Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is urging Senate Republicans to eliminate the legislative filibuster if Democrats trigger another government shutdown in January.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Bessent argues that the recent shutdown showed that the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance most legislation, has become a tool of obstruction rather than deliberation. He cites $11 billion in permanent economic damage, an estimated 1.5 percentage point hit to fourth-quarter GDP growth, 9,500 canceled flights, and delayed paychecks for 1.4 million federal workers as evidence of the tangible costs.
Bessent’s stance is notable because it represents a top Trump administration official explicitly endorsing a change that would alter the balance of power in Congress and make it easier for the Senate majority to pass legislation. His argument goes beyond the usual complaints about gridlock and instead frames the filibuster as a strategic vulnerability for Republicans.
Rather than emphasizing constitutional or procedural tradition, Bessent roots his case in game theory. He argues that Republicans are trapped in an asymmetric situation in which they consistently “cooperate” by preserving the filibuster while Democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness to change Senate rules when it suits their agenda.
“In any strategic contest, deterrence works only when both sides believe in the other side’s willingness to act,” Bessent writes. He points to Democrats’ 2013 decision to eliminate the filibuster for most judicial nominations and Republicans’ extension of that change to Supreme Court picks in 2017, as well as former president Barack Obama’s description of the legislative filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic.” Those precedents, Bessent says, indicate Democrats will not hesitate to remove the rule entirely once they regain power.
Bessent applies the logic of the prisoner’s dilemma, the classic model in which two players are better off cooperating but each has an incentive to defect. In repeated games, a player that cooperates while the opponent defects ends up losing. According to Bessent, Republicans face precisely that dynamic if they preserve a rule that Democrats have already demonstrated they are willing to discard.
His argument contains an additional strategic element: Republicans should not abolish the filibuster immediately, but should make a credible threat to do so. Establishing the willingness to eliminate the rule, could strengthen Republicans’ negotiating position and potentially prolong the life of the filibuster itself. “Paradoxically, the credible threat of eliminating the filibuster could preserve it longer than endless appeasement ever could,” Bessent writes.
He also identifies a specific trigger. If Democrats “refuse to negotiate in good faith” and force another shutdown at the January 30 deadline, Republicans should “immediately” abolish the rule. Bessent frames the approach as an economic necessity rather than a partisan maneuver, saying procedural traditions should not take priority over the basic functioning of government.
Bessent also emphasizes the filibuster’s accidental origins. It is not mentioned in the Constitution and emerged after an 1806 rules change, proposed as mere housekeeping, removed the Senate’s ability to cut off debate by majority vote. That gap eventually became an opening for minority obstruction.
He notes that both parties have already eliminated pieces of the filibuster. Each time, he argues, the Senate survived, and voters gained clearer visibility into which party was governing and which was blocking action.
Opponents of eliminating the filibuster argue that Republicans would regret clearing a path for swift Democratic action when the balance of power shifts. Bessent dismisses that view as wishful thinking, saying Democrats do not require Republican permission to end the filibuster once in control and would almost certainly do so if Republicans attempt to use it to block a Democratic agenda.
By presenting the filibuster debate as a strategic contest rather than a clash over Senate tradition, Bessent adds a new dimension to the argument for ending the rule. And with Congress approaching another spending deadline in January, his op-ed suggests that eliminating the filibuster could soon shift from a theoretical discussion to a live policy option if negotiations again break down.
