Trump Wants to Abolish the Filibuster. For LGBTQ+ Americans, That’s Terrifying.
If the filibuster is abolished, Republicans will be free to declare open season on the LGBTQ+ community.
Last night, Trump, in a post on Truth Social, urged Republicans to kill the filibuster in order to end the government shutdown. For those who have followed US politics for a while, a call to kill the filibuster is nothing new; even during Trump’s first term, his opposition to it was well-documented. But while any attempts to eliminate it have so far been shot down by Democrats and Republicans alike, things are different this time.
Now, with the GOP firmly under Trump’s grasp, the end of the filibuster is a serious possibility. And if Trump gets his way, the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that will no doubt be passed at the federal level is nothing short of terrifying. In order to get an idea of the potential consequences this move will have, it’s important to take a look at what Republicans have already tried to pass, especially when it comes to trans rights.
Unprecedented Attacks on Trans Healthcare
For the past few years, Republicans have made it their mission to limit access to gender-affirming care for all ages. While their political rhetoric mainly focuses on ‘child mutilation,’ their actions behind the scenes tell a different story. In 11 GOP-led states, laws have been passed to explicitly block Medicaid coverage—which trans Americans disproportionately rely on—for gender-affirming care. And this idea has been pushed nationwide, only being removed from the so-called ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ at the last minute because of the filibuster it would’ve needed to overcome. Moreover, the House, in its version of the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services appropriations bill that was released last month, has expanded this proposal to limit access to gender-affirming therapy as well.
However, these attacks haven’t just revolved around Medicaid: since May, Republicans have worked to cut all insurance coverage of gender-affirming care. As part of the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill,’ the House passed a provision that would’ve ended the federal requirement for insurance plans regulated by the Affordable Care Act to cover gender-affirming care. When this was removed by the Senate, the HHS did it anyway. A few months later, gender-affirming care coverage under federal employee health plans was banned as well, this time by the Office of Personnel Management. If these executive actions are codified by Congress, it will be much more difficult to undo them in the future.
Additionally, Trump’s Executive Order 14187 has withheld funds from medical providers that offer gender-affirming care to anyone under the age of 19, forcing countless hospitals to violate state law in order to not risk their ability to provide care to other patients. Because Trump is operating without expressed Congressional approval, hospitals have more leeway to resist the order, and courts have a greater ability to block it.
But if the filibuster is eliminated and Congress is able to pass a law that codifies this, the only way for it to even be challenged would be by arguing it’s coercive. Although this principle has been upheld 7-2 by the Supreme Court as recently as 2012 (see: NFIB v. Sebelius), hospitals would still need to sue—something most haven’t shown they’re willing to do. And while this lawsuit plays out, care centres would capitulate at even greater rates than they already have been.
Yet, all this pales in comparison to the fact that nothing would be stopping Republicans from weaponising federal funds against trans healthcare for all ages. Already, Trump’s executive order blocks gender-affirming care for people between the ages of 18 and 19, who are considered legal adults in all but three states. Should Republicans gain the ability to pass legislation with a simple majority, they’d be able to try moving this bar even higher—perhaps to Puerto Rico’s line of 21 or the right-wing talking point of 25.
More Than Just Healthcare
In addition to gender-affirming care, House Republicans have already passed other anti-trans provisions. Back in September, the House’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act was amended at the last minute to include provisions banning pride flags and trans bathroom use on military bases. While the Senate has passed its own version without these proposals, they still included a gender-affirming surgery ban for the military’s health plan, TRICARE.
The House’s NDAA tracks with Trump’s recent actions: also in September, Trump suggested banning pride flags altogether in clear violation of the First Amendment, and his administration has honed in on trying to force recipients of federal funding to adopt bathroom bans of their own. Like with gender-affirming care, all of these attempts would be much more potent should they be rubber-stamped by Congress.
And these attacks go beyond trans people: in the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services bill discussed above, House Republicans have also included a provision defunding the enforcement of the gender identity and sexual orientation discrimination protections established in the 2020 Supreme Court case Bostock v. Clayton County. Moreover, if South Carolina Congresswoman Nancy Mace’s recent reversal on same-sex marriage is any indication, the Respect for Marriage Act may find itself at risk of being repealed without the filibuster protecting it. If that happens, the fate of national marriage equality will be left to the Supreme Court, which has a conservative supermajority.
So far, the filibuster has prevented all of these things from becoming a reality. It forces Senate Republicans to tone down the extremist bills passed by their House counterparts, protecting the nation from the most far-right parts of the GOP agenda. Should it be eliminated, Democrats—who have surprisingly held firm on blocking most of these un-American anti-LGBTQ+ ideas—will lose the ability to have any say on the legislation passed at the federal level. And Republicans will be free to declare open season on queer Americans.
But there is some good news: so far, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has not signalled a willingness to follow Trump’s lead on the filibuster. According to him, “the 60-vote threshold has protected this country,” and no matter which side of the aisle you stand on, he’s right. Just like the filibuster protects Democrats from what they view as extremist, it also protects Republicans from what they view as extremist. If it’s eliminated, the country will see massive legislative instability any time the Congressional majority changes. So unless Republicans want to be kicked out of the legislative process when Democrats regain power, they’ll protect it.
Of course, that relies on a belief that Republicans will eventually lose power. If Trump gets his way, that’s not guaranteed. Hopefully, Majority Leader Thune won’t bow down to Trump’s pressure on this, and even if he does, it would still require at least 50 Republicans to agree to the change. Because Senate Republicans like Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins (who is up for reelection next year in a Democratic-leaning state), Thom Tillis (who is retiring and has said he’d resign if the filibuster is abolished), and Rand Paul are known opponents of eliminating the filibuster, Trump may not succeed in his push.
But he’s trying, and that’s enough.