Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) joined me for a look back at 2025 and forward into 2026 today.

Audio:

12-17hhs-thune

Transcript:

HH: A special day, because I’m joined by the Senate’s majority leader, Senator John Thune of South Dakota. Senator, Merry Christmas to you. I hope you get out of town soon, back to South Dakota. I suspect it’s warmer there.

JT: (laughing) Yeah, well, Merry Christmas, Hugh. It’s probably not warmer there, but you’re, it’s always better to be there than here, right?

HH: Yeah, I would say so. Thank you for giving me some time today.

JT: Sure.

HH: I want to look back at 2025 and a little bit forward. And mostly good news, some ongoing battles, and then a couple of disagreements I want to talk to you about.

JT: Yeah.

HH: Let me begin with the best news.

JT: Yes.

HH: Since the reconciliation process came along in 1974, Republicans have successfully used it only four times, including this year. So congratulations on that. For the wonks out there, including me, how difficult was that?

JT: Very. You know, the nice thing about reconciliation, Hugh, as you know, is you can do at 51 votes in the Senate what typically takes 60. So it is an opportunity when you have unified control of the government like we do right now, House, Senate and White House, to do really big, consequential things. And we used it for that reason. We got a lot of really big, consequential things done. But just getting 51, you know, keeping Republicans united to even pass something with a simple majority was incredibly challenging, especially something as, has, is far-reaching as had as many moving parts as the bill that we passed last summer did. So yeah, you want to make use of it in a way that creates policy that’s good for a really long time. And most of the stuff that we did in there, especially on the tax side, we made permanent. So those…

HH: Oh, thank God. The cliff would have killed us. But for the people who are trying to keep score at home, 2001, 2003, 2017 when it was Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell, and then 2025. “

JT: Right.

HH: Do you think there will be another one later?

JT: Could be. I mean, I’m open to that. And some of our colleagues are interested in another reconciliation bill as well. We actually have a couple of vehicles available to us. The way the Democrats finished up, there was a, they didn’t do a budget that last year, so we took their basically shell, and legislative vehicle, their budget, and did it. So we actually have two that we can still do this year if we wanted to. And if there’s a reason to, if we come together behind some health care proposal that we think we want to make permanent and create more affordable health care, I could see that happening. But I think there, it’s really important that the stuff that we did in this first one, which again, you know, if you look at, we kind of categorize it as safe streets, more money in people’s pockets, and new opportunities to get ahead for the American people. And on tax stuff, energy stuff, regulatory, you know, the newborn accounts, school choice, childcare things that the Democrats have been trying to do for years that we were able to get done in this bill but only on our terms. And so it was really a consequential piece of legislation, and we’ll look for other opportunities. If things come along in the tax space or the health care space, and we want to do some things that can make policy that will take us in a different direction, particularly on health care to make it more affordable, then yes, we’re open to using it.

HH: Well, I want to remind people what would have happened had you not. And reconciliation was very hard this year, because Leader Thune had to work with Speaker Johnson, and not only is it 51 votes in the Senate, I mean it’s a close run thing. Everything in the House is. So you two may have the best working relationship in the years I’ve been doing this between the House and the Senate. Will you think that will stand up?

JT: I do. Mike Johson is terrific in what he does, and yeah, just, he’s a character guy, and so I really enjoy working with him. We’re, we have, he’s got a really hard job, as you point out. I mean, talk about a narrow majority he has to navigate there. We have a similar situation, but his is even more, I think, complicated, frankly. But so we meet every week. We’re meeting later today. We talk regularly. I talked to him on the phone yesterday. And so it’s a really good working relationship, Hugh, and one that is conducive to getting things done. But I can’t tell you how hard and challenging and complicated it is with those narrow majorities just keeping people together, you know, on what are some very complicated and challenging issues.

HH: And President Trump’s not a shrinking violet. He has opinions.

JT: (laughing) Well, there is that, yeah.

