In 2019, Kamala Harris, who was then a senator, pledged during her presidential campaign to eliminate the Senate filibuster to facilitate the passage of a multi-trillion dollar Green New Deal aimed at reforming U.S. energy and climate policy. She framed this initiative as essential to addressing the climate crisis, proposing an investment of $10 trillion to mobilize resources over the first ten years.
However, as she campaigns for the presidency again, Harris’s current stance on whether she would still advocate for such reforms remains unclear, leaving voters uncertain about her commitment to these policies.
Since her campaign launch on July 21, Harris has avoided providing definitive answers regarding her policy priorities. Questions about her support for significant issues—such as abolishing the death penalty, mandating electric vehicles, decriminalizing prostitution, providing reparations for slavery, and offering executive actions for undocumented immigrants—have largely gone unanswered.
This lack of clarity has led to speculation about her evolving political stance and whether she remains aligned with her previous commitments.
Recently, Harris expressed her support for amending the filibuster to secure nationwide abortion rights. This position indicates her willingness to tackle specific legislative challenges, yet the broader implications of her earlier statements about the filibuster remain unaddressed.
Kamala Harris
During her 2019 campaign, she had indicated a readiness to abolish the filibuster if Republican opposition thwarted her climate initiatives, underscoring the urgency she placed on environmental reform as a moral imperative.
Despite her previous commitments, Harris’s campaign has not clarified her current stance on filibuster reform or her Green New Deal agenda.
The campaign has been reticent to allow her to be interviewed on these pressing topics, which raises concerns about her consistency and commitment to transformative policies. This ambiguity may deter potential supporters who value transparency and firm positions on critical issues.
The debate over the filibuster is a complex one, having evolved significantly over the past decade. Both major parties have made adjustments to the rules in response to perceived political obstruction. While Democrats changed the filibuster rules for executive branch nominations in 2013, Republicans retaliated by lifting the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017.
Former President Obama later expressed regret for not abolishing the filibuster during his administration, while both Trump and Biden have shared contrasting views on its relevance. This ongoing discourse reflects the intricate dynamics of Senate rules and their impact on significant legislative efforts, particularly regarding climate change and reproductive rights.
