When Harry Reid Went Nuclear

In November 2013, a quiet but historic shift took place on the floor of the United States Senate. It did not involve explosions, foreign conflict, or dramatic speeches delivered to roaring crowds. Instead, it involved procedure—an often-overlooked but powerful force in American politics. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made a decision that would permanently change how the Senate operates. This moment came to be known as the day Harry Reid “went nuclear.”
To understand why this mattered, it helps to first understand how the Senate traditionally worked.
The Filibuster and Senate Tradition
For decades, the U.S. Senate prided itself on being the chamber of extended debate. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate allowed unlimited discussion on most issues. This tradition gave rise to the filibuster, a tactic that allows a minority of senators to delay or block a vote by refusing to end debate.
To stop a filibuster, the Senate needs to invoke cloture, which historically required 60 votes. This supermajority rule was meant to encourage compromise and protect minority voices. In theory, it slowed down extreme legislation. In practice, it increasingly became a tool for gridlock.
By the early 2010s, the filibuster was no longer rare. It had become routine.
A Senate Stuck in Neutral
When Barack Obama entered his second term as president, Democrats controlled the Senate, but Republicans used the filibuster to block many of Obama’s nominees. These were not just cabinet-level officials. Judicial nominees, including those for federal appeals courts, were routinely stalled.
Harry Reid, a seasoned senator from Nevada, watched as vacancies piled up. Courts were understaffed. Executive agencies struggled to function. Reid argued that this level of obstruction went beyond legitimate opposition and threatened the government’s ability to operate.
Republicans countered that the filibuster was a vital check on majority power. To them, Democrats were simply frustrated that they could not push nominees through without resistance.
The tension reached a breaking point in November 2013.
The Nuclear Option Explained
The “nuclear option” is not an official Senate rule. It is a procedural maneuver that allows the Senate to reinterpret its rules by a simple majority vote, bypassing the usual 60-vote requirement.
On November 21, 2013, Harry Reid used this option to eliminate the filibuster for most presidential nominations. From that day forward, executive branch nominees and federal judicial nominees—except for Supreme Court justices—could be confirmed with a simple majority of 51 votes.
It was a dramatic move. Many senators, including some Democrats, warned that it would weaken the Senate’s unique role. Reid himself had previously opposed the nuclear option. But in that moment, he argued that extraordinary obstruction required extraordinary action.
Immediate Reactions and Fallout
The reaction was swift and intense.
Democrats praised the move as necessary and overdue. They argued that elections should have consequences and that a president deserved to staff his administration and the courts. To them, the Senate had become dysfunctional, and Reid’s decision restored basic governance.
Republicans were furious. They accused Reid of breaking the Senate and destroying a tradition that had stood for over a century. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned that Democrats would regret the decision when they were no longer in power.
That warning would later prove prophetic.
Long-Term Consequences
At first, the impact seemed limited. President Obama was able to fill judicial vacancies, including seats on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court. The executive branch regained momentum.
But the precedent had been set.
In 2017, when Republicans gained control of the Senate and Donald Trump became president, they expanded the nuclear option. This time, it was applied to Supreme Court nominations, allowing Justice Neil Gorsuch to be confirmed with a simple majority.
What began as a targeted procedural fix became a fundamental shift in how power is exercised in the Senate.
Was It a Mistake or a Necessity?
Whether Harry Reid’s decision was right or wrong depends largely on perspective.
Supporters argue that the Senate was already broken. They point out that the filibuster was being used more than ever before, not to encourage debate but to block routine governance. From this view, Reid did not break the system—he exposed how fragile it had already become.
Critics argue that Reid accelerated the Senate’s decline. By removing the incentive for compromise, they say, the nuclear option turned the Senate into a body that increasingly resembles the House, driven by narrow majorities and partisan swings.
Both arguments carry weight, which is why the moment remains so controversial.
A Defining Legacy
Harry Reid retired from the Senate in 2017 and passed away in 2021. Among his many accomplishments, the nuclear option stands out as one of the most consequential. It reshaped judicial confirmations, altered the balance of power between parties, and changed how future majorities would govern.
More importantly, it forced Americans to confront a difficult question: how much tradition should be preserved when it no longer serves its intended purpose?