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: Can the US government reopen without the approval of Senate Democrats?
Executive Summary
The short answer: legally the Senate could try to reopen the government without the approval of Senate Democrats by changing Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster threshold, but practical and political constraints make that outcome unlikely. Reporting in October 2025 shows the “nuclear option” is on the table as a theoretical path to reopen funding without Democratic votes, but Senate leaders from both parties have publicly signaled strong hesitation about using it, and Democrats have repeatedly blocked House-passed bills to reopen the government, keeping leverage in negotiations [1] [2] [3].
1. Why the filibuster is the indispensable roadblock that could be altered — but won’t be lightly changed
The core legal and procedural fact is that most major Senate decisions effectively require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster; eliminating that 60-vote threshold through the so-called “nuclear option” would allow a simple majority to pass funding measures and could, in theory, reopen the government without Democratic votes. Analysts in October 2025 framed this as a procedural escape hatch that the majority party could invoke [1]. The same coverage emphasizes that such a move is not just a technical change: it would rewrite a fundamental Senate norm and set a precedent that each majority could reverse when control flips, creating long-term institutional instability. Senate leaders have publicly acknowledged this trade-off and expressed reluctance to make a change that can be weaponized later [2] [1].
2. Political cost: leaders on both sides fear the consequences of weaponizing rules
Even if eliminating the 60-vote threshold is legally feasible, political calculation makes it unlikely. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other Republican leaders have signaled hesitation about moving to change the rules, noting the risk that the same maneuver could be used against them if Democrats regain control [2]. Coverage from October 2025 captured this bipartisan wariness: leaders on both sides note that while the nuclear option would be available as a tool to end a shutdown, the institutional cost and potential for retaliation render it a last resort. This reluctance acts as a practical barrier that preserves the filibuster’s influence even when the majority could technically override it.
3. Tactical reality: Democrats’ repeated blocks show they still hold the leverage
On the ground in late October 2025, Senate Democrats repeatedly blocked a House-passed bill to reopen the government, voting against advancing it 13 separate times with only three Democrats breaking ranks to advance the bill [3]. That pattern shows Democrats are exercising the leverage that the filibuster and Senate procedures afford them; blocking the House measure forces renewed negotiation and demonstrates that without some Democratic buy-in or a dramatic rules change, the shutdown will continue. The repetition of procedural blocks also signals a strategic choice by Democrats to extract concessions or new terms rather than simply acquiescing to the majority’s legislation.
4. The timeline and headlines: October 21–28, 2025 captures both options and reluctance
Reporting clustered in the last week of October 2025 frames the debate with two juxtaposed threads: the theoretical pathway through a rules change and the practical, political hesitation to take it. On October 21, coverage explained what the nuclear option is and how it could end a funding lapse; by October 22 and October 28, reporting emphasized Republican leaders’ reluctance and the repeated Democratic blocks in the Senate [1] [2] [3]. The sequence shows how possibility and prudence coexisted in the public debate: the procedural fix exists on paper, but political leaders responded to the same pressures—long-term institutional norms and immediate partisan risk—by resisting it.
5. What’s omitted but consequential: long-term institutional risk and negotiation leverage
The three October 2025 analyses focus on immediate mechanics and leader statements, but they omit extended discussion of longer-term consequences and alternative pressure points. Eliminating the filibuster to reopen the government would not only have immediate policy effects but would reshape Senate governance for future majorities, a cost repeatedly cited by leaders yet not deeply quantified in these reports [2] [1]. Similarly, the coverage highlights Democratic procedural blocks without fully detailing the bargaining chips both sides could deploy outside rule changes—budget offsets, short-term continuing resolutions, or executive actions—that might resolve a shutdown without a rule-altering showdown [3] [1]. These omissions matter because they frame the decision as binary—change rules or yield—when real-world outcomes typically rest on layered negotiations.