HH: (laughing) He has opinions. Let me go to the second big deal, and again, this is for wonks. You used the nuclear option, and I applaud. That was a tough thing to decide to do, but you did it, and I’m glad you did it. Again, let’s remind people of what you had to do.

JT: Right. Well, and frankly, that was really hard, because again, you had to get people who are in our conference, we had to do it with 51 votes. We did it with all Republicans, and honestly, we held everybody together, which I think was pretty remarkable. But we did a ton of education and informing. And the idea around how the nominations process historically worked, and is supposed to work, and the Democrats had virtually blown it up. I mean, they literally, President Trump’s the first president in history not to have a single one of his nominees approved by either voice vote or unanimous consent, which is typically, it’s the expedited way of getting non-controversial nominees through the process. But Dems were just forcing us to vote literally on every, you know, not just the top level people, the cabinet level, which we do, but sub-cabinet level and below. And it had to change. We couldn’t continue on this pace. The President never would have gotten his people in place. So we came up with a rules change. You know, some people refer to it as a, yeah, tactical nuke instead of a strategic nuke, but we did some things that created what frankly had been the practice for a long time in the Senate, and that is on these non-controversial noms being able to move them quickly in an expedited way. So we’re now stacking them. We’re going to move a stack later today. There are 97 in this bunch.

HH: Oh, wow.

JT: Yeah.

HH: Well, you however have a disagreement with the President, and I am on your side on this on preserving the legislative filibuster. Have you persuaded him, yet, that we really don’t want to change that?

JT: (laughing) Yeah, well, good luck with persuading him, Hugh.

HH: Yeah.

JT: He is, he is very, he has a strong view on it, which I appreciate and am sympathetic to because of the obstacles the Democrats throw up against him. I mean, the way that they’re playing this, the Trump Derangement Syndrome is epic and real, and these Democrats are blinded by their hatred of the President. And so they are not, they don’t want to do anything in any way that works with us to achieve his objectives or his goals or his agenda. And so I understand the President’s frustration. But I also know that at least historically, the filibuster, as you know, since its inception, unlimited debate has been a feature of the United States Senate going back to 1789. And then now it takes a supermajority still to this day to do anything here, and I think that makes sense on legislation. It forces collaboration. It gives a voice to the minority, and I think it’s protected Republicans and conservatives in this country through the years from a lot of really bad stuff the Democrats would have done if they could have done it with 51 votes. So I know it’s controversial, but I think it’s something that has protected Republicans way more often than any benefit we might get from getting rid of it.

HH: And it’s a defensible line around the Supreme Court. And I tell everyone, if they ever blow up the filibuster and they move to expand the Court and pack the Court, we will have lost the rule of law. So the filibuster is like the first trench they have to get over to get to the Court, and we can’t have that happen. Now to my surprise, Leader Thune, two Congressional Review Acts passed. I didn’t even know that they were there. I thought maybe people forgot about it, but I listened to Dan Sullivan. That really has saved our bacon in Alaska. I’d totally forgotten about those things, and you got two of them through last week.

HH: We did, and that makes 24 for the year. And those are rolling back some Biden regulations that in many cases, and as Dan Sullivan points out, there were 70, if you can believe this, 70 Biden regulations that went after the industry in the state of Alaska. It was almost like he singled them out, and was just, you know, had a specific intent of blowing up the state of Alaska. So we’ve restored some sanity, particularly in the area of energy. But a lot of these Biden-era regulations that needed to go by the wayside, we used the Congressional Review Act, which is a legislative vehicle available to do that. And 22 of the 24 that we passed through the Senate have now been signed into law by the President. So it’s a mechanism to undo a lot of the damage done by the previous administration. We’ve used it, I think, very effectively. We got rid of the California, the EPA waiver, which would have required that electric vehicles be 35% of the cars in the country next year.

HH: Yeah.

JT: And by 2035, 100%, which is just virtually impossible and crazy. And California had managed to export that policy to 18 other states around the country. So we came up with a fairly creative way of taking that down, but that’s also something, I think, as we look back on this past year, as a real, I think, accomplishment to keep Republicans together, to undo a lot of the Biden year damage.

