The Looming Government Shutdown
Beware the Ides of March.
I seldom concern myself with talk of government shutdowns when there are still weeks on the clock to go. This time, though, it seems that no one really wants to stop it. And, while the Defense Department and other parts of the government are usually funded, mitigating the impact, that’s unlikely to be the case this time.
POLITICO (“‘Time is running out’: Lawmakers scramble for a deal to stop a shutdown“):
A Capitol Hill clash over President Donald Trump’s extraordinary moves to take control of federal spending is upping the chances that lawmakers won’t have a deal to fund the government before a shutdown deadline in just three weeks.
Talks between the top appropriators in the House and Senate have soured in the past week, with lawmakers still searching for an agreement on topline spending levels that are a prerequisite for funding individual agencies and programs for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Negotiators have insisted they are staying at the table to hash out an accord. But there’s no clear strategy to break the logjam, and House Republican leaders privately acknowledge that contingency plans need to be drawn up in case the impasse continues ahead of the March 14 deadline.
“Time is running out,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine told reporters.
The stalemate has been driven in part by partisan distrust over the Trump administration’s remarkable seizure of the federal purse strings. Democrats want assurances from Republicans that the administration will adhere to Congress’s wishes on spending as Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk summarily cut jobs and programs.
“The one thing Rosa DeLauro and I are asking for is simply an assurance that if there’s going to be Democratic votes, that the president and Elon Musk will follow the law, and they won’t just take our bill that we’ve worked really hard on and rip it up and it doesn’t matter,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters Thursday, referring to her counterpart on the House Appropriations Committee.
Though more GOP lawmakers are starting to speak out against the executive branch’s unilateral freezing of federal funds, Republican leaders are not likely to agree to checks on Trump’s ability to slash spending.
That has made a continuing resolution, which funds the government under the prior year’s spending levels, look more appealing to members of both parties — though even this alternative poses a risk of a shutdown.
A core group of House Republicans have repeatedly threatened to revolt if their leaders move forward with anything other than 12 individually negotiated spending measures. They want those bills to include certain conservative policy riders and spending cuts.
Democrats, meanwhile, are signaling they won’t bail Republicans out: DeLauro has said that if a long-term continuing resolution were to come to the floor — one that lasts beyond just a few days to let lawmakers put the finishing touches on a full-year bill — it would be “the job of the majority” to pass it.
Murray in a floor speech Thursday called a full-year continuing resolution a “nonstarter” that would end up creating “slush funds for this administration to adjust spending priorities and potentially eliminate longstanding programs as they see fit.”
A stopgap spending bill would also force Congress to lurch weeks or months at a time on status quo spending, bringing uncertainty to agencies that are already besieged by Trump and Musk’s unpredictable personnel cuts. Short-term, flat funding can halt military equipment upgrades, hinder strategic planning and prompt hiring and procurement freezes.
A sign negotiations were beginning to nosedive came Thursday afternoon, when Collins and Murray volunteered within an hour of each other very different readings on the state of the discussions.
Murray insisted negotiators are “extremely close” to landing the topline numbers and that she was in “constant communication” with her Republican colleagues, but didn’t explain how she squared her confidence with the fact that she and DeLauro are pushing for commitments to rein in Musk and Trump that Republicans are unlikely to accept.
Meanwhile, Collins said talks “appear to be at an impasse” after she and House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma made a joint offer to Democrats on Sunday that had gone without a substantive reply “other than just a perfunctory acknowledgement.”
“I am very disappointed,” Collins said in a brief interview.
El Kilgore, NY Intelligencer (“Why Democrats Will Probably Shut Down the Government Soon“):
Despite their apparent powerlessness, Democrats can block appropriations measures with a Senate filibuster, as they could in 2018 when Republicans had a governing trifecta as well. So they have to be cut in on any deal. And with just over three weeks until the money runs out, there have been virtually no real negotiations. There’s no “top-line” spending deal in sight dictating total appropriations, much less the deals over individual items. There’s also a total lack of agreement within the GOP caucuses, never mind across the aisle, as to whether the goal remains passage of the 12 individual appropriations measures covering all federal operations (as most conservatives prefer, even though it hasn’t happened since 1996), or some big fat “omnibus” bill combining appropriations, or yet another “continuing resolution” that just extends current spending levels until the end of the fiscal year in September.
