Democrats Backed Into a Corner in Government Shutdown Fight
WASHINGTON—Federal agencies risk shutting down late Friday night, and the Republican-led plan to keep them open has Democrats in Congress backed into a corner with few—if any—good options.
The Democratic base has been begging party leaders to fight harder at every turn, but on most issues congressional Democrats are powerless in Republican-controlled Washington. They can’t stop President Trump’s nominations, his still-developing tax bill or GOP regulatory repeals, let alone the cuts that Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk are making to the federal workforce.
This week’s bill to keep the government funded is the first big issue where Democrats have leverage, because Republicans need Democratic votes—maybe in the House, and definitely in the Senate. But what looks like leverage is something of a trap. Democrats want to keep the government open, and blocking a bill that does that could be counterproductive—handing even more power to the president to manage federal operations.
“No one wants to shut the government down,” House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) told reporters on Monday. He predicted the House would pass the bill, and then it would be up to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and his fellow Democrats to “do the right thing. And I don’t think they’re going to shut the government down.”
Schumer hasn’t laid out his stance on the bill, and other Senate Democrats have also kept their cards close, with some criticizing Republicans over the bill but not saying how they would vote.
“This is a shutdown bill that’s bad for the economy—let Trump shut down whatever he wants, hurting everyday folks to use money for tax breaks for the uber-rich. Hell no!” Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), whose state has many federal employees, said on X. He later stopped short of saying he would vote against it, when asked by reporters.
Said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Conn.): “I really want to talk to my colleagues, but right now I’m against it.”
Things are expected to move quickly. House lawmakers are expected to vote Tuesday on the GOP proposal backed by Trump that would extend federal funding for six months. The plan adds money for the military and cuts some nondefense outlays, while ignoring demands from Democrats to protect the funding from actions from the White House.
It also imposes restrictions on spending by the District of Columbia government, which city officials estimate could lead to a $1 billion cut in its current-year budget.
While Republicans control the House, Democrats typically have some leverage because funding-extension proposals are unpopular with a large bloc of GOP lawmakers on principle. Many have defied Johnson and voted against funding bills in the past for a variety of reasons, forcing him to turn to Democrats for help.
But urged on by Trump, many Republicans who previously voted against such funding measures are getting on board with Johnson’s plan this time. If they pass this measure, leaders argue, they can turn their full attention to approving Trump’s sweeping tax-cut, spending-cut and border agenda later this year.
“I hate kicking the can down the road. Here’s the thing: President Trump made the play call, and he’s right,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R., Okla.) on X.
Still, it is no sure thing. The GOP controls the House 218 to 214, and one regular Republican dissident, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, has said he would vote no. If Democrats hold the line and more Republicans defect, that would force the GOP to the negotiating table. Democrats could then support a shorter-term extension to give appropriators time to finish full-year funding bills, seen as the best outcome Democrats could hope for.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) reiterated Monday that Democratic support for the proposal was off the table, citing the proposed cuts to healthcare and nutritional programs for children, among other programs.
“House Democrats will not be complicit in the Republican effort to hurt the American people,” he said.
If the GOP measure does pass the House on Tuesday, it goes to the Senate, where 60 votes are required to overcome the filibuster to move the bill. The GOP has a 53-47 majority.
Democrats could simply block the bill. In this case, however, walking away would almost certainly lead to a government shutdown. Democrats worry about taking the blame but also are nervous about letting funding lapse, given that it would cut off federal workers’ pay just as Trump has shown he is intent on squeezing government workers and closing offices—and might not be in a rush to make any deal.
“It’s going to be awful either way,” Rep. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.) said.
Back in November, when Democrats came to grasp the dynamics of a Republican trifecta, they saw the shutdown deadline as a rare moment of political leverage. Some still see it that way.
“Funding the government is the moment of maximum leverage for Democrats in this first year of the administration, which means we have to get wins for the middle class,” Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D., Mass.) said Sunday. “We have to protect them from the chaos and corruption.”
During earlier negotiations on a funding extension, Democratic leaders pushed for Republicans to put spending requirements in the proposal, an attempt to force the Trump administration to follow Congress’s orders to pay out the money that it has appropriated. Trump has said he has the power to disregard those orders and spend less federal money where he sees fit.
Republican leaders rejected those requirements, saying they couldn’t agree to such limits.
The GOP proposal has another unattractive feature for Democrats: It could turbocharge Trump’s power over federal spending.
Annual funding bills, when passed by Congress in previous years, come with lengthy reports—written jointly by Republicans and Democrats—with specific directives on how agency leaders should spend their allocated amount of federal money. The proposal from Johnson on Saturday contained far less guidance, giving Trump administration officials more power to spend the money as they wish.
Casey Burgat, an assistant professor at George Washington University, said the ability of federal agencies to spend money with fewer limitations could help the Trump administration defend against court challenges to future policy changes, including in areas such as energy and immigration.
Without detailed guidance, challengers could have a harder time proving that Congress didn’t intend for a federal agency to take a certain action, he said.
By: Katy Stech Ferek
Source: Wall Street Journal