Politics

Commentary: The U.S. Senate is a mess. He wants to fix it, from the inside

Published

1 month ago

December 11, 2025

Commentary: The U.S. Senate is a mess. He wants to fix it, from the inside

To say the U.S. Senate has grown dysfunctional is like suggesting water is wet or the nighttime sky is dark.

The institution that fancies itself “the world’s greatest deliberative body” is supposed to serve as a cooling saucer that tempers the more hotheaded House, applying weight and wisdom as it addresses the Great Issues of Our Time. Instead, it’s devolved into an unsightly mess of gridlock and partisan hackery.

Part of that is owing to the filibuster, one of the Senate’s most distinctive features, which over roughly the last decade has been abused and misused to a point it’s become, in the words of congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein, a singular “weapon of mass obstruction.”

Democrat Jeff Merkley, the junior U.S. senator from Oregon, has spent years on a mostly one-man crusade aimed at reforming the filibuster and restoring a bit of sunlight and self-discipline to the chamber.

In 2022, Merkley and his allies came within two votes of modifying the filibuster for voting rights legislation. He continues scouring for support for a broader overhaul.

“This is essential for people to see what their representatives are debating and then have the opportunity to weigh in,” said Merkley, speaking from the Capitol after a vote on the Senate floor.

“Without the public being able to see the obstruction,” he said, “they [can’t] really respond to it.”

What follows is a discussion of congressional process, but before your eyes glaze over, you should understand that process is what determines the way many things are accomplished — or not — in Washington, D.C.

The filibuster, which has changed over time, involves how long senators are allowed to speak on the Senate floor. Unlike the House, which has rules limiting debate, the Senate has no restrictions, unless a vote is taken to specifically end discussion and bring a matter to resolution. More on that in a moment.

In the broadest sense, the filibuster is a way to protect the interests of a minority of senators, as well as their constituents, by allowing a small but determined number of lawmakers — or even a lone member — to prevent a vote by commanding the floor and talking nonstop.

Perhaps the most famous, and certainly the most romanticized, version of a filibuster took place in the film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” The fictitious Sen. Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, talks to the point of exhausted collapse as a way of garnering national notice and exposing political corruption.

The filibustering James Stewart received an Oscar nomination for lead actor for his portrayal of Sen. Jefferson Smith in the 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

(From the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences)

In the Frank Capra classic, the good guy wins. (It’s Hollywood, after all.) In real life, the filibuster has often been used for less noble purpose, most notably the decades-long thwarting of civil rights legislation.

A filibuster used to be a rare thing, its power holstered for all but the most important issues. But in recent years that’s changed, drastically. The filibuster — or, rather, the threat of a filibuster — has become almost routine.

In part, that’s because of how easy it’s become to gum up the Senate.

Members no longer need to hold the floor and talk nonstop, testing not just the power of their argument but their physical mettle and bladder control. These days it’s enough for a lawmaker to simply state their intention to filibuster. Typically, legislation is then laid aside as the Senate moves on to other business.

That pain-free approach has changed the very nature of the filibuster, Ornstein said, and transformed how the Senate operates, much to its detriment.

The burden is “supposed to be on the minority to really put itself … on the line to generate a larger debate” — a la the fictive Jefferson Smith — “and hope during the course of it that they can turn opinions around,” said Ornstein, an emeritus scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “What’s happened is the burden has shifted to the majority [to break a filibuster], which is a bastardization of what the filibuster is supposed to be about.”

It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, by invoking cloture, to use Senate terminology. That means the passage of legislation now effectively requires a supermajority of the 100-member Senate. (There are workarounds, which, for instance, allowed President Trump’s massive tax-and-spending bill to pass on a 51-50 vote, with Vice President JD Vance casting the tie-breaker.)

The filibuster gives outsized power to the minority.

To offer but two examples, there is strong public support for universal background checks for gun buyers and greater transparency in campaign finance. Both issues have majority backing in the Senate. No matter. Legislation to achieve each has repeatedly been filibustered to death.

That’s where Merkley would step in.

He would not eliminate the filibuster, a prerogative jealously guarded by members of both parties. (In a rare show of independence, Republican senators rejected President Trump’s call to scrap the filibuster to end the recent government shutdown.)

Rather, Merkley would eliminate what’s come to be called “the silent filibuster” and force lawmakers to actually take the floor and publicly press their case until they prevail, give up or physically give out. “My reform is based on the premise that the minority should have a voice,” he said, “but not a veto.”

Forcing senators to stand and deliver would make it more difficult to filibuster, ending its promiscuous overuse, Merkley suggested, and — ideally— engaging the public in a way privately messaging fellow senators — I dissent! — does not.

