district court judges, hoping for a promotion to a higher court, began to alter their behavior, writing more ideologically charged opinions to signal their alignment with their party’s base and improve their chances of being nominated.
What happened to the judiciary serves as a stark preview of what would likely happen to legislation in a post-filibuster Senate: laws would become more ideologically extreme, more partisan, and less grounded in consensus.
Healthcare Whiplash: Policy Swings in a Post-Filibuster World
No policy area illustrates the potential for post-filibuster instability more clearly than healthcare. The central argument made by defenders of the filibuster is that it prevents “wild swings in policy” with each election, and the American healthcare system, which accounts for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy, would be the epicenter of this legislative whiplash.
Consider the likely scenarios. A Republican party holding the White House and a bare 51-seat majority in the Senate could, without the filibuster, finally achieve its decade-long goal of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
They could pass legislation to block-grant Medicaid to the states, institute nationwide work requirements, and fundamentally restructure the private insurance market.
Then, just two or four years later, a Democratic party that wins back the White House and a 51-seat Senate majority could reverse every single one of those changes. They could pass a robust public health insurance option, lower the eligibility age for Medicare, or enact sweeping prescription drug price controls.
This perpetual state of revolution and counter-revolution would create crippling uncertainty for the entire healthcare sector. Insurers, hospitals, and drug manufacturers would be unable to make long-term plans or investments in a constantly shifting regulatory landscape.
Most importantly, the health coverage of tens of millions of Americans would be thrown into chaos with each election cycle, as eligibility rules, subsidy levels, and covered benefits are repeatedly rewritten by narrow, partisan majorities.
An Unstable Climate: The Future of Environmental Policy
A similar dynamic of policy volatility would threaten progress on another complex, long-term challenge: climate change. For years, the filibuster has been the primary obstacle to passing comprehensive federal climate legislation.
Its elimination would remove that barrier, but the victory for environmental advocates could be short-lived and ultimately counterproductive.
Without the 60-vote requirement, a Democratic majority with 51 votes could enact ambitious and far-reaching climate policies, such as a national carbon tax, a cap-and-trade system, or major elements of the Green New Deal.
However, the same simple-majority rule would allow a future Republican majority to just as easily repeal those policies. They could pass legislation to roll back emissions standards, expedite fossil fuel projects, and withdraw the U.S. from international climate agreements.
This policy instability would create a chilling effect on the very investments needed to drive a successful energy transition. Addressing climate change requires trillions of dollars in long-term private capital investment in renewable energy, grid modernization, and green technology.
Research has shown that policy uncertainty is a major deterrent to such investment. Investors and corporations are unlikely to commit the vast sums of money required for these multi-decade projects if they fear that the entire regulatory and financial framework supporting them could be dismantled after the next election.
In this way, the ability to pass climate policy on a narrow party-line vote could paradoxically undermine the long-term stability needed to actually solve the problem.
The Tax Code Pendulum: Implications for Economic Stability
The budget reconciliation process, which allows certain tax and spending bills to bypass the filibuster and pass with a simple majority, offers a preview of how economic policy would be made in a filibuster-free Senate.
Landmark pieces of legislation, like the 2017 Trump tax cuts and parts of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, were passed along party lines using this exception.
If the filibuster were eliminated, this type of partisan overhaul of the tax code would become the norm rather than a rare exception. Each time a new party took control of the Senate, it would have the power to rewrite the nation’s tax laws to fit its ideology.
One majority could slash corporate and individual income tax rates, while the next could dramatically raise them to fund new social programs.
This constant flux would make long-term financial planning nearly impossible for both American families and businesses.
While eliminating the filibuster could address the problem of “policy drift”—where policies like the minimum wage lose their real value over time due to legislative inaction—it would introduce the opposite problem of constant, jarring legislative shocks.
The resulting economic uncertainty could slow growth and investment. The ultimate outcome would be a legislative pendulum, swinging the tax code and economic policy wildly back and forth with each election, replacing the current problem of gridlock with a new and equally damaging problem of instability.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.