Opponents of eliminating the filibuster warn that doing so would unleash a cycle of extreme policy reversals and erode the Senate's role as a check on executive power. Trump's push, they argue, is shortsighted and could backfire on Republicans.
The filibuster forces compromise and deliberation by requiring bipartisan support for major legislation. Without it, a bare majority could pass sweeping laws on contentious issues like abortion, gun rights, and taxes, only to have them repealed the next time control shifts. This instability would hurt business confidence and undermine long-term policy.
Historical precedent shows the danger. In 2013 and 2017, both parties eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominations, leading to bitter confirmation battles and a loss of comity. Extending that to legislation would turn the Senate into a majoritarian body, contrary to its founding design.
Republican institutionalists, including Senator Mitt Romney, have warned that ending the filibuster would leave the GOP powerless when Democrats retake the majority. They point to bills like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All, which would face little restraint without the 60-vote hurdle.
Moreover, Trump's urgency is seen as a tactic to pressure senators into a risky change. Critics say the filibuster protects minority rights and that eliminating it for short-term gain would damage the Senate's legacy as a deliberative institution.