HH: A lot of legislative wins, but sometimes, it’s also important just not to lose, and you didn’t lose. You didn’t blink in the shutdown. I don’t know if that was ever in doubt. Was it, because you just couldn’t blink there. And I’m so glad you didn’t.

JT: Yeah, I mean, that’s, as you know, it’s hard, because there’s a lot of pressure, and you’ve got people, I mean people in our office every day who come in and aren’t getting paid. And it becomes a very personal issue. But what they did was just unprecedented and completely uncalled for. I mean, they got themselves out over their skis, and the left, the far left in this country, was calling the shots. And Chuck Schumer was taking his orders, walked us, marched us into this thing. It was totally unnecessary, totally uncalled for, and frankly, unprecedented and historic what they did. And we, for 43 days, endured it. The American people had to endure it. But if we had caved and given in and rewarded that kind of bad behavior, we would just get more of it. You’d see more and more of that. So it was important that we hold the line. And it’s, but it’s another indication of just the hatred that the left has for the president of the United States. We see it playing out every single day here in the Senate.

HH: Now I want to add another category. You don’t have to do anything when the war power is invoked by the President. I know the War Powers Act. I think it’s unconstitutional. But when he did Operations Midnight Hammer, when we’re doing the interdictions in the Caribbean and the flotilla, and who know what’s being announced at 5 o’clock tonight. You have led the Republicans in standing behind the President. I don’t think we’ve lost anyone with the exception, perhaps, of Senator Paul on a thing or two. Am I right about that?

JT: Yeah, that’s correct. I mean, there are others who were sympathetic to the argument that’s made on that particular issue, but I think the President’s perfectly within his rights as the commander-in-chief to exercise the authority that he has under the Constitution to protect Americans and American interest. And that’s certainly what he’s been doing with these, targeting these terrorist cartels that are poisoning the American people with the drugs that they’ve been bringing into this country. And so you know, there’s always going to be questions around that, and of course, especially now because it’s this president. The Democrats have really hyper-charged their attacks on him, but he’s had good support from Republicans here, because we believe he’s on the right track when it comes to protecting Americans. And that’s his, peace through strength is, you know, the policy he’s adopted, and one that I agree with and share. It’s a dangerous world, and this president is not going to shy away from doing what it takes to protect Americans.

HH: I want to add as well, anti-Semitism is everywhere, and we saw it in Bondi Beach in Australia. I think it may have a role in the murder of the MIT professor. I don’t know anything about Brown. I’m not ruling it out. But you’ve kept the caucus together and united behind our ally, Israel. That’s getting tougher every day, given what’s happening to the Democratic Party. Is that on the agenda for 2026?

JT: It is, and I think that notwithstanding what is happening to, and I don’t understand, you know, what the Democrats in this country, that used to be a bipartisan issue. But they have, their political left, the pro-Hamas wing of the Democrat Party, is ascendant right now. It’s where the energy is and a lot of the money is in Democrat politics. You see it playing out in some of these elections around the country, and that’s really unfortunate, because support for Israel is a time honored policy of this country. And our greatest ally in that part of the world and an ally with whom we have so much in common going back to faith tradition to the economy and national security interests and to democracy, there are just so many reasons why our support for Israel needs to be unequivocal, especially at a time when they are constantly under attack. And so yeah, it’s hard to explain where the Dems are, but we will continue here, at least in the Senate on the Republican side of the aisle, with continuing a very strong message of support and backing it up with actions.

HH: Now Leader, it’s important to realize you not only have to move legislation and get the caucus there, and you have to get stuff done and stop stuff from happening. But it’s also important, you’ve got to look ahead. You’ve got to hold the majority. And that means Senator Collins next year, Senator Husted in Ohio, even Senator Sullivan, given their screwy voting system up there. And you’ve got open seats in North Carolina, Kentucky, and Iowa, the great Mitch McConnell stepping down, Joni Ernst is stepping down, Thom Tillis is stepping down. How do you feel about who you’ve recruited and how it’s going on those three vacancies and our three targets – Senators Collins, Husted, and Sullivan?

