Not long after Trump left office from his first term, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stood before his colleagues in the Senate and warned them that if Democrats ever broke the filibuster, they could not “even begin to imagine” what a scorched-earth Senate would look like.
McConnell should know because he broke the filibuster in 2017 to seat Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court. McConnell used what has become known as the “nuclear option” against the filibuster (the phrase was coined when Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) originally broke the filibuster in 2013 to install judges during the Obama administration), the very same procedure he spent warning everyone about in 2021, treating the move as though it were an act of institutional vandalism.
McConnell’s career, in essence, encompasses every aspect of the filibuster debate. You see, the rule itself is not sacred, that is, unless you are the party on defense.
To be quite honest, it is a mistake.
In 1805, Vice President Aaron Burr was very critical of the Senate rulebook, claiming it was filled with rules that did the same thing. He used the “previous question” motion as an example of repetitive rules that could be eliminated, reported Brookings.
When the Senate met in 1806, the rule was eliminated solely because Burr told them to.
At the time, it was not utilized to block legislation; that did not happen for nearly three decades. In 1837, the first live filibuster took place, changing tactics in the Senate forever.
The talking filibuster remained in place until the 1970s, when yet another rule change was made that enabled legislation to be blocked without ever having to set foot on the Senate floor.
The modern form of the rule is the 60-vote threshold to end debate (cloture). This, of course, can be waived for budgetary legislation by using reconciliation.
Since the rule's inception, both parties have done their best to kill it, but only when they are trying to pass legislation that needs support from the minority party. Senators quickly pivot on the matter based on whether the filibuster benefits their party or not.
The recent record makes our point without the need to go back further in the history of the filibuster.
When Democrats were in control of the Senate for the first half of Biden’s administration, they wanted to break the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation. All but two Democrats voted in favor of breaking the filibuster, with the exceptions being Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), reported The Guardian.
That was the beginning of the end for both of them, as the rule change was defeated 48-52, and the party ostracized both of them for their roles in keeping the filibuster intact.
Manchin, at the time, stated that he would never waver on the filibuster, claiming that breaking it would “pour fuel on the fire of political whiplash and dysfunction tearing our nation apart.”
I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now.
Barack Obama called the filibuster a "Jim Crow relic" during his eulogy for Rep. John Lewis.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) repeatedly tried to break it, and he failed every time, but he was not done with it yet.
Schumer used the filibuster as a rallying cry during the 2024 cycle, reported Fox News, stating:
"We got it up to 48, but Sinema and Manchin voted no — that's why we couldn't change the rules. Well, they're both gone."
Kamala Harris, after replacing Biden as the nominee, expressed her support for eliminating the filibuster in order to codify Roe v. Wade.
Democrats did not take the Senate, and Harris, obviously, did not win the presidency.
With the GOP now holding both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats have again flipped on the filibuster, with one Democrat Senator stating:
"I oppose eliminating the legislative filibuster. The filibuster is an important protection for the rights of the minority party that requires senators to work together in the best interest of the country."
Schumer, for his part, is playing the righteous one, claiming that he wanted to break the filibuster to “expand rights,” but Republicans want to break the filibuster to “contract rights.”
Translation: he only wants to keep the filibuster in place to block an outcome of which he, nor his party, approves. For instance, the Democrats used the filibuster 327 times in 2020 alone to block Republicans and the Trump administration.
As we noted above, McConnell was against breaking the filibuster after Democrats took control of the Senate, stating:
"Nobody serving in this chamber can even begin to imagine what a completely scorched-earth Senate would look like."
Talking out of both sides of his mouth, he then outlined the GOP agenda he would try to pass if the Republicans took the Senate back. The only problem, of course, is that the GOP would not have the numbers, so it was understood that he would have to break the filibuster in order to make that happen.
There was not enough support in the Senate at the time to break it. For instance, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) said that breaking the rule “would be bad for the Senate and bad for country,” reported KSL News.
Lee also released a statement on his website, concluding:
“Indeed, breaking the rules to grab power is an abuse. This attempt is so transparent that even Senator Schumer told the media that his members are concerned about losing their elections and their majority if they cannot use this tactic to federally take over our nation’s electoral system.”
Now, however, he has pivoted with Trump applying pressure to Republicans to break the filibuster in order to pass the SAVE Act.
According to the Deseret News, during a recent appearance, Lee stated:
“If they want to filibuster the Save America Act, make them speak, and if we’re not willing to make them speak and do the hard work then it is time to nuke the filibuster.”
