President Trump is right in his call for the Senate to eliminate the filibuster—the procedural rule requiring a 60-vote supermajority to advance most legislation. Critics decry this as a power grab that erodes democratic norms, but a closer examination reveals Trump’s stance as both pragmatic and prescient.
The filibuster, far from a sacred constitutional safeguard, is a historical accident that has outlived its utility. By ending it now, Republicans can reopen the government, enact critical reforms like a nationwide voter ID, and preempt inevitable Democratic aggression that could permanently tilt the balance of power.
### The Myth of the Filibuster’s Foundational Status
To understand why the filibuster must go, one must first dispel the myth of its foundational status. The framers of the Constitution envisioned a Senate where simple majorities would suffice for most business, fostering efficient governance in a young republic.
James Madison, in *Federalist No. 22*, warned against mechanisms that could allow minorities to obstruct the majority will, arguing that such rules would lead to “tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.” Indeed, the Constitution specifies supermajorities only for exceptional cases: overriding vetoes, ratifying treaties, convicting impeached officials, and amending the document itself. Nowhere does it mention or mandate a filibuster.
### The Filibuster’s Unintended Origins
The filibuster’s origins are far more mundane and unintended. In 1806, Vice President Aaron Burr, presiding over the Senate, suggested streamlining the chamber’s rules by eliminating the “previous question” motion—a tool that had allowed senators to end debate and force a vote.
The Senate adopted this change without much fanfare, inadvertently creating a loophole where debate could theoretically continue indefinitely unless all senators agreed to stop. It wasn’t until 1837 that the first true filibuster occurred, when a group of senators talked a bill to death.
Over time, this evolved into the modern rule, formalized in 1917 with the introduction of cloture, which initially required a two-thirds vote to end debate and was later reduced to three-fifths (60 votes) in 1975. This accidental artifact has morphed into a weapon of obstruction, paralyzing the Senate and contributing to governmental gridlock.
### The Filibuster in the Era of Hyper-Partisanship
In an era of hyper-partisanship, the filibuster empowers the minority party to block even routine legislation, forcing compromises that dilute policy or lead to inaction. Trump’s advocacy for its elimination echoes the framers’ intent: a functional legislature where the elected majority can govern.
Skeptics argue that preserving the filibuster protects against majority overreach, but history shows Democrats have no such qualms when power shifts. There is little doubt they will abolish it upon regaining control—and they nearly did so recently.
### Democratic Efforts to Repeal the Filibuster
During the 117th Congress (2021–2023), with slim majorities in both houses and the Biden White House, Senate Democrats pushed aggressively to carve out exceptions to the filibuster for voting rights legislation and other priorities. Only the principled stands of Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) prevented a full-scale reform.
Manchin, a moderate coal-country Democrat, argued that eliminating the filibuster would “destroy our country” by eroding bipartisanship. Sinema echoed this, emphasizing the need for enduring institutions over short-term gains.
Their resistance came at a steep cost: both were effectively excommunicated from the Democratic Party. Manchin announced he would not seek reelection as a Democrat in 2024, citing irreconcilable differences, while Sinema left the party in 2022 to become an independent, facing primary challenges and party ostracism.
This purge signals a clear message: future Democratic majorities, unburdened by such holdouts, will not hesitate to nuke the filibuster. Progressive leaders like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have openly advocated for its elimination, viewing it as an archaic barrier to their agenda.
### The Stakes of a Filibuster-Free Senate
And what an agenda it would be.
Without the filibuster, Democrats could swiftly advance structural changes designed to entrench their power. Granting statehood to Puerto Rico and potentially Washington, D.C., would add four reliably Democratic senators, relegating Republicans to a permanent minority in the upper chamber.
This isn’t speculation—bills for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood have repeatedly passed the House under Democratic control, only to stall in the Senate due to the filibuster.
More alarmingly, court-packing schemes, such as expanding the Supreme Court from nine to 13 justices, have gained traction among Democrats frustrated by recent conservative rulings. In 2021, President Biden even formed a commission to study such “reforms,” though it stopped short of endorsement.
A filibuster-free Senate under Democratic rule would enable these moves, fundamentally altering the judiciary and electoral landscape.
### Why Republicans Must Act Now
Republicans cannot afford to wait for this inevitability.
By ending the filibuster now, with their trifecta in hand, they can “open the government” to real progress—streamlining bureaucracy, cutting red tape, and implementing policies that reflect the will of the voters who swept them into power.
Chief among these is passing federal voter ID requirements to ensure election integrity, a cornerstone of Trump’s platform. Currently, the filibuster allows Democrats to block such measures, even as public support for voter ID hovers around 80 percent in polls.
Eliminating it would also pave the way for border security enhancements, tax reforms, the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and energy independence initiatives without endless negotiation.
### The Risks and the Imperative
Of course, this isn’t without risks. A simple-majority Senate could swing back against Republicans in future election cycles. But the alternative—preserving a tool that Democrats will discard at their convenience—is far worse.
Trump’s call isn’t about short-term dominance; it’s about restoring the Senate to its constitutional roots as a majoritarian body capable of action. As the framers intended, let the majority rule, and let the electorate hold them accountable.
In this polarized age, clinging to the filibuster is a luxury Republicans can no longer afford. It’s time to end it and govern.
—
*Linda McMahon Body-Slams Woke Classrooms*
*Mamdani’s Radical Platform Shakes Up Midterm Stakes*
*NYC GOP Must Reject Eric Adams for Mayor*
https://spectator.org/trumps-right-nuke-the-filibuster/
