Today, Explained – "Should Democrats shut it down?"

Vox Podcast | September 15, 2025

Overview

In this timely episode, hosts Sean Rameswaram and Noel King examine the high-stakes debate facing congressional Democrats: Should they use the filibuster to force a government shutdown, even if doing so could unleash broader Republican power? The podcast scrutinizes the argument, particularly in light of the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk—a sensational event that has rapidly changed the political landscape. Featuring Vox correspondent Andrew Prokop and an extended interview with Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the episode explores political strategy, the dangers of eliminating the filibuster, and the risks of fueling President Trump’s authoritarian ambitions.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Impending Government Shutdown and the Filibuster ([00:00]–[03:32])

• The federal government will soon run out of funding; passage of a bill requires 60 Senate votes.
• Without seven Democrats crossing the aisle, a shutdown is imminent.
• Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the prospect of a shutdown became a more acute political flashpoint.
  • "If the Democrats force a shutdown, they open them to Republicans deciding to end the filibuster. And without the filibuster, Republicans can do whatever they want." (A, [00:21])
• The Democratic base is pushing for decisive opposition—“don’t aid Trump’s agenda”—but that comes with unpredictable consequences.

2. The Case Against Forcing a Shutdown ([03:32]–[07:36])

• Andrew Prokop explains the sequence: If Democrats hold the line and force a shutdown, Republicans will be pressured to invoke the nuclear option—eliminating the filibuster.
  • "The way that shutdown ends is not going to be Democrats win policy concessions from Donald Trump and it's Republicans eliminate the filibuster and gain the power now to pass whatever they want with their votes alone." (B, [04:56])
• Progressive arguments for abolishing the filibuster are laid out but problematized in the current context.
  • Cites both the “democracy should work” argument and the more cynical one that filibusters often block progressive change.

3. The Unique Dangers of the Trump Administration ([07:36]–[11:22])

• Prokop stresses that removing the filibuster now is different than in previous years due to Trump’s demonstrated willingness to push authoritarian measures.
  • "If you start a government shutdown fight and it ends with Republicans being provoked into taking away the filibuster, that's just another guardrail on Donald Trump's power gone." (B, [07:42])
• The filibuster has so far constrained Trump’s legislative ambitions, forcing him to mostly rely on executive power, which can be legally challenged.
• The killing of Charlie Kirk is being used as a pretext on the Right to justify potential crackdowns, with Trump and surrogates calling for "holding the left accountable."
  • "This is something that has historically happened in many other countries... The government uses it as a pretext to pass authoritarian laws, crack down on the opposition..." (B, [09:36])

4. The Filibuster as a ‘Guardrail’ ([11:22]–[13:05])

• Noel King asks about the risk Trump might push through emergency laws anyway.
• Prokop: The filibuster has been used by Senate Republicans as an “excuse” to resist Trump-friendly legislation.
  • "If that excuse goes away, then the pressure on them will be far stronger.” (B, [12:10])
• The “hard exit strategy” dilemma for Democrats: appearing tough to the base could inadvertently strengthen Trump.

5. Senator Chris Van Hollen's Perspective ([17:00]–[26:48])

a. On the Shutdown and Protecting Democratic Priorities ([17:31]–[19:04])

• Van Hollen strongly opposes granting Trump “a blank check,” citing issues like illegal withholding of NIH and disaster relief funds.
  • "We should not be giving President Trump a blank check to continue his lawless activities... He's withholding funds that could literally mean a death sentence for them." (C, [17:31])
• Advocates for meaningful guardrails and safeguards in any funding bill.

b. The Politics of Blame and Leverage ([19:04]–[22:22])

• Van Hollen frames any shutdown as “Trump and Republicans going it alone.”
• Highlights Trump’s withholding of $400 billion from key government programs as a reason not to capitulate.
• On the risk of filibuster elimination: Van Hollen suggests Republicans benefit from the filibuster and are unlikely to kill it.
  • "The supermajority requirement to end a filibuster favors their agenda, not the people's agenda." (C, [21:49])

c. The Threat to Civil Liberties ([22:22]–[24:06])

• Trump’s Oval Office speech after Kirk’s killing targeted “the radical left,” vowing retribution.
  • "President Trump had a chance to bring the country together... But instead, he's decided to engage in finger pointing. Instead, he is weaponizing this awful tragedy, this murder, to advance his political goals." (C, [23:05])
• Van Hollen warns this rhetoric signals a willingness to use federal power against political opponents.

d. Democratic Weakness and the Way Forward ([24:06]–[26:48])

• Van Hollen acknowledges Democrats are seen—even by their own base—as “weak, tepid, ineffective, and broken.”
• Calls for a stronger stand against Trump and a more positive, proactive agenda.
  • "I don't think the Democrats have done enough to stand up to Donald Trump's lawlessness. Nor do I think Democrats have done enough to put forward our own positive vision..." (C, [24:28])
• Endorses Zoran Mamdani for New York mayor, citing his campaign as emblematic of the bold, people-focused politics Democrats need.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "Democrats can use the filibuster to shut the government down." — Andrew Prokop ([03:16])
• "If you start a government shutdown fight... that's just another guardrail on Donald Trump's power gone." — Andrew Prokop ([07:42])
• "He's withholding funds that could literally mean a death sentence for them." — Sen. Chris Van Hollen ([17:34])
• "There should be no vengeance. President Trump had a chance to bring the country together... But instead, he is weaponizing this awful tragedy." — Sen. Chris Van Hollen ([23:05])
• "I don't think the Democrats have done enough to stand up to Donald Trump's lawlessness. Nor... [have they] put forward our own positive vision..." — Sen. Chris Van Hollen ([24:28])
• "So the big things Republicans like to do, like tax cuts, they get to do even with the filibuster in place." — Sen. Chris Van Hollen ([21:35])

Important Timestamps

• Shutdown stakes outlined: [00:00]–[03:32]
• Prokop on filibuster dangers: [04:56]–[07:36]
• Potential Trump overreach post-filibuster: [07:36]–[11:22]
• Van Hollen interview begins: [17:00]
• Van Hollen on Trump’s rhetoric: [23:05]
• Democratic self-critique: [24:28]
• Van Hollen’s endorsement of Mamdani: [25:41]

Tone & Takeaways

The episode is direct, tense, and reflective—mirroring the high anxiety of this political moment for both parties and the country’s institutions. The hosts and guests weigh the moral imperative to oppose Trump against the strategic peril of provoking Republicans to eliminate the filibuster, potentially unleashing even more sweeping right-wing governance. Van Hollen’s interview doubles down on standing firm but also highlights the internal fractures and uncertainty within the Democratic Party. Ultimately, the episode ends on an open question: Is the risk of action greater than the risk of inaction?

Credits: Produced by Myles Bryan and Danielle Hewitt; Edited by Amna El Saadi; Fact-checked by Laura Bullard; Engineered by Adrienne Lilly and Patrick Boyd.