Sen. Ron Johnson says the GOP should scrap the filibuster to pass DHS funding after an attempted Trump assassination, calling it a “moment of national danger.”
A day after an attempted assassination of President Donald Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is pressing for a major Senate rule change: eliminate the filibuster to move faster on funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Johnson’s argument is rooted in emergency politics—an insistence that the moment demands consequences that go beyond regular procedures.. Speaking on Fox News with Maria Bartiromo. the Wisconsin Republican framed DHS financing as the practical test of whether lawmakers can act when security and public confidence are on the line.
DHS funding fight meets Senate procedural clash
Johnson’s pitch is direct: if Democrats will not fund DHS. Republicans should consider removing the filibuster “for good” to secure passage.. He described it as a “moment of national danger. ” linking the urgency to the broader national security environment and to what he called repeated Democratic obstruction in the Senate.
His comments also respond to the internal Republican debate about whether filibuster changes are realistic.. Johnson acknowledged that GOP leaders have suggested the idea of eliminating or bypassing the filibuster lacks support among Republicans.. Still, he portrayed the post-attack environment as precisely when Senate rules should bend.
The underlying dispute is not abstract.. DHS has been operating without funding for about 71 days, according to the account cited in the segment.. The department also includes the Secret Service—making the funding question inseparable from the very protective operations that failed to prevent an attack attempt.
After the attack, lawmakers face a trust and security test
Johnson’s remarks come right after Trump and multiple administration figures were rushed off stage during Saturday night’s event in Washington. D.C.. when a gunman fired shots in the Hilton hotel lobby.. The suspected shooter. identified in the coverage as Cole Tomas Allen. reportedly left behind materials referencing conspiracy themes connected to Trump and to Jeffrey Epstein.
In a political moment like this, procedural debates can quickly become a referendum on judgment.. Johnson is effectively arguing that if lawmakers treat DHS funding as optional or hostage to partisan leverage. they risk undermining the public’s sense that government can deliver basic protection during crises.
There’s also an election-season calculation behind the rhetoric.. Johnson’s line about “where are the other” moderate Democrats—paired with his challenge to the idea that centrist Democrats will support a pathway through the Senate—puts pressure on lawmakers who position themselves as dealmakers.. His question is less about policy mechanics and more about who can be counted on when security and legitimacy are at stake.
Why “nuking the filibuster” is back on the table
Johnson’s demand to “rip the Band-Aid off” is notable because it moves from criticizing obstruction to advocating a structural solution: using Senate procedure as leverage.. The filibuster remains one of the most powerful tools in the chamber. and removing it would not just accelerate DHS funding.. It would re-write the Senate’s bargaining map for a wide range of future priorities.
For Democrats, this creates a hard tradeoff.. If the filibuster is eliminated or meaningfully weakened in the near term. the policy advantage could shift permanently—something many Democrats have historically resisted even when they control the White House or expect eventual Senate leverage.. Johnson’s framing assumes that Democrats will eventually face their own political incentives to use the procedural advantage they now oppose.
For Republicans. the opportunity is clear: DHS funding is both urgent and politically potent. tied to the Secret Service and to public safety outcomes that voters can feel immediately.. Still. scrapping the filibuster carries risks for GOP governance too. because a less constrained Senate can lead to faster passage of proposals that Republicans might later dislike.
That tension is likely why Johnson’s comments are as much about setting a new negotiating posture as they are about the immediate vote count.. In other words: the “nuke the filibuster” language may be aimed at reshaping what lawmakers consider possible. even if the final path to funding involves compromises rather than a complete rule change.
What happens if DHS funding still stalls
If Congress continues to delay DHS funding, the fallout won’t be limited to headlines.. Federal agencies that protect borders, manage homeland security programs, and coordinate with state and local governments rely on sustained budgeting.. When those routines break down, the consequences often show up later—after the news cycle has moved on.
There is also a political cost. After an attempted assassination—an event that tests national security systems in real time—failure to pass emergency funding can look like dysfunction rather than deliberation. Johnson is betting that public pressure will tilt lawmakers toward action.
At the same time. voters may also demand clarity about what. specifically. DHS funds are meant to cover and how quickly Congress can restore full capacity.. Procedural changes may accelerate timelines. but the practical measure will be whether protective and operational priorities can be funded without interruption.
A procedural fight shaped by security politics
Johnson’s call adds another layer to a Senate that already struggles with mistrust and recurring gridlock. The filibuster question is not just an institutional debate—it is a proxy for how both parties intend to govern when they disagree sharply.
In the aftermath of an attempted attack on the President. the argument that “now” is the right time to change rules will likely resonate with voters who feel that normal politics cannot handle abnormal threats.. Whether Congress follows through will depend on the willingness of members across the aisle to treat DHS as a shared necessity rather than a bargaining chip.