In a March 17 interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, Thune dismissed calls from colleagues like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) to force a “talking filibuster” to advance the SAVE America Act, arguing both the votes and the strategy are lacking.
“Well, first off and foremost, because we don’t have the votes for it,” Thune said. “It would take even a talking filibuster; it would take 51 votes. We don’t have 51 votes for that in the United States Senate.”
Thune on the Filibuster-Epstein-SAVE Act nexus pic.twitter.com/QajIUjo2Ev
— Cowtown Caller (@CowtownCaller) March 18, 2026
Thune went further, warning that opening the floor to unlimited debate would allow Democrats to attach controversial amendments — “whether it’s Epstein or blocking President Trump’s tariffs or, you know, [increasing] Obamacare subsidies” — potentially derailing the bill or other bills altogether.
The remarks come as the Senate debates the SAVE America Act, which advanced on a narrow 51-48 procedural vote on March 17, 2026, according to prior reporting by The Dallas Express. While that vote allowed debate to begin, final passage still faces the Senate’s 60-vote threshold under current filibuster rules.
Understanding the Filibuster
At the center of the standoff is the Senate filibuster — a procedural tool that allows a minority of senators to delay or block legislation.
In simple terms, a bill in the Senate only needs 51 votes to pass. Before a final vote can occur, however, at least 60 senators must agree to end debate, a process known as cloture. This effectively creates a 60-vote requirement for most major legislation.
The modern filibuster does not usually involve marathon speeches. Instead, a silent filibuster allows as few as 41 senators to signal opposition, preventing a vote.
Historically, this wasn’t always the case. The filibuster traces back to 1806, when the Senate eliminated a rule that previously allowed a simple majority to cut off debate. That change unintentionally created the possibility for unlimited debate and obstruction.
In 1917, lawmakers adopted Rule XXII, allowing a supermajority to end debate. The threshold was lowered to 60 votes in 1975, where it remains today.
While once reserved for the most contentious issues, use of the filibuster has grown in recent decades, often stalling legislation entirely, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
Talking vs. Silent Filibuster
The debate Thune referenced centers on whether to revive the talking filibuster, a more physically demanding version of the tactic popularized in films and historic Senate showdowns.
Under that approach, senators must continuously hold the floor and speak to block a bill. Supporters like Lee argue it would force opponents to defend their positions publicly.
Thune, however, said that the strategy is outdated and ineffective in modern practice.
“The talking filibuster… takes you back… to the 19th century,” Thune said, adding, “we can’t find an example in modern Senate history where a piece of legislation passed via the talking filibuster.”
He also emphasized a key procedural hurdle: each failed amendment resets debate, potentially prolonging the process indefinitely and giving the minority party leverage.
SAVE Act Caught in the Middle
The procedural fight has taken on added urgency as Republicans try to pass the SAVE Act, which would require proof of citizenship to register for federal elections.
The bill has become a flashpoint not only between parties but within the GOP itself.
In Texas, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn recently signaled openness to weakening the filibuster to pass the legislation, marking a shift from his long-standing defense of the rule, according to earlier reporting by The Dallas Express. His stance drew criticism and pressure from Ken Paxton during their ongoing Senate primary runoff.
Thune, however, has taken a more cautious approach, saying Republicans lack the support to either eliminate the legislative filibuster or force a talking version.
“The legislative filibuster… we really don’t have the votes,” he said, adding that many Republicans fear setting a precedent that Democrats could later use if they regain power.
High Stakes Beyond Procedure
The clash renews attention on how Senate rules can determine the fate of major legislation.
Critics argue that the filibuster is outdated and has an unpopular history. When Democrats controlled the Senate in 2022, Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren called the filibuster “a tool of Jim Crow and segregation that is found nowhere in the Constitution.” She added later, “The filibuster has no place in our democracy.”
Supporters counter that it protects minority rights and promotes bipartisan compromise. Around the same time in 2022, Maine’s Republican Sen. Susan Collins said, “We are now on the brink of heading down that dangerous road, a slippery slope toward a tyranny of the majority. Limiting the ability of Senators to engage in debate on legislative matters would give the majority party unprecedented power to push through major changes without careful deliberation or bipartisan cooperation.”
For Thune, the concern is immediate; procedural gambits could backfire.
Opening the door to unlimited amendments, he suggested, risks turning the SAVE Act into a vehicle for unrelated and politically damaging issues, ultimately sinking the legislation Republicans are trying to pass.
