U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as he departs for Asia from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 24, 2025. REUTERS Kylie Cooper.
Washington Post law and political columnist Jason Willick says he would “probably hate” most of the legislation Democrats would pass if they controlled the House, Senate and White House without a filibuster to keep them in check. However, President Donald Trump’s increasing theft of Congressional power demands the Senate be functional again.
“My views are … changing,” Willick said. “I’ve always thought of the Senate’s 60-vote requirement for passing most legislation as a healthy check on narrow partisan majorities in the legislature. But how well is that working now? Donald Trump is showing that when a party narrowly wins the White House, it can impose sweeping policy change through the executive branch. At the end of Trump’s first year back in office, the filibuster is looking less like a moderating force and more like an excuse for presidents to ignore Congress.”
A Pew Research Center count reveals 221 executive orders in 11 months from the Trump administration, compared with 162 in President Joe Biden’s four years.
“Trump has overhauled immigration, imposed worldwide tariffs, restructured government agencies, sent progressive universities into retreat and brought the U.S. to the brink of war with Venezuela — all without votes of Congress,” said Willick, adding that he agrees with some of the policies and not with others.
“[But] the point is that the White House is the sole driver. Instead of debating and authorizing Trump’s agenda, the Republican-controlled Congress has been a potted plant. It seems incongruous to maintain a restriction only on Congress’s ability to act while the executive goes into overdrive,” Willick said.
The continuing drift toward “rule-by-executive” might be more dangerous for the republic than “harebrained policies arrived at through the representative process, where senators are accountable for their votes.” Willick said, especially in light of Trump’s recent infractions.
“The partisan case for nuking the filibuster grows out of enthusiasm. My increasing openness to the nuclear option grows out of resignation,” Willick said. “The filibuster is supposed to promote stability, but the 21st century has seen one president after another radically reverse the policies of his predecessor. If we’re going to have political volatility, better that it’s at least channeled through Congress, with deliberation and debate.”
Read the Washington Post report at this link.
