Van Hollen Takes On Schumer: The Fight to Lead the New Democratic Senate, and Why the Filibuster Hangs in the Balance

Senate Democrats have not yet taken the gavel, and they are already fighting over who will hold it.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland announced Thursday night that he will run for majority leader in the new Congress, setting up a direct challenge to Chuck Schumer after previously ruling out the possibility ^[1]. In announcing his bid, Van Hollen said voters in the midterms had called on Democrats to "unrig an economy rigged against working people," casting the contest as a fight over the party's direction rather than a personal feud ^[1].

The announcement gives Schumer a formal challenger in the wake of the Democrats' election sweep ^[3], and it follows a week in which the New York Democrat's support showed visible cracks on both his left and his center ^[4]. Schumer, for his part, has projected confidence that his colleagues will keep him in charge ^[5].

For conservatives, this is not inside baseball. The person who runs the Senate floor decides which bills come up, which nominees get votes, and whether the chamber's oldest protection for the minority, the filibuster, survives. That is why this fight matters to every Republican voter who just watched his party lose the Senate.

From 'No' to 'Yes'

Van Hollen's road into the race was short. He had previously said he would not run, according to the Washington Examiner, before announcing Thursday night that he would seek the top job after all ^[1].

What changed was pressure from the incoming class. Several newly elected Democratic senators had urged him to step forward as an alternative to the party's current leaders, among them Michigan Senator-elect Abdul El-Sayed, Just the News reported ^[2]. Van Hollen framed his decision as an answer to that call, saying simply that "People called for change" ^[2].

The Coalition Lining Up Against Schumer

The cracks became public earlier in the week. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said they would not back Schumer, and Breitbart News reported that five senators-elect had also come out against him ^[4]. Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, and Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who campaigns as a pragmatist, do not usually stand on the same side of an intraparty fight. That is part of what makes this revolt notable: the complaint is not coming from a single faction.

Outside the Capitol, activists turned up the heat. Dozens of protesters with the Sunrise Movement, a youth climate group, were arrested on Thursday after staging a sit-in inside Schumer's Washington office, according to The Guardian ^[6]. The group is demanding new Senate leadership and an end to the filibuster ^[6].

Related Trump Sets His Sights on a Free Cuba: 'I Want to Get Cuba Done Before I Leave'

That second demand deserves Republicans' full attention. The filibuster, which requires 60 votes to end debate on most legislation, is what lets a minority party slow or stop sweeping bills that lack broad support. Democrats abolished it for most nominations in 2013, and Republicans extended that change to Supreme Court picks in 2017. The legislative filibuster is what remains. A leader who owes his job to activists demanding its repeal would hear from them again the first time a major bill stalls.

Schumer's Case: He Says He Has the Votes

Schumer is not going quietly. NBC News reported that he says he is confident Senate Democrats will re-elect him as majority leader ^[5]. Breitbart reported that he has publicly insisted the party is united behind him, even as the list of public defectors grew ^[4].

His argument is simple: he led the caucus into the majority. Democrats swept to power in the midterms ^[3], and Schumer has every incentive to present that result as a vindication of his strategy rather than a mandate for a new face.

Leadership contests in the Senate are decided by a tiny electorate, the members of the caucus themselves, and they are usually won in private phone calls rather than public statements. A handful of loud defections can look like a rebellion on cable news and still fall short of a majority inside the room. Van Hollen will need to turn public frustration into private commitments, and he will have to do it against a leader who has spent years building relationships, raising money for colleagues and doing the favors that senators remember.

What the Left Wants From the Next Leader

Strip away the personalities and the fight is about agenda. Van Hollen's own language, about an economy rigged against working people and fueled by political corruption, is the vocabulary of the populist left ^[1]. The activists in Schumer's office want the filibuster gone ^[6]. The newcomers who recruited Van Hollen, including El-Sayed, are arriving with high expectations and little patience for the old way of doing business ^[2].

None of that is hidden, and it is entirely legitimate for Democrats to debate it. But voters should be clear-eyed about what a leadership change in this direction would mean: a Senate floor geared to the demands of the most energized wing of the majority, with fewer brakes on what reaches the president's desk and fewer chances for real compromise with the minority.

There is a lesson here for Republicans, too. A party that wins big and immediately turns on its own leadership is a party with unresolved questions about what it stands for. The GOP knows that feeling well after its own midterm losses. The difference is that Democrats will be sorting out their identity while holding the gavel.

What It Means for Republicans in the Minority

Republicans have already chosen their leaders for the new Congress. NBC News reported that Sen. John Thune of South Dakota and Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio were elected to lead their parties as minority leaders in the Senate and House ^[5].

Thune's job will look very different depending on who sits across the aisle. Against Schumer, Republicans would face a familiar, transactional opponent who knows the institution's rules and its limits. Against a leader lifted up by activists demanding an end to the filibuster, they could face a far more aggressive push to change those rules ^[6].

That makes the filibuster the line to watch. It has protected both parties when they were out of power, and it forces the kind of broad agreement the Senate was designed to produce. The framers gave senators six-year terms and staggered elections precisely so that the chamber would cool passions rather than inflame them. Conservatives should make the case now, before the first big bill hits the floor, that the 60-vote rule protects the country from whichever party happens to be overreaching.

What Comes Next

The decision belongs to Senate Democrats, who are expected to settle their leadership before the new Congress is sworn in in January. Schumer insists he has the support ^[5]; Van Hollen is betting that the pressure from the new class and from figures like Sanders can be turned into votes ^[2][4].

Watch three things in the coming weeks. First, whether more sitting senators, not just senators-elect, publicly break with Schumer. Second, whether Van Hollen takes a clear position on the filibuster, the issue activists are pressing hardest ^[6]. Third, whether the fight distracts Democrats during the lame-duck session, when Republicans still run both chambers until January.

However it ends, Republicans have a clear task: hold together in the minority, defend the rules that protect every minority, and offer voters a steady contrast with a majority that is already arguing about how far left to go.