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.
Fact check: What would be the practical consequences for Senate procedure and party relations if the filibuster were eliminated for appropriations?
Executive Summary
Eliminating the filibuster for appropriations would lower the Senate’s supermajority requirement, making it easier for a bare majority to pass spending bills and increasing the likelihood of majority-driven, more partisan appropriations outcomes. Scholars and commentators disagree sharply about whether that change would improve efficiency and responsiveness or instead accelerate one-party rule, damage administrative capacity, and deepen polarization [1] [2] [3].
1. What advocates and critics actually claim about the filibuster’s role in appropriations
Advocates for preserving the filibuster argue it functions as a structural brake that forces bipartisan deals on spending and protects administrative continuity and predictable funding for agencies, preventing abrupt partisan reversals of prior statutory commitments [3] [4]. Critics and some scholars counter that the filibuster does not meaningfully enhance deliberation and instead produces gridlock, so eliminating it for appropriations could permit more efficient passage of spending bills and reduce shutdown risk [1]. The debate therefore separates claims about two different values: procedural deliberation and administrative stability versus procedural efficiency and majority accountability. Sources from 2025 emphasize newer empirical research questioning deliberative benefits (p3_s1, 2025-01-27), while legal and administrative critiques focus on capacity harms without firm dating [3] [4].
2. How Senate procedure would change in practical terms if the filibuster fell for appropriations
Removing the filibuster for appropriations would mean a simple majority could invoke cloture and pass regular appropriations, likely reducing the need for extended floor negotiations and bipartisan compromise. Practically, committee and floor timelines would compress, and the majority party would gain leverage to attach partisan policy riders or use appropriations to reshape agency missions. Opponents warn this would create incentives for majority parties to pursue recurring major budget restructures, risking administrative disruption; proponents say those risks are manageable and would trade off for faster enactment and fewer continuing resolutions [5] [6]. The net procedural effect is a shift from supermajority bargaining to majority-centric control of the fiscal calendar, changing committee bargaining dynamics and floor amendment strategies [6].
3. How party relations and incentives would shift after elimination
If appropriations required only a simple majority, party leaders would face stronger incentives to centralize discipline and reward loyalty, because each appropriations vote would become a meaningful instrument of partisan policy. Minority leverage would decline, reducing cross-party bargaining and elevating intra-party factionalism as the majority balances competing internal coalitions. Historical and normative commentators argue this fosters one-party rule and undermines traditions of bipartisan accommodation (p3_s2, 2025-06-25; [7], 2021-05-12). Conversely, scholars who find the filibuster harmful argue that removing it could restore clearer electoral accountability by allowing a governing majority to enact its spending priorities without being stymied by procedural obstruction (p3_s1, 2025-01-27). Both perspectives imply substantial changes to Senate norms and caucus management.
4. Administrative capacity and governance consequences that proponents warn about
Legal scholars and administrative experts assert that sudden partisan appropriation swings raise transaction costs for agencies, producing planning uncertainty, hiring freezes, and programmatic interruptions that degrade public service delivery [3] [4]. These sources emphasize that appropriations shape multi-year program stability and that predictable, bipartisan funding reduces costly policy whiplash. The alternative view is that clear majority control can enable decisive long-term budget strategies, but that requires majorities to bear responsibility for outcomes and elections to respond; critics counter this assumes electoral accountability will correct governance harms, which is historically uncertain [3]. The debate therefore rests on how much weight policymakers assign to administrative continuity versus legislative agility.
5. What the evidence base says and where uncertainties remain
Recent empirical work diverges: a 2025 University of Chicago study finds the filibuster does not measurably enhance debate and may harm deliberation, implying potential gains from elimination (p3_s1, 2025-01-27). Other 2025 analysis warns elimination accelerates one-party rule and institutional erosion, highlighting long-term institutional risk (p3_s2, 2025-06-25). Earlier commentaries emphasize bipartisan norms and historical usage to promote compromise (p3_s3, 2021-05-12; [5], 2018-02-08). The evidence is mixed and time-sensitive: newer empirical work questions the deliberative benefits, while administrative and legal analyses underline operational risks that are harder to quantify. Policymakers must therefore choose between probabilistic efficiency gains and harder-to-measure governance costs, with outcomes heavily contingent on electoral dynamics and majority behavior.