Senator John Curtis, a Republican from Utah, has firmly stated his opposition to removing the Senate filibuster, which mandates a 60-vote threshold for legislation to proceed. This stance counters President Trump’s suggestion to use the “nuclear option” to alter Senate procedures in order to end the government shutdown.

“The filibuster compels us to seek consensus in the Senate. While political power may shift, foundational principles should remain steadfast. I am strongly against its removal,” Curtis expressed on the social media platform X, in reaction to a Fox News article about Trump advocating for the filibuster’s elimination to secure government funding.

In efforts to reopen the government, Senate Republicans have attempted 13 times to pass a House-approved continuing resolution extending funding until November 21.

However, Democrats have consistently blocked this measure, preventing Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota from securing the necessary 60 votes to advance the funding legislation.

Last year, Thune committed to maintaining the Senate filibuster while campaigning to become majority leader after Republicans regained control of the Senate from Democrats.

Members of his leadership team, including Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), the Senate Republican Policy Committee vice chairman, and John Cornyn (R-Texas), an advisor to Thune’s leadership team, earlier this month ruled out a potential change to the filibuster.

Some Republicans, however, predicted that Trump would ramp up pressure on the Senate GOP leadership to eliminate the filibuster if the shutdown dragged into November.

“I think the pressure from the White House will become pretty enormous,” one Republican senator, who requested anonymity, told The Hill last week, predicting that Trump would demand that GOP leaders blow up the filibuster to end the shutdown.  

Thune told reporters last week that getting rid of the filibuster to reopen government would be a “bad idea.”

Senate Republicans control 53 seats and could change the chamber’s rules by voting to set a new precedent that the filibuster does not apply to government-funding legislation.

Changing the rules with a simple-majority vote instead of the 67 votes normally required under regular order is viewed as such a drastic step that it’s compared to detonating a nuclear weapon in a military conflict.

Doing so would radically change the Senate by opening the door to passing legislation with a simple majority instead of 60, which would allow any party that wins control of the White House and both chambers of Congress to rewrite the nation’s laws in a relatively short period of time.