JT: We feel really good about where those races all are, Hugh. It’s a midterm election, and you have correctly, as you always do, diagnosed where the races and where our challenges are and vulnerabilities are around the country. But you know, midterm elections, typically you’re facing a little bit of a headwind, but these are really strong incumbents, and in the case of Senator Collins who’s run against, so many times, outperformed Republicans not only in her state, but all over the country. And Husted is a great new senator from Ohio, really accomplished and hard-working, and I think he’s going to be in great shape there. And really important, too, because of who he’s running against. You know, the Democrats recruited Sherrod Brown, a far-left Democrats, and somebody we need to make sure that doesn’t come back to the Senate. So we’re going to be working hard on that one. And of course, Ashley Hinson is a great recruit in Iowa. We’re really delighted that she stepped up into that race. We hate to lose Joni, but Ashley will be a great replacement. But it’s going to take a lot of resources, and clearly, we need the President, and him being out there helping these folks, and also having a record of accomplishment to run on, which I think they do. And then, you know, we have those states, as you mentioned, we have some pick up opportunities, too, and we’re going to be working hard not only to protect and preserve our majority, but hopefully to expand upon it. But that’ll take a huge team effort. The President, our incumbents, our challengers, all of our supporters out there and donors working together to keep the team on the field and make sure that we have the ability.

HH: I haven’t forgotten Michigan and Georgia, maybe Minnesota, but that’s for another time. You also have to start recruiting an NRSC chair for the next cycle, don’t you? Have you got anyone in mind? Are you talking to people?

JT: There are some folks who have an interest in that. And yeah, we’ve got some, and believe it or not, I mean, it’s a hard job, as you know. You’re going out every day, every week, basically, trying to raise resources to support the team. And it takes an enormous amount of time. So, but we’ve got people who are really, I’m so grateful that we’ve got people who really are difference makers here, and see that as an important role, and I think we’ll have a good person in that spot.

HH: Well, let me go to our four, we might wrestle a bit about these. Number one, I think Lincoln Kienholz ought to stay at the Buckeye land and not go into the portal. What do you think?

JT: You know, that’s a tough call. I think they’re taking good care of him there, but you know, he’s got a couple of years of eligibility left, and he is a great talent. And there are a lot of teams that could use him, so it’ll be a hard call for him. But you know, Sayin’s had a terrific year. And obviously, he’s in his first year, so he’s going to be there for a while. I keep hearing, you know, interest from other Big Ten teams. I hear some, I hear Notre Dame rumors and other places, but…

HH: Oh.

JT: He’s a great talent, Hugh, and I hope that whatever he decides to do, he’s going to be a great asset to any team that he’s one. And he is to the Buckeyes right now, even though he’s not on field on the time. He’s making a big difference there.

HH: The season’s not over, yet. And we’re one play away from, well, we’ve done that before. That really is just my way to lead to the NIL statute that’s kicking around up there. Will that get done next year, or anything having to do with college sports, because it’s a mess, and it’s getting worse, as we see in Michigan and other places.

JT: I agree totally, and I think we need to move, because a lot of these conferences that span multiple states, take a conference like the Big Ten or the SCC, which spans 11 states, and every state in the conference now is passing their own laws to give their schools a competitive advantage over the other schools in the conference. And so there needs to be a sort of a federal framework, if you will. And I think we’re going to need some rules around it, some transparency around it, you know, a uniform standard contract that athletes and parents and schools and agents and everybody knows what the deal is. I think there’s an interest in doing some caps, kind of like what they do with the NFL on how much a team can spend on NIL, etc. Some good ideas kicking around. The challenge we have, especially in the Senate, is the Democrats in the Senate, as you would expect, all are interested in unionizing the athletes. They want to create an employer-employee relationship between the schools and the student athletes. And we believe, and I think you’ve listened to any school, and in particular, you look at a state like South Dakota where we’ve got a mid-major Division I and Division II schools, the Olympic sports and Title IX sports are the ones that will pay the price if we move to that kind of a unionization system. So we’ve got to get some Dems who are willing to work with us on reforms that don’t involve unionizing the athletes.

