How Trump Wants to Help Democrats
In a surprising turn of events amidst the ongoing government shutdown, former President Donald Trump has emerged as a key figure advocating for a radical change to Senate rules that could potentially end the impasse. Trump’s proposal calls for the elimination of the filibuster, which currently requires a supermajority of 60 votes to advance most legislation in the Senate. He argues that this procedural rule enables a minority of senators to block essential government operations, thereby harming the nation. In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), Trump stated, “TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, NOT JUST FOR THE SHUTDOWN, BUT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE,” expressing his frustration with Democrats, whom he labeled as “crazed lunatics” for their obstructionist tactics. While his rhetoric may lack finesse, the crux of his argument raises significant questions about the efficacy and relevance of the filibuster in contemporary governance.
The filibuster, which is not enshrined in the Constitution but has evolved over time, was originally intended as a tool for robust debate and dissent. However, it has increasingly been used to stifle discussion and prevent legislation from moving forward. Historically, the filibuster was employed sparingly, but its usage has surged in recent decades, leading to a scenario where critical government functions, such as funding, are often held hostage by partisan disagreements. Trump’s critique highlights a broader consensus among some political analysts that the filibuster has become an anachronism, particularly as bipartisan cooperation in Congress has dwindled. This dysfunction has prompted calls from both sides of the aisle to reconsider the filibuster’s role, especially as the current shutdown exemplifies the challenges posed by a system that often favors gridlock over governance.
Interestingly, Trump’s position may create an unusual alliance with Senate Democrats, who could find common ground with some Republicans in support of changing the filibuster rules. The current political landscape suggests that the only viable path to reform may arise when a figure like Trump, who commands significant influence over the Republican Party, advocates for such a change. This presents a unique opportunity for Democrats to collaborate with Trump loyalists to reshape Senate procedures in a manner that aligns more closely with the original intent of the Founders, promoting a more functional and democratic legislative process. As the government shutdown continues to impact millions, the debate over the filibuster could catalyze a significant transformation in how Congress operates, potentially leading to a more responsive and accountable government.
The one Republican elected official who has a serious and workable plan to end the government shutdown is, surprisingly enough, Donald Trump. The president’s idea is for the Senate to change its rules to allow the chamber to keep the government open with a majority vote, rather than to permit 41 senators to shut it down.
To be sure, Trump has not always framed his argument in the most cogent way. In a recent post on X, he
wrote
, “TERMINATE THE FILIBUSTER, NOT JUST FOR THE SHUTDOWN, BUT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.” By way of explanation, he added, “THE DEMS ARE CRAZED LUNATICS, THEY WILL NOT OPEN UP OUR COUNTRY NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IRREPARABLY HARMED!”
Generally speaking, depicting your opponents as “crazed lunatics” and yourself as the voice of reason is easier when you are not using all caps and exclamation points. Still, in this case, Trump’s position is correct. The filibuster is a deformed anachronism. Its demise would benefit the whole country, and Democrats especially, given the bills and Senate procedures that this tactic tends to block. If Trump’s impulsive, short-horizon leadership style is what finally does the filibuster in, then Democrats should help make it so.
[
Read: What if the government doesn’t need to be shut down?
]
The Senate filibuster, which allows lawmakers to halt action on most bills unless 60 of the 100 senators in the chamber vote to move forward, is not in the Constitution. The Founders considered, and rejected, a supermajority requirement for either chamber, imposing one only for treaties and constitutional amendments. The practice evolved out of an arcane accident of parliamentary rules in the 19th century and has changed form many times, becoming a requirement for 60 percent of the chamber starting in 1975.
The filibuster used to be employed as a rare tool of strong dissent, such as by southerners to block civil-rights legislation. Most laws otherwise passed with a simple majority
until the late 1990s
, when the norm against minority parties using the filibuster gave way. As filibusters grew more frequent, lawmakers created more carve-outs to escape them. The Senate now needs only 51 votes to appoint judges (including to the Supreme Court), confirm appointees to the executive branch, and pass annual budget-reconciliation measures, which include changes to taxes and spending. Other bills, including those that fund the government, still need 60 votes to pass the Senate. The perverse upshot of these Swiss-cheese exceptions is that senators can far more easily confirm a lifetime appointment to the high court or pass Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill than they can keep the lights on in the federal government.
