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.
What steps are required in the U.S. Senate to change or repeal the filibuster rule?
Executive Summary
The Senate can change or repeal the filibuster either by formally amending its standing rules (requiring a supermajority) or by creating a new precedent through the so‑called “nuclear option,” which recent practice shows can be done with a simple majority. Historical practice, constitutional provisions, and political realities mean the procedural path is clear but the political obstacles are steep; parties have used both formal rule-change routes and precedent‑setting maneuvers in the past [1] [2] [3].
1. What everyone is claiming — distilled and decisive
Sources converge on two competing claims: one says changing the filibuster requires a formal rules amendment that needs a two‑thirds or 60‑vote supermajority under Rule XX or cloture rules; the other says the Senate can effectively alter the filibuster by establishing a new precedent via the “nuclear option” with a simple majority. Analysts cite Rule 22 and cloture history [4] [5] to show why many think 60 votes are needed, while constitutional and Senate‑practice explain how a point‑of‑order appeal and majority vote have been used to change precedents [6] [1] [2]. Both descriptions are present across the record; the tension is procedural law versus evolving Senate precedent [1] [2].
2. The formal legal route: amend the rules and the supermajority hurdle
A formal route to alter the filibuster is to change the Senate’s Standing Rules, which historically has been tied to cloture thresholds set in Rule 22 and by rule amendments that required large majorities. The historical record shows cloture began in 1917 at two‑thirds and was reduced in 1975 to three‑fifths (60 votes in a 100‑member Senate), and some analysts read that history to mean a commanding bipartisan majority would be required to amend standing rules in a way that restores or entrenches filibuster protections [6] [2]. Changing the written rule is legally straightforward but politically daunting because it relies on a large cross‑aisle vote. That route is often presented as the most procedurally rigid path to permanently alter Senate debate rules [6].
3. The nuclear option: precedent, point of order, and a simple majority
A commonly used practical path is the “nuclear option”: a senator raises a point of order contravening existing rules, the presiding officer rules, a senator appeals, and the Senate votes to overturn the ruling — thereby creating a new Senate precedent by simple majority. This process was used in 2013 and 2017 to narrow the filibuster for nominations, showing the mechanism’s effectiveness. Analysts emphasize that the nuclear option doesn’t have to erase the filibuster entirely; it can target specific categories (e.g., nominations vs. legislation) and establish a new practice that later Senators treat as binding precedent [3] [1]. The nuclear option is the functional shortcut to change without a supermajority [3].
4. What history shows: targeted changes, not always abolition
Past changes demonstrate a pattern: the Senate’s majority has pared back the filibuster piecemeal rather than abolishing it wholesale. Democrats used the nuclear option in 2013 to remove the 60‑vote threshold for most executive and judicial nominees; Republicans extended that in 2017 to include Supreme Court nominees. These precedents show majorities can and do reshape Senate practice via majority votes, but they also reveal that the chamber often opts for targeted reforms rather than blanket repeal, a strategic choice reflecting concerns about future majorities reversing changes [3] [1]. The precedent‑based path has therefore become the political reality over the formal supermajority route [3].
5. Political reality: procedural possibility vs. political appetite
Procedurally achievable actions run up against political calculations. Even where a simple‑majority method exists, senators weigh institutional norms, potential retaliation when roles reverse, and public pressure. Recent reporting notes prominent Republicans and some moderates oppose wholesale repeal, signaling that political constraints often prevent procedural options from being exercised despite their availability [3] [2]. Advocates for elimination argue the filibuster blocks governance and cite past rule changes as precedent for majority action, while defenders frame it as a minority protection that forces compromise. Both positions use procedural facts to support divergent political strategies [7] [2].
6. Bottom line — two paths, one practical choice
The factual bottom line is clear: the Senate can legally change its filibuster rules either by a formal rules amendment requiring a supermajority or by establishing a new precedent via the nuclear option with a simple majority; history shows the majority‑precedent route is the one most commonly used in recent decades. Which path will be taken depends not on procedural possibility but on political will and strategic calculation by senators mindful of institutional norms and future power shifts [6] [1] [3]. In short, the mechanics are settled by practice; the question is which set of senators will choose to use them.