The U.S. government shut down on October 1, 2025, because Senate Democrats blocked a spending bill that would have kept the U.S. government open for business through November 21 from moving forward to a vote.
Although members of the Republican Party have a small majority in the Senate, Democrats were able to block the bill from being voted on because Senate rules require three-fifths of the Senators to vote in favor of ending debate, which allows the bills being debated to proceed to a vote. This rule represents a long-established practice in the Senate, and when politicians put the people's interest ahead of their personal and political interests, it ensures a genuine consensus among more than a simple majority of members to have a deciding vote on a bill under consideration.
But what happens when a minority of members of the Senate come to think it's their way or the highway? Even if it means shutting the government down for weeks on end?
Americans are seeing that in practice with the current government shutdown. Because Congress hasn't authorized the government to spend any money in the new fiscal year, which began on October 1, it's unlawful for the government to spend money on the activities it typically undertakes.
Writing at The Week, Joel Mathis reports on a debate among politicians to end the filibuster:
The filibuster is keeping the government shutdown alive. Republicans hold a majority in the Senate, but filibustering Democrats have enough votes to prevent the GOP from reaching the 60-vote threshold now needed to pass most legislation. Some Republican officials think it might be time to kill the rule and finally end the shutdown.
A growing willingness among GOP senators to consider ending the filibuster is a "sign of just how stuck things are," said NOTUS. Longtime defenders of the 60-vote rule are now weakening in their resolve. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) is a "strong supporter" of the filibuster, "but obviously I'll look at any plan that anyone puts out in order to reopen the government," she said. Republicans may have no other choice. "If we can't get anything done, that's what they're gonna force," said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). There are skeptics, however. "Bad idea," said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)....
Some House Republicans are pushing their Senate colleagues to act, said The Hill. GOP officials "need to be taking a look at the 60-vote threshold," said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas). The filibuster makes Republicans "beholden to a broken system right now."
"Turnabout is fair play," said Nick Catoggio at The Dispatch. If Republicans nuke the filibuster now, "it will stay nuked when Democrats eventually recapture control of the executive and legislative branches." That is the argument against ending the filibuster. The counterargument is that Democrats are already likely to kill the rule when and if they return to power. If you are a Republican senator, "you might reflect on that and wonder why you shouldn't move first."
Here's a compromise that may not make anyone happy but could at least break today's logjam. If the Republicans changed Senate rules to allow a simple majority to approve a vote to end debate on spending bills that either hold spending level at previously approved amounts or that reduce spending below those levels, making it easier to restrain spending growth, why not proceed with filibuster reform?
If they then also changed Senate rules to require a minimum two-thirds majority to approve a vote to end debates on spending bills that increase the government's total spending, making it harder to approve more spending, why not again?
This is the opposite outcome from the typical Washington, D.C. approach, in which spending inevitably increases over time. Isn't it long past time to set the politicians' spending ratchet in reverse?