“Because it’s so visible publicly,” Merkley said, “the American citizens get to weigh in, and there’s consequences. They may frame you as a hero for your obstruction, or a bum, and that has a reflection in the next election.”

The power to repair itself rests entirely within the Senate, where lawmakers set their own rules and can change them as they see fit. (Nice work, if you can get it.)

The filibuster has been tweaked before. In 1917, senators adopted the rule allowing cloture if a two-thirds majority voted to end debate. In 1975, the Senate reduced that number to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members.

More recently, Democrats changed the rules to prevent filibustering most presidential nominations. Republicans extended that to include Supreme Court nominees.

Reforming the filibuster is hardly a cure-all. The Senate has debased itself by ceding much of its authority and becoming little more than an arm of the Trump White House. Fixing that requires more than a procedural revamp.

But forcing lawmakers to stand their ground, argue their case and seek to rally voters instead of lifting a pinkie and grinding the Senate to a halt? That’s something worth talking about.

Politics

Judge rules NYC’s lone Republican congressional district unconstitutional, orders redraw

Published

8 hours ago

January 22, 2026

Press Room

Judge rules NYC’s lone Republican congressional district unconstitutional, orders redraw

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A judge ruled Wednesday that the configuration of New York City’s lone congressional district represented by a Republican is unconstitutional, ordering the state to redraw the district by next month.

State Supreme Court Justice Jeffrey Pearlman ruled that the composition of New York’s 11th Congressional District — which covers all of Staten Island and parts of southern Brooklyn — unconstitutionally diluted the votes of Black and Hispanic residents. He ordered the Independent Redistricting Commission to complete a new map by Feb. 6.

The district is held by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., who won her seat in 2020. She slammed the ruling in a statement Wednesday, calling it “a frivolous attempt by Washington Democrats to steal this congressional seat from the people and we are very confident that we will prevail at the end of the day.”

The district has trended Republican in recent elections, voting for President Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024, and backing GOP Senate candidates in 2022 and 2024 after previously supporting Democratic incumbents.

FEDERAL COURT CLEARS CALIFORNIA’S NEW HOUSE MAP BOOSTING DEMOCRATS AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, a Republican from New York, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The lawsuit, filed by Democratic attorney Marc Elias’ law firm, argued that the existing district dilutes the voting power of Staten Island’s growing Black and Latino populations, violating minority protections under the New York Voting Rights Act.

“We are pleased that the court correctly recognized that the current district lines have systematically diluted the votes of Black and Latino Staten Islanders, despite decades of demographic growth in those communities,” Elias Law Group Partner Aria Branch said.

Branch added that the ruling reaffirms that New York’s Constitution “provides robust protections against racial vote dilution, and we are proud to have stood with our clients to vindicate those rights.”

VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS MOVE TO SEIZE REDISTRICTING POWER, OPENING DOOR TO 4 NEW LEFT-LEANING SEATS

Democratic attorney Marc Elias’ law firm argued in a lawsuit that New York’s 11th Congressional District dilutes the voting power of Staten Island’s growing Black and Latino populations, violating minority protections under the New York Voting Rights Act. (Screenshot/CBS)

The judge said in the ruling that there was strong evidence of a “racially polarized voting bloc,” as well as “a history of discrimination that impacts current day political participation and representation,” and “that racial appeals are still made in political campaigns today.”

Republicans are expected to appeal the ruling, escalating the national battle over congressional maps as both parties move to reshape districts ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Ed Cox, chairman of the New York State Republican Committee, criticized the ruling as partisan, arguing that Gov. Kathy Hochul and state Democrats had a chance to alter the district in 2024.

“This entire exercise is a cynical attempt to enact an illegal partisan gerrymander under the guise of a voting rights case,” Cox said in a statement. “It is shocking that the Governor and Attorney General did not defend the law that the legislature passed and the Governor signed in 2024 – they are clearly colluding with the plaintiffs in this case.”

REDISTRICTING BATTLES BREWING ACROSS THE COUNTRY AS PARTIES COMPETE FOR POWER AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

NY Gov. Kathy Hochul speaks with Moms First CEO Reshma Saujani during the Economic Club of New York luncheon on September 18, 2025, in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

New York was forced to redraw its congressional districts after the 2020 census, sparking a legal battle over maps used in the 2022 midterms. Democrats’ initial map was struck down as unconstitutional gerrymandering, leading a court to order an independent redraw that dramatically reshaped districts. While those maps were used in 2022, they were later thrown out and redrawn again ahead of the 2024 election.

Hochul welcomed the ruling, saying the state Constitution guarantees fair representation.

