Supporters of ending the filibuster argue that the rule is being abused to block popular legislation and that the Senate must adapt to a modern era where majorities are expected to govern. Trump's push, they say, is a necessary corrective to a broken system.
The filibuster, once a rarely used tool, has become a routine obstacle. In the last decade, it has been deployed to halt bills with broad public support, including background check expansions and immigration reforms. Ending it would allow Republicans to act on campaign promises without having to negotiate with a unified Democratic opposition.
Backers also point to a practical advantage: if Democrats regain control, they will likely eliminate the filibuster anyway. By acting first, Republicans can set the agenda and show voters they can deliver results. Senator Ted Cruz has argued that the filibuster protects the status quo rather than minority rights, which is why special interests fight to keep it.
Furthermore, the 60-vote threshold is not required by the Constitution. It is a Senate rule that can be changed by a simple majority. Proponents see this as a matter of majority rule and accountability, where voters elect a Senate majority with the expectation that it can pass its platform.
For these reasons, Trump's pressure is seen as a wake-up call. Supporters believe that now is the time to act, before the filibuster blocks the agenda voters demanded.