Republicans are weighing a hard-edge tactic to break the stalemate.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin discussed it during an interview on NewsNation’s “On Balance.” He said abolishing the filibuster is not what Republicans are pursuing.

“It’s not really on the table. … It may be forced upon us. But the biggest concern that we have is the Senate goes back and forth. And when the filibuster was in place, … it kept judges off the bench, it kept Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) from packing the Supreme Court in ’21, and it kept them from passing the most disastrous overhaul that we’ve had to federalized programs in history in ’22,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin said.

Instead, he outlined a narrow, shutdown-only “nuclear option.”

He said it would activate only during a lapse in funding. It would be tightly limited in scope.

“So, here’s a thought that has been talked about, not a full nuclear option, but a nuclear option that goes into effect when we go into a shutdown that would be very limited to what it could do, that it would fund all essential employees, that it would fund the military, and it would fund essential programs with a CR…it would open 80% of the government open and the other 20% would still stay closed,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin said.

That framework centers on essentials first.

Troops and core operations would keep running. Agencies would rely on a continuing resolution to cover the basics.

Mullin also pitched a pressure lever aimed directly at Democrats.

He tied it to taxes and timing. He said it would only kick in if a shutdown starts.

“Democrats hate tax cuts, so to keep them from allowing it to go to a shutdown, then say, if we go into a shutdown, and a nuclear option goes into place, for that fiscal year, the American people, across the board, all tax brackets, 3% tax break, just for that one year. And the second thing is, if it happens, then it would automatically re-open in a CR for a period of time,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin said.

The message is blunt: avoid a shutdown or watch taxes drop.

Republicans argue that incentive would make brinkmanship far less appealing. Voters would see immediate relief while Washington fixes the rest.

Mullin emphasized why keeping the filibuster matters to conservatives.

He pointed to past fights where it shaped outcomes. He noted it blocked court-packing plans and sweeping expansions of federal programs.

His “nuclear” concept is different from ending debate rules.

It is a contingency switch, not a permanent rewrite. It would only operate inside a funding lapse.

The proposal also claims to reopen most of government quickly.

He estimated roughly four-fifths would restart under a CR. The remaining portion would stay closed to keep pressure on negotiators.

Supporters see a two-track payoff.

First, military pay and essential services continue. Second, taxpayers get a one-year, across-the-board 3% cut if gridlock triggers the switch.

Skeptics will question mechanics and vote math.

They will ask how fast a CR moves and who defines “essential.” They will examine whether both chambers would accept the architecture as written.

Mullin’s interview signaled urgency as the shutdown drags on.

Republicans want leverage without surrendering the Senate’s guardrails. They want Democrats to feel the cost of delay.

For families, the bottom line is simple.

Keep the country running, or face a built-in tax cut and a partial reopening that sidelines non-essentials while talks continue. That is the choice Mullin put on the table.