“The court’s decision underscores the importance of these constitutional principles and directs the congressional map be redrawn by the New York Independent Redistricting Commission so impacted communities are fully represented and have a voice in our democracy,” she said in a statement.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Staten Island Republican Party Chairman Michael Tannousis reacted to the ruling, calling the decision “a complete sham.”

“They are trying to fracture our community because they don’t like how we vote,” he said in a statement. “It’s rigged. It’s transparently partisan, and it’s wrong.”

Fox News Digital’s Elizabeth Elkind and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Politics

Council approves boost in LAPD hiring, despite budget concerns

Published

8 hours ago

January 22, 2026

Press Room

Council approves boost in LAPD hiring, despite budget concerns

For eight months, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Karen Bass have butted heads over police hiring amid a budget crisis.

The conflict began last spring when the council voted to reduce LAPD hiring to 240 new police officers this budget year — just half the officers Bass had requested — in order to close the city’s $1-billion budget gap and stave off layoffs of other city employees, including civilian workers in the LAPD.

Last month, the council bumped the number of hires up to 280 after the LAPD said it had already hired its 240 allotted officers just halfway through the fiscal year. But the council still declined to fully fund up to 410 positions, which the mayor had called for in a letter.

On Wednesday, the council finally approved the hiring of up to 410 officers this year after hearing back from the city administrative officer that the money used to fund the positions this year will come from the LAPD’s budget, and not from the city’s general fund.

The hiring of the officers delivers a modest victory to Bass, who promised she would find the money for additional police hires when she signed the budget in June. Bass said the additional hires — which would bring the police force to around 8,555 officers by the end of the fiscal year — still would not match the number of officers lost through attrition this year.

“The second-largest city in the United States cannot have an effective police department when it is operating with the lowest staffing levels in years,” she said. “And with only five months until Los Angeles welcomes tens of thousands of fans from around the world for the FIFA World Cup, investing in more police officers is critical to public safety.”

Still, the mayor’s victory comes after months of tension, with some council members questioning the fiscal wisdom of hiring more officers than the city budgeted for during a time of fiscal crisis.

“An overwhelming majority of us support additional … hiring,” said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who chairs the council’s powerful Budget and Finance Committee. “My concern has been and continues to be the fiscal impact to next year.”

While Yaroslavsky said she would have preferred to stick to the original council plan of 240 hires this year, she thanked the city administrative officer and the Police Department for finding funds to hire the additional 130 officers for the rest of the fiscal year.

The motion to continue hiring up to 410 officers passed in a 9-3 vote.

The funding for the hires, which is about $2.6 million in total for this fiscal year, will come from pots of money within the Police Department, including a tranche from the “accumulated overtime” bucket, which is used to pay out overtime to officers who are retiring. The city found the $12 million allotted for that was not being fully drawn down this year.

Some on the council took issue with the additional hiring, saying the city did not know how it would pay for the ongoing cost of the hired officers, which will grow to about $25 million in the next fiscal year.

“How are we going to pay for the ongoing cost?” asked Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who voted against the new plan. “We are sort of back to where we were in December where we are committing ourselves to a $25-million price tag with no plan for where that’s going to come from.”

In a report, the city administrative officer said the $25 million should be found in “ongoing reductions with the Police Department” that would not result in layoffs to civilian staff at the department or take from the city’s general fund.

“This is robbing Peter to pay Paul,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez about the funding decision.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell, who attended the City Council meeting, took issue with council members criticizing the increased hiring.

“We’re working on a skeleton crew,” he said. “This department is doing amazing things for the residents of this city, but it doesn’t seem to be appreciated.”

Politics

Video: Trump Targets European Allies in Lengthy Speech at Davos

Published

19 hours ago

January 21, 2026

Press Room

Video: Trump Targets European Allies in Lengthy Speech at Davos

new video loaded: Trump Targets European Allies in Lengthy Speech at Davos

transcript

Trump Targets European Allies in Lengthy Speech at Davos

In a speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Wednesday, President Trump reasserted his ambitions to seize Greenland, but pledged to not use force.

: And I love Europe and I want to see Europe go good. But it’s not heading in the right direction. I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland. I don’t know that they’d be there for us. They’re not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. I mean, our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money. Without us — without us, most of the countries don’t even work. I believe they’re at a point now where they can come together and get a deal done. And if they don’t, they’re stupid. I don’t want to insult anyone, but you got to get this deal done.
Advertisement

In a speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Wednesday, President Trump reasserted his ambitions to seize Greenland, but pledged to not use force.

By McKinnon de Kuyper

January 21, 2026