HH: I hope the college presidents come with you. Now my penultimate issue. There are 40 vacancies at the district court level. I know senators love them those blue slips. But if we keep that rule or don’t at least reform it to like you get to get a compromise for a year, but in the second year, we’re going to do jam downs, California and New York, there will never be another trial court judge who’s even center-right, much less conservative. Is there any way to fix that system? I know senators love it, but it’s just bad for the country.

JT: Yeah, it is, that’s a challenging one, Hugh, because honestly, I would say that issue, senators are probably more, there’s more of an intense feeling about preserving the blue slip maybe than there is the filibuster, just for the reasons you mentioned. If you represent, for example, like the state of Missouri, there were four judges that were up under Biden that our members used blue slips to block in Biden’s last year. And as soon as Trump came in, you know, he filled them with his nominees. And so there’s, it is. And blue state, red state, the argument on district judges, as you know, has always been that they’re specific to a state, and state senators ought to have some input into the decision making process about who those positions are. Mike Rounds and I, actually, under Biden, were able to get a judge in that we had been working, trying to get. If you can believe this, in South Dakota, we had a Republican-appointed judge in our state going back to Reagan. And so we, there were two vacancies. They wanted one Dem. We gave them a Dem. We got a Republican person into that position in South Dakota. So there are examples of how that process, I think, works to our advantage, and that’s what most senators hang onto when it comes to a discussion about the blue slip. But I understand.

HH: And I hope you get together with Democrats, because it means that big states like California and New York, in which there’s a lot of litigation, will never get normal judges. And I don’t even mean conservatives. Just normal, civil, talented guys and gals who know how to run a courtroom. And it’s a nightmare out there. Let me finish with this, Senator, because I know you’ve got to go. The affordability crisis is real. My kids’ generations can’t buy houses. And I know one of the reasons is people of my generation are stuck in houses because of capital gains until one of the spouses dies. They literally, if you’ve had a house for 30 years in one of the coastal states, you can’t sell it, or you get smacked with a tax bill you couldn’t believe. Can you work on waiving or reforming, originally the exclusion of $250,000 or $500,000 dollars made sense in order to loosen up the housing stock. It doesn’t work anymore. Do you think that can get fixed in a reconciliation?

JT: I think there’s, I think there are some things we could do in a reconciliation bill around housing. And it is a big problem. You’re right. And I think one of the things, actually, there’s a housing bill moving through both the House and the Senate right now, believe it or not, that’s bipartisan. And there are some things next year that I think other issues like permitting reform, for example…

HH: The Speed Act, yeah.

JT: Yeah, I think those are things that could be done on a bipartisan basis. But for sure, this issue of housing in this country and just the obstacles that are in the way of young people actually getting into home ownership, which you’ve always thought to be the American dream, is something we’ve got to address. And so a lot of conversation around that. There are, there’s a bill, housing bill, that’s Senate Banking Committee, I think, has already reported out, perhaps unanimously. House is working on something similar. So we’re looking for solutions there, but affordability is a big issue. And people in this country, we want to make sure that the American dream is available to all Americans, and that young people today, as they are looking at their future, have opportunities to participate in that dream and what is affordable.

HH: Well, thank you. I think waiving capital gains for people who are over 70 or 75 makes all the sense in the world. Senator, I’ve taken up enough of your time. I just want to say thank you. Last quick question. Are you glad you won the job after a year?

JT: (laughing) Well, that’s a day to day proposition, Hugh. I sometimes, yeah, I’m like can I have a recount, because it doesn’t feel very good. But yeah, we’re griding away at it, and hopefully making a difference. So thank you.

HH: Leader, thank you. We’ll talk to you in 2026. Merry Christmas.

JT: All right. Same to you. Thanks, Hugh. Talk to you soon.

HH: Bye bye.

End of interview.