Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., on Monday set in motion a parliamentary maneuver intended to reduce the number of votes required to overcome a filibuster for a slate of lower-level presidential nominees, a step that could shift the Senate’s confirmation dynamics if successful.
Thune introduced a resolution to accelerate consideration of roughly 40 nominees and is banking on a planned procedural vote on Thursday to produce a failed cloture bid. That failure would allow him to seek a re-vote and then make a point of order contending that a simple majority, rather than the traditional 60 votes, is sufficient to end debate on this specific type of resolution. If the chair rules against him, Thune would ask the Senate to overturn the ruling; a 51-vote majority to do so would set a new precedent that could be used to confirm batches of nominees with a simple majority.
The tactic mirrors moves by former leaders who changed Senate precedent in recent years. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used the so-called "nuclear option" to lower the threshold for ending debate on executive-branch nominations (excluding Supreme Court nominees) from 60 votes to a simple majority. In 2017, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell extended that precedent to Supreme Court nominations. Those precedent changes were accomplished through parliamentary rulings and votes rather than formal rule revisions, which would require a two-thirds majority or 67 votes to adopt or amend.
Under Thune’s plan, if the initial cloture vote Thursday fails to reach 60, he would switch his vote in order to demand a re-vote and then raise a point of order asserting that the cloture threshold for this type of omnibus nominations resolution is a simple majority. The chair — potentially the president pro tempore or the vice president in their role as presiding officer — would likely rule against that point of order, at which point Thune would move to appeal and ask the Senate to overturn the ruling. A 51-vote majority to reverse the chair would effectively create new precedent for future consideration of similar bundles of nominees.
If Thune secures that precedent, he could file cloture again and force subsequent votes under the new standard. Under the timetable being discussed, Republicans could seek a 51-vote cloture vote on Monday, Sept. 15, and, if successful, move to confirm the slate of nominees the following week, with votes potentially on Sept. 17.
The slate includes nominees for a range of lower-level administration posts. Among those reported to be in the queue are former Rep. Brandon Williams, R-N.Y., for Under Secretary for Nuclear Security; Leslie Beyer as an assistant secretary at the Interior Department; Richard Anderson as an assistant secretary of the Air Force; Jovan Jovanovic to lead the Export-Import Bank; and Callista Gingrich as ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein.
Senate Democrats sharply criticized the planned maneuver. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., warned Republican colleagues that altering precedent could have long-term consequences when Democrats return to the majority. "I say to my Republican colleagues, think carefully before taking this step," Schumer said. "If you go nuclear, it's going to be a decision you will come to regret." Thune accused Democrats of obstruction, saying the minority was blocking the confirmation process. "This is simply the world's longest, most drawn out temper tantrum over losing an election," he said.
The push continues a pattern of partisan precedent changes in recent decades. Observers point to a series of procedural gambits stretching back to rules rulings in 1980 under the late Sen. Robert Byrd, and to the two more recent "nuclear option" moves by Reid and McConnell that narrowed the minority's ability to demand 60 votes on certain nominations. Legalists note the distinction between changing Senate rules, which requires a supermajority, and creating new precedents by overturning a chair's ruling, which can be achieved by a simple majority.
Supporters of Thune’s approach say it would streamline confirmations and allow the Senate to address a backlog of nominations. Opponents say it further erodes minority protections and could invite similar retaliatory measures when control of the chamber flips. Republicans have framed the effort as limited to lower-level nominees and not targeting judges or cabinet secretaries, though Democrats caution that precedent can be broadened by future majorities.
The planned parliamentary sequence does not alter the standing legislative filibuster for most bills, which still requires 60 votes to break, nor does it constitute a formal rules change. But if the Senate votes to overturn the chair’s ruling, the chamber will have established a new precedent that reduces the minority’s leverage over bundled nominations. Whether the gambit succeeds will depend on whether a bare GOP majority is willing to use that precedent and on whether any defections occur during the decisive roll calls.
The maneuver highlights the continued erosion of traditional Senate norms through strategic precedents and the tit-for-tat evolution of chamber procedure that both parties have pursued when in power. The outcome of the votes that Thune has scheduled or signaled will determine whether the majority can clear the pending slate of nominations by simple majority or whether the long-standing 60-vote threshold will be preserved for this type of resolution.
Votes related to the resolution and any subsequent appeals are expected this week, and confirmations of the nominees would follow if the procedural changes are adopted by a Senate majority. The final outcome — and its implications for future confirmation fights — will hinge on the results of those roll calls.