1. Home
2. World
3. The Filibuster: A Key Tool of Obstruction in America’s Political Crisis

At the end of October, as the U.S. federal government entered its 30th day of shutdown, President Donald Trump made a forceful call to eliminate the filibuster, arguing that Republicans should be able to pass legislation without Democratic support. He claimed it was time to invoke the so-called “nuclear option” and revert to a simple majority vote, as in the House of Representatives.

The Filibuster in Practice

So, what exactly is a filibuster? Here’s a closer look.

The filibuster is a tactic unique to the U.S. Senate that allows a minority of senators to block or delay legislation. Unlike the House, where speaking time is limited, the Senate permits debates without time constraints.

Historically, this led to marathon speeches. In 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond spoke for more than 24 hours in an attempt to block a civil rights bill. The practice dates back to the very first Congress: in 1789, Senator William Maclay noted that some colleagues aimed to “talk until it was too late to vote.”

Today, the filibuster is largely procedural. A single senator can signal their intent to use it, forcing a bill to require 60 votes to move forward. Often, the threat alone is enough to stall the Senate.

The filibuster is not mentioned in the Constitution but has long been a Senate rule respected for centuries. Senators can, however, modify it, which explains recent exceptions, such as those for presidential appointments.

An Accidental Rule

The filibuster was not anticipated by the Constitution, which allows each chamber—the House and the Senate—to set its own rules. According to senate.gov, its origins trace back to 1806, when Vice President Aaron Burr proposed simplifying Senate procedures.

In doing so, he inadvertently removed the rule that allowed debates to end by a simple majority, creating a loophole that made discussions potentially unlimited. The first official filibuster occurred in 1841 during a debate over the creation of a national bank.

In 1917, under President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted the cloture rule, Rule XXII, requiring a two-thirds vote to end a debate. In 1975, the threshold was lowered to three-fifths—60 votes—which remains the current standard. According to the Senate, the reform aimed to streamline debates, yet paradoxically, it made filibusters more common and easier to trigger.

A Word with Pirate Origins

The term filibuster comes from the Spanish filibustero, literally “freebooter,” originally used for sixteenth-century corsairs who attacked merchant ships in the Caribbean.

In the nineteenth century, the word entered English to describe American mercenaries involved in Latin American uprisings, before acquiring a political meaning: an elected official who obstructs a parliamentary debate to delay or block legislation.

By the mid-1800s, the filibuster had become a symbol of entrenched obstruction, used by senators to stall or prevent bills from passing.

The Core Political Issue

The Republican Party currently holds a simple majority in the Senate with 53 of 100 seats. Yet if even a single senator threatens a filibuster, 60 votes are required to end debate and move to a vote—a threshold Republicans cannot reach without at least seven Democratic votes. As a result, Democrats can use the filibuster to block legislation and force the majority to negotiate.

Filibusters no longer rely on marathon speeches. Simply refusing unanimous consent to limit debate triggers the procedure. When a bill faces a filibuster threat, the majority leader files a cloture motion, which requires 60 votes to pass.

If the motion succeeds, debate is limited to an additional 30 hours, after which the bill can proceed to a simple majority vote. If it fails, the bill is effectively stalled and said to have been filibustered. Today, it is this cloture vote—not a speech—that defines a filibuster.

A Significant Threat to Democracy

The Brennan Center for Justice notes that the filibuster was long used to block landmark civil rights legislation, including anti-lynching laws, measures for racial equality, and the elimination of poll taxes. Today, it allows just 41 senators to block bills supported by a majority.

This shift has caused a sharp decline in Senate productivity. In the 1950s and 1960s, more than half of all introduced bills were enacted; today, fewer than 4% pass. Critics argue the rule has turned the upper chamber into a legislative graveyard, where the minority can stall reforms on climate, healthcare, or voting rights. A filibuster can be used at multiple stages—on motions to proceed, on amendments, and on the final version—causing the majority to lose weeks to procedural delays.

Exceptions: The Reconciliation Procedure

To bypass the filibuster, senators created the reconciliation process, which allows certain bills to pass with just 51 votes.

Originally intended to align budgets between the House and Senate, it has been used to enact major reforms, including Bush’s tax cuts, parts of the Affordable Care Act, and energy programs. Because it applies only to measures with a direct impact on federal finances, Congress is often forced to draft laws in ways that fit these budgetary constraints.

Arguments in Favor

Conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute view the filibuster as a vital safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. By requiring 60 votes to advance legislation, it forces senators to seek bipartisan consensus, preventing impulsive or ideologically driven laws from being rushed through.

They emphasize that the Senate was designed as a deliberative chamber, where political passions are meant to be “cooled.” Eliminating the filibuster, they argue, would turn the upper chamber into a mere replica of the House of Representatives, dominated by the majority and prone to partisan excesses.

The Current Situation
Events in 2025 highlight a deep crisis of governance. Budget deadlocks, prolonged government shutdowns, and the inability of the majority to pass legislation without 60 votes have reignited debate over the filibuster’s legitimacy.

Ironically, while the rule requires 60 votes to advance a bill, it can itself be overturned by a simple majority of 51 votes—a move Trump calls the “nuclear option.” As the United States faces historic governmental paralysis, the debate is more pressing than ever: should the filibuster be abolished to restore congressional efficiency, or preserved to protect minority rights?