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: How have past uses of the nuclear option (2013, 2017) affected Senate precedent and could those precedents apply to spending bills?
Executive Summary
The 2013 and 2017 invocations of the “nuclear option” narrowed the Senate’s ability to sustain filibusters for most nominations and created binding precedent for using a simple majority to change chamber practice on nominations, but did not eliminate the legislative filibuster for ordinary statutes or directly rewrite budget rules that govern spending bills [1] [2] [3]. Those nuclear-option precedents have reshaped expectations about what a majority can unilaterally do, yet the most direct path for majority-driven spending changes remains budget reconciliation, which operates under its own statutory and procedural limits such as the Byrd Rule [4] [5] [6].
1. How the 2013 and 2017 Moves Actually Changed Senate Practice—and Why That Matters Now
The Senate’s 2013 change for most executive-branch nominations and the 2017 change for Supreme Court nominations established a new operational precedent that confirmations can be governed by simple-majority rulings of the presiding chair, wrapped in a sequence of points-of-order and rulings that a majority sustained [1] [2]. These rulings did not repeal the filibuster statutory text; instead, they created a functional doctrine that a majority can declare certain matters non-debatable and then act by majority vote. Observers in 2013 and 2017 warned these moves would lower the institutional threshold for future majorities to reinterpret rules; supporters framed the changes as necessary to overcome partisan gridlock and speed confirmations [1] [2] [3]. The practical result was a narrowing of minority leverage over nominations, though floor behavior on other matters remained subject to existing precedents and traditions.
2. Why Those Precedents Don’t Automatically Apply to Spending Bills
Spending legislation is governed by distinct procedural frameworks—most notably reconciliation and points-of-order like the Byrd Rule—which are statutory or rule-based constraints designed to shape budgetary content and process [4] [5]. The nuclear option’s precedents targeted testable parliamentary questions about debate and cloture for nominations; they did not rewrite statutory budget mechanisms or remove the 60-vote requirement for ending debate on ordinary legislation. Analysts note that while the political calculus changed—majorities now see fewer institutional barriers to altering rules—the legal and procedural path to apply the same majority-driven shortcuts to spending bills is complex and requires separate rule changes or reinterpretations that could themselves be subject to points-of-order and judicial scrutiny [3] [5].
3. Reconciliation: The Majority’s Preferred Route for Spending Measures
Majorities seeking to enact budget-related policies have increasingly relied on budget reconciliation, which permits passage by a simple majority but is constrained by the Byrd Rule and specific reconciliation instructions from budget resolutions [4] [6]. Reconciliation has been used to pass major spending and tax measures, including the American Rescue Plan and other recent packages, because it bypasses the legislative filibuster while remaining tethered to budgetary language and scope limits [7] [6]. The Byrd Rule’s points-of-order can strip non-budgetary items, so advocates must carefully craft provisions to survive Senate review; this means that while reconciliation is a powerful majority tool, it is procedurally narrow and not a blanket substitute for abolishing or overriding the filibuster for all spending bills.
4. Political and Institutional Consequences—Expectations Shifted, Not Rules Erased
The 2013 and 2017 precedents have had a clear political effect: majorities now view the Senate as more governable by simple-majority action in some realms, raising the specter that future majorities might press similar changes for legislative business [3] [1]. This has prompted debate about the long-term health of Senate norms and the potential for tit-for-tat escalations. Nonetheless, the record shows majorities often still seek 60 votes for contentious measures where feasible, and significant spending bills have passed through negotiation, reconciliation, or bipartisan compromise rather than outright rule-changing unilateralism [7] [1]. The institutional point: precedent shifted expectations; it did not automatically convert every Senate rule into a simple-majority tool.
5. Bottom line: Pathways and Limits for Applying Nuclear-Option Logic to Spending
The nuclear-option episodes demonstrate that the Senate can recalibrate its own procedures when a majority is motivated, but applying that logic to spending bills faces legal, procedural, and political constraints: statutory budget rules, the Byrd Rule, points-of-order, and the real-world need for coalition-building on complex appropriations [4] [5] [7]. Analysts and institutional actors present two clear interpretations: one sees the nuclear option as a template for majority empowerment and further filibuster erosion; the other regards reconciliation and existing budget rules as the practical, legally bounded tool for majority-led spending changes. Both viewpoints are grounded in the same procedural record—nuclear option altered nominations precedent, while reconciliation remains the central mechanism for spending [2] [6].