[…]
Second, the two parties are perhaps farther apart than ever in their ideas about appropriate spending levels for this or that government function. Trump didn’t campaign on an extreme austerity budget, but that’s what he seems to be insisting upon in office, and all the saber-rattling from both DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget suggests he’s not going to be willing to wait for the next fiscal year to begin very deep cuts in programs and personnel of which he does not approve. Signing a same-old-same-old bipartisan spending measure would conflict pretty dramatically from his overall posture at the moment.
But the third and most important reason a shutdown might happen this time involves Democrats. Typically, as the “party of government,” Democrats can be counted on to supply whatever votes are needed to keep the federal government open. But now they are understandably horrified by the ever-proliferating power grabs undertaken so quickly by Trump and his agents — and by what they are doing with that power. Yes, they may be able to count on the federal courts to rein in DOGE or OMB or individual agency heads who are running wild, but (a) that will take time, (b) the outcome isn’t certain with a Trump-friendly Supreme Court at the end of every strand of litigation, and (c) passively watching the whole crazy show doesn’t reflect very well on congressional Democrats themselves, whose constituents are frantic for them to do something.
Democrats are already by definition shut out of the long-term budget decisions congressional Republicans are pursuing via budget-reconciliation legislation (which will also now, it appears, include the debt limit increase that once looked like a source of Democratic leverage). So getting a lot of concessions from Republicans in March is a no-brainer. Such concessions might go far beyond spending levels into subjects like reasserting Congress’s control of appropriations or reining in DOGE. The odds of those dynamics playing out to a successful conclusion without at least some lapse in appropriations seem low.
Paul Kane, WaPo (“Congress ignores looming shutdown to focus on tax cuts, agency layoffs“):
With President Donald Trump and GOP leaders distracted by other issues, Congress is on the verge of bungling its way into a shutdown of federal agencies in less than three weeks.
[…]
[U]nlike the most recent shutdown deadlines, the politics of the moment are not aligned to bring the two parties together with an obvious last-minute deal that simply adds more money for each side’s favored projects.
Instead, many Democrats have grown so livid about Trump and Musk’s dismantling of agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development — ignoring laws approved by Congress and signed by previous presidents — that many Democrats say they will oppose a new round of government funding without guarantees that Trump and Musk will abide by these laws.
In outlining what they are seeking, Sen. Patty Murray (Washington), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, summed it up thus on Thursday: “Simply an assurance that, if there’s going to be Democratic votes, that the president and Elon Musk will follow the law and they won’t just take our bill that we worked really hard on and rip it up.”
Republicans know that without any Democratic votes, the government will shut down. To boot, at least a half dozen anti-government conservatives in the House, sometimes several dozen, refuse to vote for even the most basic bill funding the government.
[…]
The divide is epitomized by a pair of collegial committee members who usually forge deals but instead are now casting blame.
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) noted that there is general agreement on funding levels that mirror a deal worked out in 2023. Republicans are willing to divvy up agency funds at those levels even though the leaders who negotiated that pact — Joe Biden and Kevin McCarthy — are no longer in office.
“If the Democrats want to do a shutdown, they can do it by simply refusing to move forward,” Rounds said.
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Delaware) grew livid at the suggestion that Democrats are blocking a deal.
“Look, the Trump administration is already shutting the government down,” Coons said.
In recent years, he oversaw funding dedicated to USAID and other foreign aid programs, Coons said. “It has specific and concrete language that says you cannot restructure USAID without congressional approval. They just did it. They just did it. So this is not hypothetical. It is not hyperbole. It is a completely understandable concern.”
The Democrats are demanding an agreement written into the package to require Trump to abide by these spending bill outlines. That is the sort of thing that resides above the pay grade of the House and Senate Appropriations committee leaders.
Those types of “riders,” as they are known by insiders, require negotiations among Thune, Johnson and their Democratic counterparts, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (New York) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (New York), as well as the administration.
But Trump is not paying close attention to insider machinations on Capitol Hill. Johnson and Thune’s spat has gone on for almost three months now, over one or two bills using the fast-track route to pass legislation on party-line votes.
