Rep. Byron Donalds is intensifying the call for Senate Republicans to do away with the filibuster. His demand comes on the heels of an especially pressing issue: the SAVE Act, a legislative measure aimed at ensuring that only U.S. citizens have the right to vote in federal elections. After a long 235 days since the bill passed the House, Donalds aired his frustrations in a public letter and a direct message on social media, targeting the Senate’s failure to advance the legislation.
“235 days ago, we PASSED the SAVE Act AGAIN but the Senate’s holding us up,” he stated firmly. “It’s absurd this bill can’t get a vote. END THE FILIBUSTER—PASS THE SAVE ACT!” This articulate frustration signifies a notable pivot for Donalds, who had previously defended the filibuster, saying just last year that it should remain unchanged. However, as he faces repeated setbacks in a Senate dominated by Democrats, Donalds now argues the procedural rule hinders essential legislative initiatives, particularly those focused on election integrity.
The Filibuster as a Roadblock
The Senate filibuster currently requires a formidable 60 votes to proceed with most legislation. Given that Republicans possess just 53 seats, they rely on the cooperation of at least seven Democrats to advance any significant bills. With almost unanimous Democratic opposition to the SAVE Act, Republicans find themselves stranded.
In his letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Donalds implores him to “lead the charge to eliminate the legislative filibuster and allow the Senate to function on a simple majority basis, as the founders intended for most of its history.” Donalds argues that the filibuster no longer promotes bipartisan efforts; it instead equips Senate Democrats with a “veto” power over legislation, even when Republicans have control in both chambers.
This discontent stems from a broader Republican sentiment that views Senate rules as tools for obfuscation and obstruction. With the SAVE Act stalled, urgency builds among Republicans who perceive the bill as a fundamental measure for securing U.S. elections.
What the SAVE Act Seeks to Do
The SAVE Act, which stands for “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility,” outlines a federal requirement mandating states to verify the citizenship status of voters in federal elections. While existing federal law asserts that only U.S. citizens may vote, the bill’s advocates argue that enforcement varies greatly across states, creating inconsistencies. The measure aims to clarify standards, establish documentation verification procedures, and impose penalties on those who fail to adhere.
Opponents, largely from the Democratic party, worry that the bill could disenfranchise eligible voters and impose additional burdens on local election officials. They contend there is “no evidence” of widespread noncitizen voting and warn of disparate impacts on minorities and new voters.
Conversely, Republicans highlight perceived vulnerabilities in the current system, pointing to an increase in noncitizen access to government resources, rising border crossings, and lax regulations in states with lenient voter registration processes. During House debates, supporters cited studies suggesting that even minimal noncitizen voting could sway close elections.
Donalds and fellow proponents assert that the bill’s repeated passage in the House signals both its necessity and its viability. Despite Republican control in the Senate, their efforts remain stalled, blocked by the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold.
Pressure from Trump and Party Conservatives
The push to eliminate the filibuster aligns closely with calls from former President Donald Trump. Just last month, Trump urged on Truth Social, “THE CHOICE IS CLEAR — INITIATE THE ‘NUCLEAR OPTION,’ GET RID OF THE FILIBUSTER AND, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump’s proclamation has catalyzed a chorus of conservative voices echoing his demand for procedural reform, including fellow GOP representatives and Vice President JD Vance.
Vance underscored the urgency of the moment at a recent Turning Point USA event, asserting, “We cannot be afraid to do something because the left might do it in the future.” This internal pressure reflects a shift within the GOP, challenging traditional Senate norms in favor of enacting conservative legislation with a simple majority. Although the “nuclear option” has been previously utilized for judicial nominees, its application to general legislation remains uncharted territory.
Altering Senate rules only requires a simple majority—51 votes—providing the opportunity for decisive action that does not hinge on Democratic cooperation, assuming all Republicans stand united.
Resistance Among Senate Republicans
Despite escalating demands for change from the House and Trump’s base, many Senate Republicans continue to resist the notion of abolishing the filibuster. Thune has yet to publicly address Donalds’ letter but has previously expressed that the filibuster serves as a safeguard for thoughtful deliberation, preventing hastily made policy decisions.
Others, such as Sen. John Curtis and Lisa Murkowski, have also reiterated their support for preserving the tradition, with Curtis acknowledging that the filibuster compels senators to find common ground and Murkowski warning of the hazards of one-party rule.
This political impasse could create challenges at the polls as Senate Republicans who campaigned on election integrity face backlash from an impatient base. Conservative voters may interpret failure to advance the SAVE Act as a sign of weakness in party leadership.
The Filibuster Debate and Broader Impacts
The struggle over the SAVE Act encapsulates the broader debate surrounding the filibuster’s relevance in today’s political landscape. For figures like Donalds and Trump, the rule symbolizes legislative stagnation, acting as a barrier to fulfilling campaign promises.
The standoff also comes amid critical negotiations over government funding. Since the federal budget expired on September 30, Congress remains mired in disputes, with Senate Democrats demanding budget concessions in exchange for cooperation. The inability to reach an agreement places more than 1.4 million federal workers—and millions reliant on food aid—at precarious risk.
Integrating issues like immigration and electoral security into this heated atmosphere raises the stakes even higher. With illegal border crossings surpassing 2.6 million last fiscal year, Republican claims about upholding voting integrity gain urgency as fears of a growing noncitizen demographic mount.
With mounting pressure, Donalds articulates a clear stance: “The Senate filibuster, a relic of a bygone era of bipartisanship that no longer exists, stands as the single greatest obstacle to fulfilling that promise.” His challenges to Thune not only reflect procedural ambitions but also highlight a broader division within the GOP regarding governance practices when in a position of power.
Where It Goes from Here
As it stands, the Senate has yet to schedule a vote on the SAVE Act or address potential rule changes that could dismantle the filibuster. However, Donalds’ vocal campaign might compel Republican leadership to act, or at the very least, to provide a clearer rationale for their resistance to appease a restless voting base.
Conservative voters expect prompt movement on issues surrounding border security and election integrity, positioning them to closely observe how Senate Republicans respond. Donalds has made his desire abundantly clear: “GET IT DONE.” Whether that demand will be met or still linger remains uncertain.
"*" indicates required fields
