When the Americans returned President Trump to the White House in 2024, they also handed him a Republican majority in the House and Senate. The expectation was that together, they would deliver on their mandate to save the country by passing a MAGA agenda. The electorate voted for quick and decisive action to be delivered in that limited window of time ahead of the midterm elections.

To that end, Congress delivered on the Working Families Tax Cuts last year via reconciliation, to avoid a Democrat filibuster. Congress also passed President Trump’s rescissions package defunding woke and weaponized foreign assistance, as well as leftist propaganda coming from NPR and PBS.

The key question for Congressional Republicans in 2026 is whether they will continue to take advantage of unified government and deliver these legislative wins, or if they will squander this historic opportunity. The American people are future-oriented, and they expect continued action from their legislators.

A common response to arguments for a more aggressive legislative posture from Republicans focuses on the Senate filibuster, which allows a determined minority to delay or derail most bills. Republicans are tied up, the argument goes, by Democrats who filibuster and will not advance legislation to the floor for a vote. But the truth is that Senate Republicans can do more than they’re currently doing to overcome the Democratic minority on key legislative priorities.

Before moving on, it’s important first to understand how the modern Senate ends debate on legislation, particularly how filibusters now work and how the cloture process operates.

Before 1917, the only way to end debate in the Senate was to exhaust all discussion, amendments, and motions on a bill, after which the Senate would move to a simple majority vote on passage. In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule that allowed for two-thirds of senators voting to invoke “cloture” (meaning an end to debate) on a measure and force it to a vote. They later lowered the cloture threshold to three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn in.

Today, the Senate operates as though a call for cloture is the only way under the rules to advance legislation to the floor for a vote. But that’s false. The Senate operated for over 100 years without cloture, and although it remains the most common way to end debate, it is not the only way. Unlimited debate that that takes place on the floor is still an option, and although it is no easy feat, Senate Republicans could force Democrats to oppose bills not by voting down cloture, but by holding the floor and openly debating the bill until one or the other side relents.

Senate Republicans could easily revive the “talking filibuster,” forcing senators opposed to the pending business to speak against it until they yield the floor. Indeed, this is the picture that comes to mind when most people think of a filibuster.

But today when the filibuster is discussed, people mean something quite different. According to the Senate rules, there are only three things that can happen on the Senate floor: a speech, a vote, or a quorum call. Under current practice, when senators are not speaking, and a vote is not taking place, the Senate is held in a perpetual quorum call, freezing the floor until the next vote or speech. However, the Majority Leader could enforce the two-speech rule and force Democrats to hold the floor. Democrats could offer amendments, but a disciplined GOP conference could vote to table them until the Democrats run out of steam. The mechanism of how this might play out is more detailed than the treatment above, but the principle remains. (Capitol Hill veteran and master of Senate procedure, Rachel Bovard, has written extensively on this subject and her writing is must-reading for all interested in the specifics of parliamentary procedure.)  The Senate Republicans can force Democrats to put some skin in the game if Democrats want to obstruct legislation.

This “talking filibuster” is genuine, organic deliberation, which is one of the reasons why those who support the status quo are so averse to it. Most people don’t realize that nearly every vote, speech, procedure, and maneuver in the modern Senate is predetermined. What happens on the Senate floor is rarely organic. Some members are afraid of a talking filibuster precisely for this reason. They are, moreover, afraid of working more than two-and-a-half days per week. They want the comfort of predetermined results rather than the trench warfare they can expect if they have to work at consensus-building.

Some have also inaccurately characterized forcing the talking filibuster as the “nuclear option.” In fact, so-called nuclear option would be if the Senate by simple majority vote created a new precedent in direct contradiction to the rules. The talking filibuster, by embracing the rules to force debate on the Senate floor is better described as the “anti-nuclear option.”  

Senate Republicans should use every available procedural tool consistent with Senate Rules—including the talking filibuster—to pass broadly popular measures.This would allow Republicans to show they are serious about fighting for the American people and delivering on the mandate to save the country. Republicans have 10 months of unified government left before the midterms and our elected representatives face a critical choice. One option is resignation to failure; a tacit admission that this is already a lame duck Congress. If they do this, Congressional Republicans essentially would be telling the American people that after four years of Biden’s open borders, crime and lawlessness, and weaponized government, Republican legislators couldn’t do much to change the situation. They would be saying that it’s now  up to the voters to re-elect them to do more. This approach underestimates the stakes of the fight before us and would fail to motivate the base, which would rightly feel betrayed.

The other option is to meet the moment and fight back. Senators earn their place in history by action, not inaction. The legislative body that produced some of history’s greatest statesmen ought to commit to work for the American people, regardless of the cost in time, energy, and effort.

The stakes are clear. If Republicans lose the House, Congress will be unable to deliver any landmark Republican legislation to President Trump for the next two years. We can also expect House Democrats to impeach President Trump and initiate endless investigations, amplified by the left-wing media. In this scenario, no action in 2026 could mean no new congressional accomplishments to campaign on in 2028.   

Let’s say that Senate Republicans decided to force a talking filibuster on a piece of legislation like the SAVE America Act, a bill that would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and universal voter ID for federal elections. Senate Democrats would have to take turns holding the floor and speaking about why they are opposed to measures that most Americans support. Chuck Schumer and his conference can only falsely accuse Republicans of instituting a new form of Jim Crow so many times before they run out of things to say. Polls have shown that 83 percent of Americans of all party affiliations support voter ID laws; 69 percent of registered Democrats and 95 percent of registered Republicans. Support for voter ID laws has increased among Democrats over the past few years, with support up 8 percent from 2023 to 2024. What better use of the Senate’s time than forcing Senate Democrats to argue around the clock in opposition to a popular policy?

Of course, this would not be an easy process. It would require discipline from Senate Republicans and a commitment to wear down the Democrats. It would require late nights, early mornings, and missed trips abroad. Even then, the result would not be guaranteed. Republicans could reach exhaustion before the Democrats, or the Democrats could be so galvanized by the Republican attempt to force the issue that they are able to filibuster until the midterms. Many Republican senators would discard the idea for that reason alone. But that’s exactly why it must be done. Why not let Democrats voice their opposition to Voter ID through the midterms?

Even if Republicans chose to force a filibuster and never received a vote of 51, there could be other important results from this exercise. It could lead to Democratic concessions on other legislative priorities to stop the process, paving the way for simple majority votes on other issues. It could motivate the GOP base to turn out in November because they see Republican senators fighting day and night for the things they care about. Put simply, a talking filibuster could lead the Senate back to what it’s meant to be: the heart of legislative deliberation and debate.

No one is suggesting that the Senate majority leader can go to the Senate floor, say “talking filibuster” three times into a C-SPAN camera, and magically pass anything he wants at a mere majority threshold. The hour is already late, and a revived talking filibuster would take time in both planning and execution. But it’s time to reject the comfortable status quo. Republicans still have a governing majority. Their actions will determine whether they can keep it.