After six weeks, the Schumer Shutdown, the longest federal government shutdown in history, is finally over. Last week, a handful of Senate Democrats finally agreed to a proposal that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) had offered in early October. As part of the deal that extends the deadline for the Continuing Resolution until the end of January, three appropriations bills (Military Construction/Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Legislative Branch) will be approved, 4,000 federal employees who were furloughed will be reinstated, and the Senate has committed to hold a vote on a Democrat plan to extend the Obamacare COVID subsidies before January. Currently, the Republicans seem to have the votes to stop the Obamacare subsidies, but we must keep the pressure on Congress to not fund the failed Obamacare system. All in all, Republicans remained united during the shutdown and did not give in to leftist demands to increase federal spending, reinstate benefits for illegals, or extend the COVID subsidies.
Throughout this entire shutdown, however, one question was repeatedly asked: If Republicans are in charge of both the House, Senate, and the White House, why did they allow the shutdown in the first place? The answer lies within a process in the Senate called the filibuster.
Under our Constitution, each House of Congress has the authority to set its own rules of procedure. The Senate was designed by our Founding Fathers to represent the States and be more deliberative than the House. Therefore, the Senate rules allow for unlimited debate to ensure that all viewpoints are heard, and Senators have the opportunity to convince each other of the validity (or stupidity) of particular legislation. Generally, debate can always be limited by what is called “unanimous consent” (UC) — an agreement by all 100 Senators to limit debate on a specific bill so that it can reach a final vote. A filibuster occurs when unanimous consent to limit debate is not granted by all Senators, and progress cannot move forward on that legislation.
Stemming from the Spanish word “filibustero,” which originally described the plundering actions of pirates in the 1800s, the filibuster has long been used to make the legislative process more deliberative and to stop controversial legislation. During the first session of the United States Senate in 1789, Senators cleverly delayed passage or killed bills simply by giving long speeches and refusing to end debate. Because the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations, Senators began to use this strategy more and more until President Woodrow Wilson encouraged a change to the rules. In 1917, Senate Members began allowing “cloture” to be invoked to end debate (or the filibustering) if two-thirds of Senators agreed. This threshold was still too hard to overcome, so in 1964, Senators lowered the votes needed to invoke cloture to three-fifths, or 60, which is where it remains today. In short, without unanimous consent on a time certain for debate and vote, any Senator can filibuster a bill until at least 60 Senators agree to invoke cloture and limit the debate. It is important to remember that while 60 votes are necessary to limit debate, only 51 votes are necessary to then pass the legislation in the Senate (“final passage.”)
Currently, the Senate is comprised of 53 Republicans, 47 Democrats, and 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrat party. If Republicans want to end debate and force a final vote on a bill, they need at least 7 Democrats to agree with them. This means that both parties will have to negotiate on issues within the bill to appease a small number of Democrats or promise amendment votes on Democrat priorities. When the majority is this slim and not enough Senators agree, a bill dies or, in the case of the must-pass Continuing Resolution (CR) bill, the government shuts down. The federal fiscal year ended on September 30th, so the Senate Democrats were able to filibuster the House-passed stopgap spending bill (the CR) and cause the government shutdown.
Both parties have previously eliminated the filibuster for different types of votes. In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) technically eliminated the application of the filibuster for Presidential nominations by lowering to only 51 the necessary votes to invoke cloture. This included executive branch nominations and lower court federal judges, but not Supreme Court Justice nominees. Four years later, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was at the helm of the chamber that had only 51 Republicans and a Supreme Court vacancy. He “nuked” (got rid of) the filibuster to place Justice Neil Gorsuch on the bench with only those 51 votes, citing Senator Reid’s earlier action as “opening the door” to rid the cloture requirement. All Supreme Court Justices since then have succeeded due to the new 51-vote threshold.
There is no doubt that the limited elimination of the filibuster by McConnell allowed President Trump to succeed in getting the nominees he preferred on the Supreme Court. With Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, we have seen many more rulings aligned with our conservative values. Most notably, Roe v. Wade was overturned, clarifying that there is no constitutional right to abortion and giving the power to the states and elected officials to restrict the barbaric practice. While we are grateful that Trump had the opportunity to appoint three Justices to the Supreme Court without fear of filibusters, its elimination for nominees is not without downsides.
By the end of former President Barack Obama’s second term, the Senate confirmed 452 nominees, including Cabinet members, two Supreme Court Justices, and 329 federal judges. Due to the filibuster being lowered and a Democratic majority for six of Obama’s eight years in office, he was able to significantly shape the trajectory of federal court rulings. Obama appointed Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both of whom decided to establish marriage licenses for same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges. Federal courts have prosecuted individuals for maintaining their religious beliefs, eliminated parental rights, forced females to compete against males in sports, and much more. In just 16 years, the culture has shifted in incredibly harmful ways against families, and it has been a slow process to reel some of it back.
On a positive note, having the filibuster for legislation has protected our nation from some of the worst ideas pushed by the Left. The infamous cap-and-trade bill that would have taxed businesses for their carbon emissions failed to reach 60 votes in the Senate. Also, Obama urged the Senate to pass a bill containing mass amnesty for illegal immigrants, but not enough Senators agreed to end the filibuster. Even though he used his executive power to create a program to give 730,000 people legal status in the United States, it was not codified into law, and so it was easy for a future administration to come in and revoke it.
There has been talk by many, including President Trump himself, to get rid of the filibuster so that the President’s full agenda can be easily implemented. But this is short-sighted and dangerous. Eventually, the minority party becomes the majority party. While it would be convenient to pass Trump’s agenda quickly, the long term could be devastating. As Catholic Monk Thomas Merton puts it, “Hurry ruins saints as well as artists.” For example, without the filibuster but with a small majority, Democrats could stack the Supreme Court, make Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. states, redefine the concepts of sex and gender in federal law that would hurt our daughters and many other objectionable things. The filibuster requires the most outrageous ideas to be slowed and often stopped.
Recently, you may have seen that the reconciliation package was not subject to the filibuster and only needed 51 votes to proceed. This is a separate process that was created through the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to speed up decisions on “mandatory” spending and debt ceilings. There are additional rules in place in the Senate to rein in the scope and content of a reconciliation bill while still protecting the integrity of the voting process.
The filibuster protects the minority by providing a process to slow or stop the most extreme ideas of the majority party from being enacted. While it may slow down the implementation of some Trump ideas this time around, the long-term risks from eliminating the filibuster are just too great. We must support the filibuster so that it remains in place when we (eventually) need it again.
While having a majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate is helpful, a slim majority does not protect the bills from the filibuster. This is why we need not only a super majority of Republicans in both Houses, but a conservative super majority. Eagle Forum PAC can help make that happen with your support! Our PAC endorses candidates for the U.S. House and Senate who will defend the Constitution, create policies that help American families, and maintain upstanding character. This week, we launched our 2026 Eagle Forum PAC Candidate Questionnaire. This thorough questionnaire helps our local, state, and federal leaders make the most informed decision regarding which candidates to support based on the candidates’ views on a variety of issues, such as life, national sovereignty, Constitutional rights, and more.
Please consider a generous gift to Eagle Forum PAC to help us help more candidates in 2026. Forward the Eagle Forum PAC questionnaire to candidates in your local area. If you are running for office and would like to be considered for an Eagle Forum PAC endorsement, please complete the questionnaire and send it to [email protected]. The time is now to prepare for the 2026 mid-term elections and build a stronger conservative majority in Congress.
