Does Congress Know What Time It Is?
Congressional Republicans don’t seem to understand that the political opportunity President Trump gave them is slipping away. Rather than enacting the president’s agenda—and even more far-reaching reforms—they seem content to lurch from one crisis to the next without a plan to revive American self-government.
Take the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (SAVE) Act, legislation that’s been pending in the Senate for a year after it passed the House. It would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, a common-sense proposal supported by a majority of Americans in both parties. Eighty-four percent of Americans—and 70% of Democrats—support the SAVE Act in principle. It’s another 80-20 issue that President Trump, a SAVE Act supporter, is on the right side of. But Senate Republicans seem happy to let the bill continue to languish in their chamber.
On Tuesday, however, it was the House that declined the latest opportunity to pass the SAVE Act. Senate Republicans like Mike Lee and Rick Scott worked behind the scenes to stop the House from passing a funding package unless the SAVE Act was attached, along with year-long funding for the Department of Homeland Security.
Wasteful spending included in the funding package was another concern of some senators, as the national debt keeps soaring. No one in national politics seems interested in offering a workable solution to the mounting problem of Total Boomer Luxury Communism, likely the domestic political issue that will define the next couple of decades.
The House passed the funding measure, which President Trump signed, and another partial government shutdown was stopped. However, putting rolls of duct tape over a cracking dam that’s getting ready to burst is no long-term solution. While the establishment kicks a can the size of the International Space Station down the road, “principled” members seem more interested in moral grandstanding and putting forward utopian schemes.
When the seemingly endless cycle of congressional Republicans playing defense deep in their own territory ends is anyone’s guess. This is far less the bold mandate voters gave Trump in 2024 and much more like a rudderless Republican Party that’s merely working to hold on to slim majorities in both the House and Senate, which seem to be getting smaller by the week. Democrat Christian Menefee
won a runoff election in Texas last weekend, which means that Republicans now hold a 218-214 edge in the House. And factoring in vacancies, their majority shrinks to a single vote.
In the Senate, the GOP’s lead is a bit bigger, at 53-47. But with occasional defections, Vice President Vance has been brought in eight times to cast a tie-breaking vote, which is far behind Kamala Harris’s unprecedented 33 votes but slightly ahead of previous vice presidents to this point in a presidential administration.
The coming elections in 2026 and 2028 are highly unlikely to shift either chamber in a decisive direction. A historic, commanding supermajority like the Democrats had after LBJ’s election in 1964 is nowhere in sight.
It’s clear that something fundamental needs to change for Congress—and the Senate especially—to become once again a body that enacts the type of key legislation voters want. A slew of executive orders and reliance on the courts is not enough. The congressional GOP must craft a positive agenda that can produce prosperity, secure peace, and help move the nation toward another golden age.
A high number of bills passed is not necessarily an indicator of a well-functioning Congress—the quality of the legislation is what matters. Congress is supposed to guide, direct, and channel the people’s wishes, translating them into laws that benefit the public good. But that doesn’t seem to be a priority these days. Congressmen seem far more interested in evading responsibility and are constantly looking to the next election cycle.
Though Republicans were finally able to pick the low-hanging fruit of defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, other key legislative measures they’ve been promising for well over a decade remain pending. For example, where’s the GOP’s long-awaited response to Obamacare—which was passed 16 years ago?
However, there are a handful of people who have been offering the kind of bold thinking that’s needed. The Federalist’s Rachel Bovard, a veteran of the Senate who knows its procedures well, lays out a plan whereby the Senate could pass the SAVE Act (which would apply to other legislation as well) without nuking the filibuster.
In her proposal, Senate Majority Leader Thune would call up the SAVE Act for a vote. The only way the vote could be delayed is if Senate Democrats decided to invoke the talking filibuster. “Once every filibustering senator’s speeches have been exhausted, the SAVE Act vote happens automatically,” Bovard writes. And she points out that only a simple majority would be needed for passage. If that happens, the SAVE Act would be sent to the president’s desk for his signature.
This would also have the added benefit of giving Democrats the space to make a public sideshow—and on an issue where they are a tiny minority. It would figuratively light their midterm prospects on fire, as speeches would be made that’d likely make Billie Eilish’s recent admonition at the Grammys that “No one is illegal on stolen land” look like a line from one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. But as Bovard laconically notes, this would mean that senators would actually have to show up for work in D.C. for more than two-and-a-half days a week. And that, sadly, might be what prevents such a plan from being implemented.
Another strategy was recently forwarded by Senator Mike Lee, who wants to kill what’s known as the “zombie filibuster.” This modern practice means that senators only have to threaten a filibuster to shut down voting; they don’t have to stand and debate like senators had to do from 1789 until recently. This would begin the process of turning the Senate more into the body the American founders had envisioned: one featuring open deliberation on matters of consequence rather than key decisions always being made quickly and behind closed doors.
Finally, Ryan Neuhaus, a veteran of the Senate and former chief of staff at the Heritage Foundation, thinks the Republicans should blow up the filibuster in the Senate altogether. As he argues, “It is the central bottleneck between merely holding a majority and actually governing. As long as it remains intact, Republicans can campaign on enacting a political revolution without possessing the institutional tools to deliver it.”
Eliminating the filibuster is undoubtedly a controversial stance within the GOP, which is why he urges that it shouldn’t be contemplated without first fashioning a bold legislative agenda. “If Republicans intend to win, they need to play offense and strike first,” Neuhaus contends. “Procedure must give way to the use of power on behalf of the American people.”
It must be kept in mind that even if Republicans are successful in these efforts, nuking the filibuster would open the sluice all the way, allowing Democrats the opportunity to pass their dream legislation with a president eager to sign it, which could happen as soon as January 20, 2029. But even with that risk, there doesn’t seem to be any other fixes on the horizon that would fundamentally shift the Senate back to being a body governed by majority rule.
Supermajorities are a thing of the past for now. And while an ideological political realignment has already happened, a true electoral realignment has yet to follow. Perhaps doing away with the Senate filibuster and passing courageous legislation that safeguards the common good is the means to do just that.
Forging a true and lasting political revolution that President Trump has inaugurated will take daring and boldness—and a Congress that can act decisively.