The filibuster has a devoted following among senators, who often describe the chamber as the “world’s greatest deliberative body” and treasure its clubby customs and culture. Some senators credit the filibuster with encouraging compromise and bipartisanship, as the parliamentary tool forces lawmakers to draw votes from across the aisle to pass major legislation. Yet most states and democratic countries have banned the procedure, arguing that it tends to make legislative bodies more dysfunctional, not less.
Part of the problem is that, contrary to its pop-cultural image as a forum for debate, à la
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
, the filibuster does not consist of speeches. Instead, it’s become a tool to preempt a discussion about a bill, which means that it is actually more likely to
prevent
floor debate than to enable it. The filibuster also lacks a strong record of encouraging bipartisanship: The past few decades have seen greater use of the filibuster and diminishing levels of bipartisan cooperation.
Support for the filibuster used to be thoroughly bipartisan. In recent years, Democrats have mostly abandoned it, even as it retains its Republican backing. The reason for this is simple: Republicans have fewer ambitions for government, and most of the things they want the Senate to do—confirm judges and appointees; cut taxes and spending—can already be done with 51 votes.
Of course, the filibuster is not
completely
useless for Democrats in the minority. They are using it right now to shut down the government in order to force Republicans to extend health-insurance subsidies. But over the long run, the filibuster does more to impair Democrats, the party of expansive government, than Republicans.
The reason Trump has turned so vociferously against the filibuster is that he doesn’t care about the long run. Right now, with his party in control of the Senate but lacking 60 votes, the filibuster does nothing to help him. This is why he thinks it’s a good idea to get rid of it, regardless of which party—which governing philosophy—that ultimately serves.
And so the conditions exist for a rare convergence of interest between Trump and Senate Democrats, who could, at least in theory, join with a handful of Trump loyalists—“If Democrats don’t stop playing games, it’s time to blow up the filibuster,” Senator Tommy Tuberville, a Republican from Alabama,
wrote
last week on X—to allow regular legislation to pass on a majority basis.
Republicans are never going to support eliminating the filibuster when Democrats control the Senate. The only chance to get bipartisan support for a rule change is when a president who holds the party in his cultlike sway has decided to eliminate it. Democrats should take the opportunity to make the Senate simultaneously more democratic and more faithful to the Founders’ vision.
A year ago, defenders of the filibuster pointed to Trump’s reelection, together with Republican control of the House and Senate, as fresh evidence of the vital importance of the supermajority requirement as a necessary check on the power of any one party.
In her farewell speech, departing Arizona independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema, now a crypto lobbyist, delivered a paean to the filibuster, which she equated with the “hard and necessary work of building consensus.” Sinema, who had originally been elected as a Democrat, rebuked those who “labor under an illusion that by eliminating the filibuster you’ll maintain political power forever, effectively ending our two-party system.” Sinema later
claimed
that an unnamed Democratic senator reached out to her to praise her support for the filibuster.
But if the main rationale for the filibuster is to limit the president’s powers and force the majority party to work with the minority, its failure could hardly be more evident. Bipartisan cooperation is nonexistent. The current government shutdown is the result of Democrats using the filibuster to try to force Republicans to work with them, only for Republicans to adamantly refuse to even negotiate.
[
Read: This could be how the shutdown ends
]
Has the filibuster protected democracy, or prevented the abuse of power? Hardly. Trump has carried out a veritable authoritarian rampage against which this procedural tactic is utterly irrelevant. He has not gone through Congress, but around it. The president has corrupted the Justice Department, purged the military, seized police powers, strong-armed the media, ignored due process, and waged an undeclared war in the Caribbean, all while barely consulting the legislature. Trump has seized the power of the purse by creating new sources of revenue (tariffs he can set unilaterally), eliminating programs Congress authorized, and suggesting new ones of his own choosing, such as subsidies to compensate farmers hurt by his tariffs.
In some ways, Trump’s power grab fills the leadership void created by a feckless Congress. To the extent that he has minimized public backlash, it is in part by issuing executive orders that exploit the prevailing view that Congress is too ineffectual to solve any major national problem.
Trump originally put himself forward for president a decade ago by treating the system as hopelessly corrupt and broken, later promising, “I alone can fix it.” The actual result has been to concentrate power in the hands of a single man in a way that would have made the Founders shudder. Undoing that authoritarian usurpation will be slow, painful work. One place to start might be reestablishing Congress as a functional branch of government, working in the original image designed by the Founders, rather than one in which minority parties can thwart even its simplest functions.
