Democrats are wasting no time plotting how to wield their newly won Senate majority — and the filibuster is first on the chopping block.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., told Fox News Digital that scrapping the Senate's 60-vote threshold to pass most legislation "has to be on the table" as his party prepares to take control of the chamber in January. The Massachusetts progressive said Democrats are "discussing a progressive agenda right now and amongst the other Democratic senators," adding he'll be "listening to everyone's views on what is the best strategy."
But the push isn't unanimous. Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., warned that blowing up the filibuster could boomerang on Democrats once they lose power.
"Some of these things that we see here can be very much a double-edged sword. I'm not saying that's to deter us from doing it if we decide to do it. But I wanna make sure that everyone's clear-eyed about what we're doing."
Kim added: "When you open the door…you gotta be ready."
The fight is already reshaping the Senate Democratic leadership race. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., announced Thursday he will challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for majority leader — and he's running explicitly on killing the filibuster, which he called "anti-democratic."
"My personal view has been all along that the filibuster is an anti-democratic … provision. It's not in our Constitution. It was put in there by senators to enhance their power over the power of the people."
Schumer, meanwhile, stayed silent when asked whether he'd support eliminating the filibuster if Democrats win the White House in 2028, according to Fox News Digital. He is under mounting pressure from progressives as the party decides who will lead the chamber after winning back the majority.
Republicans saw this coming. Trump repeatedly pressed Senate Republicans to abolish the filibuster when trying to pass the SAVE America Act, warning that Democrats would eliminate it the moment they took back the majority. Now they have.
The filibuster fight isn't the only tool Democrats are eyeing. Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., the Pennsylvania Democrat in line to chair the House Budget Committee in January, told The New York Times it is "worth exploring" using budget reconciliation — which allows the majority party to bypass the 60-vote hurdle for fiscal legislation — to unlock the party's affordability agenda, including reversing Medicaid cuts Republicans enacted in 2025.
"I think any time we can pass good, popular, meaningful legislation, that only strengthens our hand in any ultimate negotiation with the White House," Boyle told the Times.
Boyle's comments came as Democrats celebrated electoral victories delivering them more than 255 seats in the House and at least 55 seats in the Senate, according to the Times. The party is now weighing how quickly to move on promises to tackle health care, child care and housing costs.
Not everyone in the Democratic coalition is rushing to pull the trigger. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., offered a notably equivocal answer when asked about the filibuster, acknowledging there are "good reasons for getting rid of it" — majorities should govern — but also arguing the rule protects minority rights, according to TPM. Sanders then suggested Democrats could pass a "pretty good reconciliation bill" instead.
The stakes for everyday Americans are concrete. If Democrats scrap the 60-vote threshold, they could pass sweeping legislation on health care, voting rules, the courts and energy policy with a simple majority — and Republicans would have no procedural tool to stop them. But the same rule would let the GOP ram through its own agenda the next time it holds power, which is exactly the trap Kim flagged.
With Trump holding the veto pen until January 2029, the immediate question is whether Democrats would use a filibuster-free Senate to force him to veto broadly popular bills — or whether the leadership fight between Schumer and Van Hollen stalls the effort before it starts.
Our Take
Here's what Democrats won't say out loud: the filibuster is the only thing standing between a 55-seat majority and a complete radical rewrite of American life. Markey knows it. Van Hollen knows it. That's why Van Hollen is using the rule's destruction as his campaign pitch against Schumer — because the base wants blood, and the moderates are too terrified to say no.
Kim's warning is the only honest thing said in this entire story. The filibuster is a double-edged sword — but only one party has spent years sharpening it. Republicans warned Democrats would nuke the rule the second they got power, and here we are, before the new Congress is even sworn in.
Patriots, pay attention to the Schumer-Van Hollen fight. If Van Hollen wins, the 60-vote Senate is dead, and every left-wing pipe dream — packing the courts, D.C. statehood, the Green New Deal — becomes a simple-majority vote. If Schumer survives, it's because even Democrats know the nuclear option cuts both ways.
Either way, the party that spent years calling Republicans 'a threat to democracy' is now plotting to steamroll the minority the moment it suits them. Call your senators. Ask them where they stand on the filibuster — and make them answer on the record.
