Calls to eliminate the Senate filibuster have resurfaced yet again, this time fueled by impending deadlines on spending bills and questions over the future of Obamacare subsidies. On Chicago’s Morning Answer, Dan Proft explored the renewed debate with Heather Higgins, CEO of Independent Women’s Voice and president of Persuasion Insights, whose recent op-ed in The Hill argues—surprisingly—that Republicans should consider ending the filibuster themselves.
Higgins made clear from the outset that the headline attached to her column overstated her position. She doesn’t believe the republic hinges on the fate of a Senate procedure. But her deeper point was unmistakable: the political landscape has shifted dramatically, and so has her thinking.
Originally intending to write a defense of the filibuster, Higgins said her research into both parties’ rhetoric over the last several years changed her mind. The analogy she offered was blunt. If your opponent repeatedly announces they intend to bring a knife to a boxing match, she said, “showing up with boxing gloves tied on is just stupid.” In her view, Democrats have been transparent about their intentions—eliminating the filibuster, expanding the Supreme Court, and making Washington, D.C. a state to secure long-term Senate dominance.
Given those declarations, Higgins argued that Republicans would be politically negligent not to anticipate such moves and act while they still can, especially on policies with broad bipartisan appeal. Among those priorities, she said, are election integrity measures, healthcare price transparency, and restoring genuine executive authority over the federal bureaucracy.
Proft raised concerns shared by many conservatives: that eliminating the filibuster would accelerate legislative whiplash, allowing each congressional majority to remake government at will. He also questioned whether Democrats who speak boldly about nuking the filibuster would have the stomach for actually doing it, given the political blowback and the long-term consequences.
Higgins countered that political incentives have changed. Centrists willing to buck the party line—like Kyrsten Sinema—have already been targeted and pushed out. Others face intense pressure from a base increasingly aligned with the party’s left flank. “As long as the party is controlled by its most extreme elements,” Higgins said, any senator who breaks ranks risks a primary defeat. In her view, many Democrats who once defended the filibuster would not withstand that pressure.
Still, she acknowledged the risk of escalating political brinkmanship. Proft reiterated the value of legislative friction, arguing that gridlock is often a feature rather than a bug. With a $38 trillion national debt and decades of government expansion already on the books, he suggested that removing barriers to rapid lawmaking could supercharge the very trends conservatives fear most.
Higgins didn’t dispute the danger but said the reality of modern governance complicates the old arguments. Government touches far more of American life than it did when the filibuster began shaping Senate norms. With major institutions faltering, she argued, there are necessary structural reforms that Congress is unable—or unwilling—to address under current rules. For her, the question is whether Republicans should proactively shape that process or cede the power to Democrats when they next have unified control.
Both agreed that some reforms may emerge through the courts regardless. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decisions on the administrative state, they noted, could redefine executive power without any action from Congress. But Higgins stressed that legislative fixes remain essential in other areas, particularly election systems and healthcare markets, where she believes transparency and predictability are essential for public trust.
Whether Republicans would actually wield the power to eliminate the filibuster remains uncertain. Even if they regain a narrow majority, Senate inertia—and internal division—may still prevent dramatic action. But Higgins’ shift reflects a broader strategic debate now taking hold on the right: whether playing defense within old institutional norms is still viable when the other side has telegraphed its willingness to abandon them.
For now, talk of an impending government shutdown and broader battles over spending, healthcare, and judicial power ensure the issue won’t disappear soon. Whether this Congress—or the next—makes the decisive move remains one of Washington’s most consequential open questions.