Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can Congress change the 60-vote threshold and how has that been attempted historically?
Executive Summary
Congress—specifically the Senate—can change the 60‑vote cloture threshold by altering its own rules, and the chamber has done so through both formal rule amendments and the so‑called "nuclear option", which lets a simple majority set new precedents that effectively lower the threshold for particular types of business. Historically the Senate adopted cloture in 1917 and lowered the required supermajority to three‑fifths (60 votes) in 1975; more recently, majorities in 2013 and 2017 used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60‑vote hurdle for many nominations, and similar pressure and maneuvers have recurred in 2025 debates over nominees and bundled proceedings [1] [2] [3] [4]. Proposals to abolish or expand the filibuster for legislation face strong partisan resistance because the rule shapes power, minority leverage, and Senate norms, and past changes required either broad consensus or decisive partisan majorities willing to break precedent [5] [6].
1. How the Senate Can Break the Barrier — The Rule Change and the “Nuclear Option” That Bypassed It
The Senate changes its own rules by vote or by setting a new precedent through parliamentary rulings; a formal rules amendment typically requires a supermajority, but the chamber can also adopt a new interpretation with a simple majority via the nuclear option, which reinterprets or overrides existing rules through a majority ruling on procedure. This route was used in 2013 by Democrats to lower the threshold for most executive‑branch and lower‑court nominees, and again in 2017 by Republicans to include Supreme Court nominees, demonstrating that the 60‑vote cloture barrier is not immutable but is constrained by institutional precedent, partisan will, and the risk of reciprocal retaliation [1] [4]. Those changes left the 60‑vote requirement for most legislation intact, underscoring that procedural tailoring—targeted changes versus blanket elimination—has been the practical approach.
2. The Historical Turning Points That Created and Then Reduced the 60‑Vote Floor
The Senate first permitted cloture under Rule 22 in 1917 after wartime pressure and public demand to end filibusters, setting a high supermajority requirement; that two‑thirds standard persisted until the 1975 reform lowered the bar to three‑fifths of all senators, creating the modern 60‑vote threshold for ending debate on most matters. Subsequent decades saw repeated reform efforts and near‑breakdowns: senators attempted various “previous question” fixes in the 19th and early 20th centuries and only over time did political crises and leadership consensus produce formal changes. These chronological shifts show the rule’s origins in crisis management and its later adjustment to changing Senate norms, highlighting how political context—war, public pressure, or party control—drives permanent procedural change [1] [2].
3. Recent Uses and Attempts: Nominations, Bundles, and the 2025 Flashpoints
In the 2010s the Senate Majority used the nuclear option to remove the 60‑vote requirement for many nominations; those precedents made confirmations easier for presidents of both parties but left legislation gated by the traditional cloture rule. In 2025, Senate leaders and party figures debated further procedural adjustments, including a September 11, 2025 maneuver to allow bundled consideration of executive nominees via a simple majority—an example of using precedent to speed confirmation processes while stopping short of abolishing the legislative filibuster outright [4] [7]. These tactical shifts show majors using procedural tools to achieve policy goals while weighing the political cost of eroding minority protections.
4. Political Dynamics: Who Wants Change and Who Resists—and Why
Attempts to abolish or pare back the 60‑vote rule elicit cross‑party divisions and strategic posturing: some Republicans and Democrats defend the filibuster as a check on majority power and a promoter of bipartisanship, while other senators call for elimination to allow majorities to pass priorities without supermajority compromise. High‑profile pushes—such as pressure from former President Donald Trump and supportive Senate Republicans to review the filibuster—have accelerated conversations about change, but significant resistance comes from senators concerned about losing leverage and institutional norms; past reforms required either bipartisan consensus or a willingness by one party to accept long‑term precedent erosion [5] [6] [3].
5. The Practical Bottom Line: Possible Paths Forward and Unaddressed Tradeoffs
Legally and procedurally, the Senate can change the 60‑vote threshold by a formal rules amendment or by invoking the nuclear option to set a new precedent; politically, doing so risks reciprocal retaliation and a transformed Senate where majority rule operates with fewer checks. Recent history shows a preference for targeted tinkering—removing the threshold for specific categories like nominations—rather than wholesale elimination for legislation, because full abolition would reshape legislative strategy, minority voice, and institutional norms. Any future change will depend on immediate partisan arithmetic, leadership calculus about long‑term precedent, and public pressures that historically have precipitated the Senate’s most consequential procedural shifts [1] [7] [3].