[…]
Some congressional insiders fear that a prolonged shutdown is something that Musk and the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought — whose roots come from working for the most far-right House Republicans — would cheer on. Musk, an unelected adviser with vast power, has so far not worried about the consequences of mass firings of workers in charge of air safety and those administering crucial foreign aid abroad.
And this shutdown could be much more painful than the nearly five-week version during Trump’s first term that started in late 2018. That shutdown partially shuttered some federal agencies, although critical entities, such as the Pentagon, already had their annual budgets approved and remained open.
This year, a mid-March shutdown would leave every agency without funding, keeping only those employees deemed essential at their posts. Even those key federal workers still at their jobs, such as Border Patrol agents and military troops stationed abroad, would be working without pay.
Collins, who voted to convict Trump in the 2021 impeachment trial, indicated she opposes the Democratic bid to write binding language into the spending bills.
“When bills like this are done, the rule in the past has been no poison pills, no new riders,” she told reporters.
Coons doesn’t even know how Democrats would write such a guarantee into legislation, given that it is already the law.
“I mean, it is demonstrably the law that when we pass an appropriations bill, and the president signs it into law, it has the force of law,” he said. “And you’re supposed to follow it.”
Pshaw.
I have reserves adequate to weather this…
(what is it that’s below shit show, anyway?)
…event. I feel bad about people who don’t, but it’s really really not like we didn’t know who Trump, Johnson, Thune and the rest are. Some of us specifically voted for this and have been for decades now. Laissez les bons temps roullez.
Elections have consequences.
Though I have little faith that Dems won’t crumble and bail the R’s out.
In the past I think there was a sense that it was a relatively small group of radicals on the right that were impeding the budget making and that the majority of Republicans were willing to reach a compromise. It wasn’t the worst thing in the world for Dems to bail things out and play the role of the responsible party. This time around the radicals are lead by Trump and Musk and advisers like Vought. The majority of Republicans have been explicitly or tacitly supporting what has been going on. They arent, so far, offering to compromise since they think they have an overwhelming mandate, having won the POTUS election by a bit over 1%. Maybe this is the time the Dems shouldn’t bail them out.
Steve
I think the best sentence in the above is “it is the responsibility of the majority to pass a continuing resolution”.
The Senate Majority could do this. The House Majority probably can’t. And this will highlight that fact. Democrats need to pound that message. Also, “there’s no point in negotiating a budget that the President will ignore” is a very good message. After reminding everyone that the Republicans can pass any budget they want all by themselves, being the majority.
@steve:
Fear of a primary challenge.
Well Collins is concerned, so I’m sure all wil be fine.
Again we get hung up on Democrats following established protocol while Republicans have utterly trashed it. If only one side is committed to the framework, does it even exist anymore? There are scant rules in war.
Having said that, the best move for the Democrats as follows:
First, spend x-amount of the 3 weeks (say 1 week) making a robust attempt to “reach across the aisle” with constant status reporting to the constituents.
Second, at the end of attempted rapprochement, make loud pronouncement that either passing the Republican budget or shutting down the government is damaging and dangerous to the American public. Neither result is acceptable. And since compromise cannot be reached, the Democrats will not vote, therefore the consequences rest entirely on the Republicans. Heavily publicize that last point. Make the Republicans own their callous recklessness.
What is the point of Congress [I could stop the sentence right here] negotiating a budget if they will do nothing to enforce it? It’s a meaningless exercise under this administration.
Politico does a both-siders:
No. It’s a question of whether the legislature, and particularly the majority party in both branches, will ensure their rules and responsibilities under the Constitution are retained.
These articles are great examples of Murc’s Law, where despite the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, it still some how the Democrats’ responsibility to make sure things keep working.
@Rob1:
I hate to say this, but what’s of paramount importance is that the felon’s party take the blame for the shutdown if there is one.
Shutdowns are the one thing that really anger the electorate, and get remembered for a long time (for politics).
