Fact check: Can the nuclear option be used to pass the appropriations bill

1. Why some Republicans are loudly pushing the atomic fix — and what they claim it would accomplish

Several House conservatives explicitly urged the Senate to invoke the nuclear option as a shortcut to end the funding deadlock, framing it as a tool to force passage of appropriations without 60 votes. They argue the mechanism would let a simple majority override the filibuster’s effective bar for legislation and move emergency funding or full-year bills through the floor more quickly, presenting the move as a solution to a shutdown’s immediate harms. Those public calls aim to shift blame to Senate Republicans who won’t break the 60-vote threshold, and they send a direct message that some members prefer decisive procedural change over compromise ^{[1] [2]}.

2. The procedure itself — how the nuclear option works and its real limits

The parliamentary maneuver allows the Senate majority to reinterpret or overturn standing rules by majority vote, effectively lowering cloture thresholds. Historically, the chamber applied this precedent specifically to nominations in 2013 and 2017, not to ordinary legislation; those prior uses show the tactic’s narrow judicial and nomination pedigree, not a well-worn path for budget bills. Changing the cloture rule for appropriations would be a more dramatic departure because it applies to core legislative practice, meaning the majority would have to be willing to author a new precedent for all future lawmaking consequences ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Political calculus: immediate gains versus long-term institutional costs

Senate leaders from both parties have publicly opposed using the nuclear option for appropriations, arguing that short-term wins could incur permanent political and institutional losses. Leadership warnings reflect the reality that rule changes are durable and reversible only by future majorities—creating incentives for tit-for-tat escalation on filibuster and floor rules. For a Senate majority contemplating the move, the tradeoff is clear: secure passage now at risk of empowering future opponents to dismantle norms when control flips, a dynamic that makes many pragmatists in leadership resistant despite pressure from their caucus ^[1].

4. Historical comparators show precedent but also restraint

Past uses of the nuclear option targeted confirmations and were framed as necessary to overcome obstruction in the judicial and executive appointment process; lawmakers distinguished nominations from substantive legislation. That history gives a precedent for changing rules by simple majority, but it also demonstrates institutional restraint: leaders stopped short of applying the doctrine to regular legislation. This restraint matters because appropriations bills shape spending priorities and are central to lawmaking; applying the nuclear option to them would be a significant escalation beyond prior practice and would set a new baseline for future budget fights ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Practical pathway and likelihood: what would need to happen for appropriations to clear the Senate

For the nuclear option to enable passage of an appropriations bill, a Senate majority would need to vote to establish a new precedent that limits the filibuster for that category of legislation or for all legislation. That requires unified caucus support, a strategic plan to litigate precedent on the floor, and a willingness to accept likely political blowback and reciprocal rule changes when control changes hands. Given current leadership opposition and historical caution, the practical likelihood is limited unless the majority calculates the political payoff outweighs the long-term costs—a calculation leaders have so far resisted ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line for readers: possible, but precedent-shattering and politically costly

The nuclear option is a real, legally permissible route to force action on appropriations by lowering the cloture threshold to a simple majority, but using it for spending bills would be an unprecedented expansion beyond past usage and would carry substantial risks of institutional erosion and future retaliation. Policymakers pressing for it are leveraging immediate crisis pressure to push for rule change, while chamber leaders caution that short-term rescue could permanently reshape Senate operations, making the tactic an unlikely first resort absent a collapse of other options ^{[1] [3]}.