As the Trump administration continues to smash a metaphorical wrecking ball into the federal government, many congressional Democrats seem to have embraced the role of passive observers. In response to a vocal base wondering why they aren’t doing more, Democrats, who have minority representation in both chambers of Congress, have at times complained that they lack power and leverage to act forcefully. There’s some truth to that sentiment — but it illustrates a lack of tactical creativity and a strategic certainty.
It’s true, as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., lamented last week, that the House’s rules are set up to benefit whoever can muster a majority, even if it’s only by one vote. The most leverage House Democrats can use then depends on peeling off support from a Republican caucus that is largely in lockstep. In the Senate, though, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has more plentiful options for stalling President Donald Trump’s agenda — and he’s barely used any.
There is another option for, if not totally stopping things, at least slowing things to a crawl.
For better or for worse, the Senate’s rules are designed to empower individual senators and those members who find themselves in the minority on an issue. In general, those rules are meant to keep the debate flowing among the Senate’s members, but there are two mechanisms on opposite ends of the spectrum that are designed to either speed things up or slow them down. Most of the focus in recent years has been on the filibuster, which requires a vote of 60 senators to end debate and force a vote on almost any substantive matter.
It remains my belief that the filibuster is an antidemocratic tool that doesn’t serve as the bulwark against extremism its defenders say it does, as much as it’s used to shelter abuses of Americans’ rights and prevent positive change. But there is another option for, if not totally stopping things, at least slowing things to a crawl. Much of the Senate’s work is measured in floor hours, the amount of time a bit of business must be debated before a vote can be held on it. If the filibuster is the spanner in the works, meant to grind things to a halt in the Senate, “unanimous consent” is the grease that keeps the gears turning smoothly.
Here’s how I previously described unanimous consent agreements, which generally involve a senator telling the chair, “I ask unanimous consent for” whatever they are proposing: “Such agreements basically operate on the assumption that all 100 senators are totally fine with whatever action is being proposed, no vote needed. The most basic unanimous consent agreement can be used to insert items into the Congressional Record; the most complicated can line up weeks’ worth of legislative action in the time it takes to read out the agreement.” It only takes one senator’s disagreement to nip those agreements in the bud though making it a primed weapon for obstruction, especially when it comes to speedily working through a raft of nominations.
In 2022, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was threatening to all but shut down the Senate if Democrats overturned the legislative filibuster to pass a voting rights bill. If he’d followed through with his threat, it would have been a massive headache for Democrats, but also for Republicans. Rejecting a unanimous consent agreement can add hours of debate time from the calendar, as the majority leader often uses lengthy requests to set up even short recesses, general administrative business like approving the Senate Journal’s records and other parliamentary necessities. If each of the mundane tasks usually covered by unanimous consent required a vote, it would also require a majority of the Senate to be present which, if you ever watch C-SPAN 2, you know is a rarity.
Schumer has been reluctant to encourage his members to oppose every unanimous consent request. That’s led though to moments like we saw last week during the leadup to the Senate voting on Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was positively giddy last Tuesday night as he read out the text of a request that allowed for Gabbard’s vote to take place the next morning and cut the post-cloture debate time for Kennedy’s nomination. There was no objection from Senate Democrats, prompting major frustration from supporters who want Democrats to act more like an opposition party.
Schumer has been reluctant to encourage his members to oppose every unanimous consent request.
Tactically speaking, there would be a clear benefit in Schumer pulling every lever possible to make the process of legislating more difficult for his counterpart, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota. Forcing votes on even the little things and requiring Republicans to stay on the Senate floor to keep processes moving would at least be something in the face of Trump’s threatened usurpation of congressional powers. It would also require some sacrifice from his members, who have gotten used to heading home on Thursday afternoons, and some of whom still hope to maintain a measure of comity with their GOP colleagues.
I can see, though, the risk of placing too much emphasis on tactics over a broader strategy. The decision to hold all-night debates arguing against Russel Vought’s confirmation as the head of the Office of Management and Budget makes sense tactically. But it’s impossible to promote such a delay as a victory when the GOP is still able to run out the clock and vote on whatever they want. The same would apply to Schumer pulling the ripcord and rotating in a senator to disapprove of any and all unanimous consent requests. It would be frustrating for Republicans in the short run, potentially even limit some of the damage done in the long run, but can still be overcome with little more than patience from Republicans.
Moreover, the internal debate over tactics is only possible because Democrats still lack an overall strategic goal. When the year began, Schumer argued that allowing some nominations to proceed and making a fuss about the more controversial ones would show that Democrats were being reasonable. As the chaos has grown, that idea has been abandoned, but there’s still reluctance to be seen as an obstacle versus putting forward a more focused economic message.
In contrast, the Senate GOP under McConnell had a simple strategy: Regain and maintain power — period. During the Obama era, that looked like Republicans making sure the Senate became the “graveyard of legislation.” There is no similar agreement as to what that should look for Democrats like under the Trump regime, even as it becomes clear that there’s little that he could do that will cause his legislative allies to cross the aisle in defense of the country. It’s up to Democrats then to decide — and fast — what they want to do over the next two years: hope that Trump will fail and rebuild later, or work to ensure that he fails and preserve as much as possible.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House.