Congress faces a do-or-die deadline Friday, March 14, when funding for the rest of the federal government’s current fiscal year “discretionary” spending programs expires. If lawmakers and the president disagree on a spending plan, discretionary government programs – from national parks to the Pentagon – would shut down.
House Republicans have passed a plan that largely – but not entirely – extends last year’s funding levels for the rest of this fiscal year. GOP leaders relied on pressure from President Trump to pass it: All but one voting Republican got on board, along with one Democrat from a conservative-leaning district in rural Maine. Now GOP leaders want to “jam” the Senate: Use the threat of a shutdown to secure enough votes from Senate Democrats to avoid a filibuster.
Passage is not guaranteed. Democratic leaders object that the measure cuts several billion dollars from domestic programs, bolsters defense spending, and fails to include any specific directives to guide how funds are spent.
This might sound like business as usual in Washington for a stopgap spending bill. But it’s not: The conflict unfolds against the backdrop of an ongoing and unprecedented presidential grab of fiscal power.
Here’s what you need to know.
Typical shutdown politics
Annual discretionary spending comprises about a third of the government’s nearly $7 trillion annual budget. “Mandatory” spending on entitlements like Medicare and Social Security (along with interest paid on the rising national debt) makes up the rest of federal spending. (Entitlement benefits continue regardless of whether the government shuts down.) Since enactment of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act over President Nixon’s veto in 1974, Congress has divvied up appropriations into a dozen or so annual spending bills with the goal of enacting all of them by the start of the fiscal year each October 1.
It’s been nearly 30 years since Congress and the president actually managed to enact each of the required appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year. But there are no penalties in the law for missing deadlines. Congress instead patches together a series of stopgap spending bills to keep government lights on until lawmakers can agree on a new funding plan for the rest of the fiscal year. Fear of being blamed for shutting down the government typically – though not always – motivates both parties right before the deadline to make a bipartisan deal.
Why bipartisan? Even in a period of unified party control – when a single party holds the White House and a majority of seats in both chambers – Senate rules require a supermajority of 60 votes to cut off debate if any senator objects to voting on a measure. In other words, senators can filibuster any spending bill. Because a Senate majority with at least 60 seats is rare, bipartisanship is the name of the game.
Most lawmakers prefer a spending agreement to a temporary fix. Spending deals typically lock in changes to federal spending to address shifting priorities, demands, or conditions. Stopgap bills, in contrast, pretty much just freeze spending at last year’s levels until lawmakers reach a deal.
This time is different
Today’s funding impasse takes place amidst an unprecedented power grab by the Trump administration. The president’s Office of Management and Budget has frozen grants, loans and other federal assistance for thousands of federal programs totalling over a trillion dollars, demanding that all federal programs align with Trump’s policy priorities. What’s more, the administration all but dismantled two federal agencies by firing their staff and freezing operations, summarily dismissed numerous Senate-confirmed appointees who by law can only be removed for misconduct, and indiscriminately fired thousands of federal employees.
That’s hardly business as usual. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power of the purse – raising questions about whether a president has the authority to second-guess spending decisions by Congress. Moreover, federal budget law strictly limits the conditions under which presidents can either temporarily defer spending or rescind it all together. The Trump administration has violated both repeatedly in its first weeks in office, generating scores of lawsuits that aim to restore federal funding.
That context matters in this week’s funding impasse. The White House campaign to secure votes from wavering House GOP members includes promising conservatives that Trump can impound funds after Congress approves them.
The GOP has dumped the ball in Democrats’ court
Democrats in Congress are in a tough spot.
First, Democrats want a written guarantee within the appropriations bill that the president will commit to spending the funds precisely as Congress legislates. In turn, Republicans object to imposing any constraints on how Trump executes the spending measure after enactment. Even if the GOP were to concede, Democrats are skeptical the president would abide by the restriction.
Second, Democrats are loath to cause a government shutdown. They identify as the party committed to making government work. Indeed, voters have largely blamed Republicans for government shutdowns over the past decade or more. Now that the House has passed the bill, Senate Democrats face a choice. Hold out for a better funding bill at the cost of being blamed (at least in the short run) for shutting down the government? Or hold their noses and give Republicans the full 60 votes (or unanimous consent) needed to bring the plan to a vote?
Third, Democrats fear Trump could weaponize a government shutdown. He could ignore rules that designate certain federal workers as “essential personnel,” such as the public health and safety officials required to work without pay during a shutdown. Instead, Trump (or Elon Musk or Russell Vought) could decide who counts as “essential.” What’s more, the Trump administration could fire scores of additional federal workers under the fiction that if their jobs are not deemed “essential,” they are targets for letting go.
In periods of unified party control, the minority party’s key source of power is sticking together. The minority party can force House and Senate majority parties to muster all the votes to advance their agenda and shoulder any blame. But are Senate Democrats willing to play hardball by voting against the spending bill? For now, that might be Democrats’ only chance for reining in this president— contingent on voters blaming the GOP majority for failing to govern. It’s not clear this Senate minority is sufficiently united nor willing to shoulder that risk by voting down the spending plan.
