Which Senate Republicans have publicly threatened to filibuster the current continuing resolution and what reasons did they give?

1. Who actually said they would filibuster — there’s no neat roll call, only postures and possibilities

Reporting across multiple outlets finds no definitive public declaration from Senate Republicans that they would filibuster the current continuing resolution; instead, senators expressed positions about the filibuster’s future or conditional openness to rule changes. Several Republicans publicly opposed scrapping the filibuster outright, arguing it protects the minority and institutional norms, while others said all options should be on the table if the shutdown lingers. Journalistic accounts emphasize statements of conditionality — “open to” or “consider” — rather than unambiguous pledges to filibuster the CR itself, leaving the factual record one of rhetorical maneuvering more than formal procedural commitments ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

2. Who pushed to change the filibuster and why — reopen government, policy wins, and political pressure

A cluster of GOP senators and allied voices publicly urged either eliminating, carving out, or loosening the filibuster to enable passage of funding measures, citing urgency to reopen government, protect SNAP and military pay, and advance conservative priorities. Senators named in reporting as supportive of reform or open to a carveout included figures urging faster action to end the shutdown; they framed rule changes as pragmatic tools to restore services and deliver promised policy outcomes. These actors explicitly tied rule change to immediate material harms and political imperatives, arguing that preserving the status quo risked ongoing disruption and electoral fallout ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

3. Who publicly defended the filibuster — preserving minority rights and future leverage

Other Senate Republicans publicly defended the filibuster, warning that its removal would empower a future Democratic majority to pass sweeping legislation and erode Senate norms. Leaders and established senators framed the filibuster as a long-standing institutional safeguard, arguing that short-term gains from eliminating it could produce long-term costs for the GOP and for Senate deliberation. These statements present a contrast to reform advocates and were explicit: preserve the 60-vote threshold to retain leverage and bipartisan bargaining capacity, even amid pressure to resolve the shutdown swiftly ^{[1] [6] [5]}.

4. Differences in motive — humanitarian, partisan, and strategic rationales shape statements

When senators discussed filibuster change, their rationales diverged: some couched it as a humanitarian imperative to deliver benefits like SNAP and military pay; others framed it as partisan strategy to pass conservative priorities or codify executive actions without concessions. Opponents emphasized institutional prudence and the long-term political costs of weakening minority protections. Media coverage shows these motives often reflect competing agendas — governance urgency versus preservation of minority power — and that individual Republicans’ public remarks tended to align with broader political calculations rather than purely procedural concerns ^{[2] [3] [1]}.

5. How to read the record — fragmented statements, evolving positions, and partisan signaling

The factual record is fragmented: senators made public comments about potential filibuster reforms, some signaled openness to change if the shutdown continued, while many others rejected scrapping the rule, yet none issued a uniform pledge to filibuster the continuing resolution itself. Reporting through early November 2025 captures shifting positions, internal GOP debate, and presidential pressure — all of which produce public statements that are conditional and strategic. Readers should treat declarations about changing Senate rules as political signaling shaped by tactical aims and institutional caution, not as definitive procedural commitments to filibuster specific legislation ^{[5] [1] [7]}.