Lee is not alone, as numerous Republicans, including Sens. Rick Scott (R-FL) and John Cornyn (R-TX), have flipped their position. Even so, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) knows he does not have the support, stating:
"We don't have 51 votes for that in the United States Senate."
One Republican who has refused to budge on this is Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who said he would immediately resign if the GOP eliminated the rule (Tillis did not run for re-election after repeated clashes with Trump).
Sen. John Curtis (R-UT) has also held firm on this, with The Hill reporting him as having 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.”
I respect both of them for holding true and refusing to bend under enormous pressure. Their duty goes beyond the party and this administration. It is to the American people, period. And we cannot protect the integrity of the institution if we are willing to break the rules simply because we don’t like the outcome of this particular game.
As you can see in the table below, few people have that integrity these days, as they change their stance on the filibuster with the prevailing winds:
| Senator | Party | Position in Minority | Position in Majority | The Tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mitch McConnell | R | "Scorched earth" warning if Democrats touched it (2021) | Eliminated it for Supreme Court nominees to seat Gorsuch (2017) | Delivered his most passionate defense of a rule he had already broken twice |
| Chuck Schumer | D | "Everything is on the table" — vowed to eliminate it if Democrats won (2020, 2024) | Now calls it "an important protection for minority rights" (2026) | Called it a Jim Crow relic for four years; now wields it as a constitutional safeguard |
| Mike Lee | R | "Bad for the Senate and the country" (2021) | Pushing talking filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act (2026) | Flipped the moment his own bill needed it gone |
| John Cornyn | R | Defended the 60-vote threshold as a necessary guardrail | Published an op-ed calling for its elimination (2026) | His own op-ed is the confession |
| Rick Scott | R | Called it "vital and necessary to protect minority parties' rights" | Now demands it be eliminated to pass Republican priorities | CNN anchor read him his own quotes on air — he pivoted without answering |
| Joe Manchin | D | Voted to preserve it despite enormous pressure from his own party (2022) | Retired — driven out of the Democratic Party for holding the line | Position never changed. The only Democrat who meant what he said |
| Kyrsten Sinema | D | Voted to preserve it alongside Manchin (2022) | Retired — left the party after being vilified for the same vote | Position never changed. Punished for consistency in a body that rewards the flip |
| The filibuster has no permanent friends — only permanent self-interest. Every senator in this table has held the rule sacred when it protected them and called it an obstacle when it blocked them. The two exceptions — Manchin and Sinema — were driven from their own party for the offense of consistency. Sen. Thom Tillis (R) and Sen. John Curtis (R) are the current Republican holdouts whose positions have not changed based on which jersey they are wearing.
Sources: NBC News, The Hill, NPR, CNN, Deseret News, Christian Science Monitor, CNBC, CBS News, Senate Democratic Leadership (Schumer press transcript), Fox News, Cornyn.senate.gov, Raw Story, NOTUS. |
||||
With Thune making it clear that there is not enough support to break the rule, Trump expressed his displeasure with members who are not willing to do as he has demanded numerous times. Fox News reported Trump as stating:
"I'm disappointed. I like John [Thune] a lot, but he, you know, he has a couple of Republicans that are foolish people. A couple of them are, like, a couple of them I can't stand, actually."
Trump then ranted about how the SAVE Act would have passed if they were able to break the filibuster, stating:
"Because anytime you have mail-in voting, they're going to cheat. And they cheat like dogs, and they have to cheat. When you have policies like that, you have to cheat. It's the only way they can win. And we shouldn't allow them to cheat. And we should terminate the filibuster, because if they get the chance, they'll do it in the first hour back."
Let me play devil’s advocate here…
Break the filibuster. Pass the SAVE Act. Then lose the midterms anyway. The rule is gone, the majority is gone, and a lame-duck Trump is handing Democrats a wide-open door in 2029, with no procedural floor to stand on.
Even if you win, you've handed them the narrative they've been building since January 20th: that this administration will rewrite the rules to stay in power. With the history of midterm elections, that story doesn't age well for the party that wrote it.
Trump may be right that Democrats will break the filibuster the moment they get the chance. He's wrong that the answer is to break it first.
The moment you abandon the rules, you lose the argument. This may not be a popular position in some corners of the conservative movement, but it's the right one. We don't win by becoming what we're fighting against.
We win by being better. We earn it.
