Will Chuck Schumer finally kill the legislative filibuster? The better question may be: Will Schumer still be in a position to make that choice?
Both Hakeem Jeffries and Schumer have begun to learn a hard lesson in politics: Nothing exceeds like success. Now that voters have handed Democrats workable majorities in Congress, the pressure is on to deliver. But what can they deliver while Donald Trump holds, in Barack Obama's brag, a pen and a phone?
Jeffries is almost certainly safe in his leadership position. Democrats won't derail the first black Speaker from taking the gavel in January. Schumer, on the other hand, faces a real revolt from his caucus thanks to the decades he has spent climbing the leadership ladder. Resistance to his leadership has percolated for years, but now that Schumer has embraced radicals as part of his "big tent," he may get kicked out the back flap. Via Twitchy:
🚨 EL-SAYED REFUSES TO BACK SCHUMER FOR SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed declined to endorse Chuck Schumer for Democratic Senate leader, despite Schumer’s support for his campaign. “I do believe we need new leadership and I think people are hungry for it,” El-Sayed declared. The outspoken Israel critic signals growing divisions within the Democratic Party over its leadership and direction.
— Mossadil Commentary (@MOSSADil) November 4, 2026
“I do believe we need new leadership and I think people are hungry for it,” El-Sayed declared. The outspoken Israel critic signals growing divisions within the Democratic Party over its leadership and direction.
Schumer has faced calls for his ouster before, but he spent much of this year defending his choices in the primaries. He took a lot of heat for recruiting Janet Mills in Maine to run against Susan Collins rather than back the man progressives recruited, Graham Platner. Despite that blowing up in progressives' faces, resentment has built all summer and fall, boosting years-long criticisms about his ineffectiveness against Trump and the lack of success in pushing the progressive agenda during the Biden Regency.
In the hours since the Democrats' big wins, Schumer's standing has not improved. In fact, removing him has become a cause celebre, literally:
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been the Senate leader of the Democratic Party for several years. Following the victory in the midterm election, several Democrats have called for a change in Senate leadership.
Comedian, actress, and TV host Rosie O’Donnell joined the call and wrote on Threads:
“Bye bye, Chuck.”
It's not just El-Sayed or Rosie O'Donnell, either. None of the freshmen want Schumer to stick around as Senate Majority Leader:
Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan thanked Chuck Schumer for his leadership but said it was time for a change.
“I am tremendously grateful for Chuck Schumer’s leadership … and I think it is time for new leadership,” Flanagan stated.
Illinois Senator-elect Juliana Stratton and Kansas Senator-elect Adam Hamilton declined to pledge support for Schumer’s re-election as Senate leader.
Maine Senator-elect Troy Jackson raised doubts about Chuck Schumer’s ability to “reconnect” Democrats with working-class Americans and opposed his continued leadership.
While Texas Senator-elect James Talarico didn’t directly oppose Schumer, he said the Democrats needed “new blood” in the front during his September interview with Punchbowl News. New Hampshire Senator-elect Chris Pappas similarly emphasized the need for “new voices in leadership” during a conversation with MS NOW's Peter Alexander in September.
According to this report, support may coalesce around Chris Van Hollen, the two-term Democrat from Maryland. Van Hollen has denied any interest in the job, claiming that he's "kicking the tires" on a potential presidential run, but that seems like a long shot while more prominent Democrats and socialists like Gavin Newsom, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and even Kamala Harris appear ready to jump into the ring. Van Hollen also refuses to endorse Schumer for the job, however, until he offers up a "full, open, and honest conversation":
“My view is that before anybody commits to anybody who may run for leader, we need to have a full, open and honest conversation within our caucus about how we’re going to use this power and the responsibility that’s been given to us at this critical moment,” he said.
Van Hollen said Democrats’ decisive victory was primarily a repudiation of President Donald Trump and Republican policies, not necessarily an embrace of Democratic values.
“We need to not only tell people what we’re against, although that’s obviously very important in the midterm, but we need to show people what we stand for,” Van Hollen said.
Schumer has been in Washington, D.C. for over 30 years. He's been a part of the Democrat leadership establishment nearly the entire time. Welcoming the radicals and revolutionaries into the "big tent" doesn't seem like a smart strategy, unless for some reason Schumer thought the crocodiles would eat him last. Who did he think they'd target – Elizabeth Warren?
With all that in mind, let's discuss the filibuster. Reporters asked him about it yesterday, and Schumer refused to answer:
🚨 JUST IN: Incoming Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D) REFUSES to rule out NUKING THE FILIBUSTER CALLED IT. He's straight-up asked, and he DODGES then walks off. Q: Do you support nuking the Senate filibuster? SCHUMER: The first thing we'll do is reduce costs and work the legislative process. I am betting Schumer is going to decide WHEN to nuke the filibuster, not if. Republicans taking the Senate will be tough in 2028, so he's got time now unless there is a red tsunami in 2 years He may want to do it for an incoming Democrat president, which is why we need to WIN in 2 years 🇺🇸
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 4, 2026
Don't expect him to remain shy about this for long. If he wants to save his phony-baloney job, he has to harumph in the direction of the radicals to gain some trust, and the much-despised filibuster would be the easiest virtue signal at hand.
Substantively, of course, this would do nothing for Democrats, except allow for performative legislation that has no chance of becoming law in the next two years. Democrats will have 55 or 56 seats in the Senate; with the filibuster in place, they would have to work with Republicans to get bills passed. Without it, they could push through their entire progressive agenda on simple-majority votes. However, Trump can veto it all, and Democrats don't have nearly enough votes in either chamber to override a veto on bills without significant Republican support, which they won't have unless they negotiate with the GOP and/or Trump on some common-sense policies.
That, of course, is not what the revolutionaries have in mind. They want to burn it all down, pack the Supreme Court, reduce the executive branch to a subsidiary of the House of Representatives, etc. None of that will make it into law either. As the futility sets in, the revolutionaries will want to put someone up against the wall, politically speaking (we hope), and sooner or later that someone will be Chuck Schumer.
The filibuster is an easy sop to throw to the radicals. It won't benefit Democrats at all except to run roughshod over the GOP minority for the next two years, but that may be enough to keep the revolutionaries pointing their rhetorical guns outside the tent rather than inside. When it comes down to it, Schumer values his own power and position a lot more than he does the filibuster.
Expect Schumer to make a move to eliminate the filibuster in the coming weeks, perhaps even a pledge in the next few days to keep his caucus happy. The Senate will complete its transition to a smaller version of the House that began with the 17th Amendment and accelerated with Harry Reid's nuclear option in 2013. Schumer helped tee that up to pacify Democrats who wanted Republicans sidelined in Barack Obama's second term. Don't expect Schumer to do any differently now.