@Kathy: Large swathes of government are already being shut down, illegally. Things that people actually liked, like the CFPB. Unless/until Republicans are willing to impeach Trump, why should Democrats bother voting for anything, given that Trump has already ignored the law? The Republicans wanted this, and they’ll suffer more. I mean, we’re probably going to hit the debt ceiling too, and while I’m horrified by all of this, why should Democrats cooperate?
@just nutha: I’m not sure I have reserves to weather this, since I don’t think having money will help. But I’d rather have one big massive failure than a series of small failures/government enshittification over years. The first is obvious; the second easy to overlook.
Good times make ignorant people, apparently.
I too oppose binding language being added. Because I don’t think it will bind this lawless administration. We need congress to exercise its existing authority, not add sternly written letters into bills that reiterate existing law.
If Republicans in congress make meaningful efforts to reign in the illegal acts of the Trump administration by March whatever, Democrats should help pass a short term, clean CR — and keep doing so, week after week, but do nothing to support changes in priorities. Republicans have a trifecta, they can get to trifecting.
Otherwise… if the Trump administration can illegally refuse to spend allocated money, they can illegally spend unallocated money.
@Kevin: I was thinking of the economic fallout. I won’t be homeless if I miss a SS check, if I have to start paying my own medical bills, prescription drug fees, etc. With no children or other loved ones left (other than a brother and S-I-L who are both older), I’m at the point where I don’t need much other federal government service.
It’ll be a nuisance to renew my passport though. On the other hand, I don’t travel much anymore.
One reason why a shut-down shit-show is likely is because of all the potential veto points and potential failure points:
– A historically narrow House majority, which gives the very small douche-bag caucus a lot of power, as well as any other small group of House members who choose to coordinate to make demands.
– A Senate where the filibuster is still in play.
– A chaotic Presidency filled with loyalists and no one, except perhaps Rubio (and that’s a stretch), that has the kind of gravitas or pull with either side of the legislature to act as a go-between.
– The Trump administration essentially giving Congress the middle finger and pushing the boundaries in a historic way on Executive power when it comes to spending.
– And then there is the debt ceiling.
Fun times!
@Just nutha ignint cracker: Right, but I’m not sure economic fallout is all we have to worry about. The US dollar is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. At the moment, I don’t think that’s worth much, do you?
@Stormy Dragon: “These articles are great examples of Murc’s Law, where despite the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, it still some how the Democrats’ responsibility to make sure things keep working.”
Especially that piece by Ed Kilgore.
@Kevin: “I’m not sure I have reserves to weather this, since I don’t think having money will help. But I’d rather have one big massive failure than a series of small failures/government enshittification over years. The first is obvious; the second easy to overlook.”
I agree. A long, slow degradation serves the Right.
@Kevin: If the dollar collapses or the Treasury bond market fails, the new standard of wealth could well become possession of 40 acres and a bag of seed potatoes. The types of hyperinflation that have plagued other countries might well be a worldwide “game over” event if they happened here. But I don’t follow global economics closely enough to know what happens in such a crisis.
So far, no one has been offering to take over as the global reserve currency. So far … 🙁
ETA: Beyond which, I have no inkling of what other sorts of fallout I would be able to react to at all. Being one person in a nation of 350,000,000 is pretty limiting for crisis response.
Phase 1 – Coronavirus Wave Begins at March 11, Through December 20, COVID-19 Shutdown Begins.
Phase 2 – practice social distancing, avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, wash your hands frequently and stay informed on the most updated guidance from public health officials. Together, through all of our efforts, we will get through this.
Phase 3 – Coronavirus Response:
Slow the spread of the virus and stopping the virus spread of COVID-19/Monkeypox and Omicron Variants. COVID-19 Lockdown will begin at March 20, 2025 and November 4, 2025.
Phase 1 – Coronavirus Wave Begins at March 11, Through December 20, COVID-19 Shutdown Begins.
Phase 2 – practice social distancing, avoid touching your eyes, nose, and mouth, wash your hands frequently and stay informed on the most updated guidance from public health officials. Together, through all of our efforts, we will get through this.
Phase 3 – Coronavirus Response:
Slow the spread of the virus and stopping the virus spread of COVID-19/Monkeypox and Omicron Variants. COVID-19 Lockdown will begin at March 20, 2025 and November 4, 2025.