Will a Democratic-controlled Senate eliminate the filibuster rule before the end of Donald Trump's second term?

Donald Trump's first term as president ended on January 20, 2021. His second term began on January 20, 2025. The filibuster rule has been modified several times, with the cloture threshold lowered to 60 votes in 1975. This question asks whether the Senate, under Democratic control, will abolish the filibuster before the end of Trump's second term, which concludes on January 20, 2029.

Forecasted on

Forecast probabilities

  • Yes, the filibuster will be eliminated.: 7.1%
  • No, the filibuster will not be eliminated.: 92.9%

Reasoning

The forecast is 7.1% Yes and 92.9% No. Democrats may take the Senate, but control alone is not enough: full abolition would require a unified caucus and a compelling reason to act while Donald Trump can veto the legislation the change might help them pass.

Yes — A narrow opening for change

Democrats have a plausible path to Senate control. Recent forecasts put their chances between 57% and about 75%, with some race ratings shifting in their favor; still, Republicans currently hold a 53–47 majority, and polling error could preserve it [e18, e19, e20, e23, e68]. If Democrats do win, they could change Senate precedent by simple majority, without Republican support [a14].

There is also real pressure to act. Juliana Stratton has called for eliminating the filibuster, and other Democrats have backed abolition or reform to advance voting rights and other priorities [e3, a8, a10, a11]. Democratic voters show majority support, while repeated legislative blockages offer advocates a practical argument for change [e8, e11, e52, e76]. The departures of Manchin and Sinema remove two prominent opponents from the earlier fight.

No — Control is not the same as consensus

The strongest case against abolition is the historical one: the Senate has repeatedly weakened the filibuster for nominations, but never abolished the legislative version. In 2022, Democrats failed to pass even a narrower change, despite having unified party control of the federal government [a12, a13, e31]. A future Democratic Senate would likely be narrow, so a small number of dissenters could again decide the question.

There are signs that such dissent would persist. John Fetterman has called his past support for ending the filibuster a mistake, Angus King has opposed abolition, and some Democratic candidates have defended retaining the rule [e16, e17, e12, e21]. Meanwhile, the bipartisan Merkley–Daines proposal seeks procedural changes rather than full abolition, suggesting that compromise or limited reform could absorb some of the pressure [e1, e5, e6].

The political incentive is also weaker under divided government. Trump would remain president through January 2029, able to veto legislation passed by a Democratic Senate; overriding a veto would require a supermajority, not merely a change to Senate procedure. A Democratic Senate could still investigate the administration or block nominees, but those aims do not require ending the legislative filibuster [e58, e61]. Eliminating the rule could also make it easier for a future Republican majority to enact its own agenda—a risk Trump himself has highlighted while urging Republicans to abolish it [e7, e13, e14, e15].

Why No is the clear favorite

The possibility of Democratic control, growing advocacy, and the Senate’s precedent for incremental rule changes keep the Yes outcome alive. But full abolition has a very low historical base rate, would need near-total Democratic agreement, and offers limited immediate legislative payoff while Trump holds the veto. Taken together, those factors support 7.1% Yes and 92.9% No.

Cited evidence