Each year, Congress must reach agreement, in some form, on 12 separate bills that provide the funding for discretionary federal programs, ranging from the Department of Defense and the National Institutes of Health to national parks and many education programs. The regularity of the process is important to effective congressional oversight, as agency heads often testify in front of the relevant appropriations subcommittees annually. The appropriations committees in the House and Senate have historically prided themselves on being bipartisan; indeed, several key staffers, known as clerks, have worked for both Republicans and Democrats. Each year, Congress tries but routinely fails to finish all the appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. Legislators then turn to what’s known as a continuing resolution, which funds the government at the funding levels from the prior year, often until late November or early December with a hope that by then the appropriations process can be completed.
Several times during the last 30 years, however, Congress has failed to adopt even a temporary stopgap measure, and a shutdown of the government resulted. Many federal employees who do not have “essential” responsibilities don’t report to work and, as a result, the activities they usually carry out go on pause. While furloughed employees are, thanks to a 2019 law, now automatically entitled to back pay when the government reopens, they go unpaid during a shutdown.
In recent years, shutdown threats have become common and actual lapses in appropriations more frequent; in the 17 years between 1996 and 2013, there were no lapses, but there have been three in the 11 years since, including a record-length shutdown in 2018 and 2019. From the perspective of the broad public, they primarily serve as reminders that Congress is broken and cannot get its work done on time. From an economic lens, however, the effects are real, at least temporarily. Lurching from shutdown threat to shutdown threat also makes it harder for agencies—many of whom have been hamstrung in recent months by various administration actions related to personnel and spending—to plan and use resources responsibly.
The two most significant shutdowns—for 17 days in 2013 and for 35 days in late 2018 and early 2019—both had, at their center, a demand from Republicans that Democrats were unwilling to agree to. In the case of the former, it was a desire to defund and/or delay the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And in the case of the latter, it was funding for the construction of a barrier along the southern border. What both issues had in common was that they were important ones for Republican messaging, and a desire to be seen as “fighting” for the “conservative” position was key for many members.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot. It is Democrats who are navigating political pressures from key constituencies and assessing what to ask for in exchange for their votes, which are necessary to clear the 60-vote threshold to end debate in the Senate. On one hand are questions of institutional power. This year has been marked by repeated incursions by the executive branch into Congress’ power of the purse. Recent estimates from the Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees put the total amount of funds being held up by the administration at $410 billion. In addition, the White House is also seeking to cancel approximately $5 billion in federal spending through a tactic known as “pocket rescissions” that the Government Accountability Office has held is illegal. Democrats’ proposed CR includes several provisions that address this behavior by the executive branch.
In addition, there are various policy issues that are animating Democrats that could be shutdown fodder. The counterproposal released by Democrats this week includes the extension of certain subsidies for individuals to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act and reverses some cuts to Medicaid enacted this summer; those cuts were projected by CBO to cause 10 million people to lose coverage. But if there’s another shutdown threat later this fall, we could imagine any number of other policies—the administration’s tariffs, its aggressive immigration enforcement and calls for mass deportation, or the evolving changes to vaccine policy, to name a few—emerging as demands. Articulating multiple asks could also, strategically, provide an off-ramp if any one of them is met.
Beyond these substantive questions, however, is a political one. Democrats—who control neither the House, the Senate, nor the White House—are facing increasing pressure from some of their key constituencies to be seen as fighting more aggressively against President Trump and his administration’s aggressive use of executive power. That political dynamic, when coupled with the institutional and policy considerations discussed above, may well lead them to conclude a shutdown is the right move—especially since Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was widely criticized by some in his party for not fighting harder in March. But to make that call, Democrats will also have to confront that, as the party generally more oriented toward “making government work,” other constituencies might be skeptical of the value of a shutdown.
How might all of this play out? Because enrollment in health care plans that would be affected by the expiration of subsidies begins Nov. 1, Democrats may feel that if they are going to make a stand on that issue, it needs to be now, on a temporary spending bill. But even if Republicans agree and a shutdown is averted now, both parties will find themselves right back in this scenario—and without possibly the clearest logical bargaining chip—later this year, when a continuing resolution would run out. At that point, Republicans—including the White House–may well prefer to pass another spending bill at existing levels, left over from 2024. They secured increases in spending on key priorities like immigration enforcement and defense as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer, and any cuts they’d like to see, they could attempt to accomplish via the various tactics already in use by the Office of Management and Budget to restrict the flows of federal funds.
Taking all these factors into account, a shutdown may be coming. Politically, key elements of the Democratic base want to see Democrats putting up a fight. The timing of a shutdown, however, is not quite so clear. One could imagine a short-term continuing resolution that runs to late November, at which point disagreement over other core issues—the power of the purse, immigration, or otherwise—could result in a shutdown.
But a shutdown on Sept. 30 resulting from a fight over health care is a real possibility. The parties have been fighting over health care at a fever pitch since the ACA was enacted. If the subsidies are not extended, marketplace premiums will rise substantially and an estimated four million more Americans will join the ranks of the uninsured. If a shutdown results, Democrats may find themselves in the difficult spot of searching for a set of concessions to which Republicans would agree while also facing continued pressure from key constituencies to “keep up the fight.”
Recent history suggests that, from a concrete policy perspective, shutdowns are often futile—but political dynamics can still cause them to happen.