As the U.S. government shutdown enters its second month, there’s growing pressure on Republicans to eliminate the Senate filibuster, a move often referred to as the “nuclear option” for altering Senate procedures.

On Sunday evening, a call was made via Truth Social to “Terminate the filibuster, not just for the shutdown, but for everything else. We will get all of our common sense policies approved and Make America Great Again.”

The President further asserted that Democrats “would do it immediately, as soon as they get a chance,” urging the Republican Party, which controls the Senate, to take this step proactively.

As accusations continue, Republicans and Democrats remain entrenched in a deep disagreement concerning budgetary and health care issues. A central demand from the Democratic Party is the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies beyond the year’s end.

The filibuster has contributed to the delay of the Republican funding bill’s passage, given that the filibuster rule requires 60 Senate votes for most legislative actions. Despite Republicans holding 53 of the 100 Senate seats, they still require Democratic support to advance legislation like the GOP spending package.

Amid rising calls for the government shutdown to conclude, particularly as Americans worry about affected services and other repercussions, a message stated: “It is now time for the Republicans to play their “Trump card,” and go for what is called the Nuclear Option. Get rid of the filibuster, and get rid of it, now!”

This overview explains filibusters and their impact on the current government shutdown, a practice long-established in the Senate.

What is a filibuster?

A filibuster refers to an effort to postpone or completely prevent a vote on proposed laws or appointments. 

Typically, a Senator will speak for an extended duration to impede legislation’s approval, a tactic employed in the U.S. government’s Upper House since its inception.

The frequency of filibusters increased during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, leading to discussions about amending Senate rules to limit the practice. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson introduced a rule demanding a two-thirds majority vote for legislation to pass, thereby preventing extended speeches from obstructing debate.

Subsequently, the vote requirement for passing legislation was lowered to 60, a standard that remains today. However, this adjustment has not halted symbolic filibusters used to express policy opposition.

In 1957, former South Carolina Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond engaged in a filibuster lasting 24 hours and 18 minutes to oppose the Civil Rights Act. More recently, in April, Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey set a new record for the longest filibuster, speaking for 25 hours and 5 minutes.

Both political parties have historically used the filibuster. It largely explains why Republican President George W. Bush could not implement his immigration reforms and why Democratic President Barack Obama failed to pass his climate change legislation.

What has Trump said about filibusters?

Trump has consistently urged the abolition of filibusters, expressing growing frustration with the ongoing government shutdown caused by disputes over health care subsidies.

He stated: “We [Republicans] are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would immediately end this ridiculous, country destroying ‘shutdown.’”

He also indicated that eliminating the filibuster would not only resolve the shutdown but also enable Republicans to implement policies like voter identification enforcement.

Trump further noted that Democrats themselves previously attempted, unsuccessfully, to eliminate the 60-vote majority during the Biden Administration, specifically trying to alter rules to pass voting rights legislation.

How have lawmakers responded to Trump?

Prominent Republicans have publicly dismissed the President’s proposal to end the 60-vote majority requirement.

Asked if the filibuster should be abolished to resolve the government shutdown, the Majority Leader of the United States Senate responded: “It’s something that makes the Senate the Senate. Honestly, if we had done that, there’s a whole lot of bad things that could have been done by the other side [Democrats].”

Thune affirmed that the filibuster has “protected this country.” 

Thune’s stance appears consistent, even with Trump’s repeated demands to eliminate the filibuster. A statement on Friday confirmed: “Leader Thune’s position on the importance of the legislative filibuster is unchanged.”

Utah Republican Sen. John Curtis has also expressed opposition to Trump’s request. 

He stated: “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.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson also seemingly supported the ongoing use of the filibuster, commenting Friday that “the safeguard in the Senate has always been the filibuster.”

Conversely, Democratic Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, one of the few Democrats who supported the Republican funding bill during the shutdown, suggested it would be “appropriate” for Republicans to discard the filibuster, but exclusively for situations involving government shutdowns.

Speaking with Fox News on Oct. 25, he remarked: “I would remind all of us, the Democrats, we wanted to nuke the entire filibuster. I’m referring to carving out this specific, right now. I’m not talking about eliminating the entire filibuster.”