Government shut-down explainer: September 2025
The Federal government shuts down September 30 unless the Republicans can keep it running by a budget vote in Congress. In the House of Representatives, Republicans can do this acting alone on a straight party-line vote, if all their factions agree. In the Senate, the Republicans can only avoid a shut-down if seven Democrats cross over and vote with them. Historically, Democrats have worked against government shut-downs. Just last March, despite push-back by some Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Schumer switched his position and helped give the Republicans the votes they needed to keep this regime funded.
Shut-down impacts
The impacts of a shut-down on both services and government employees is hard to predict, as the Administration has some flexibility. For a good explanation of impacts, see What Happens if the Government Shuts Down?
Argument for a shut-down
Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich argues for a shut-down as “the only way [Democrats] can fight back against the Trump catastrophe.” He writes:
The U.S. government runs out of money September 30.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would see that as a huge problem. I was secretary of labor when the government closed down, and I vowed then that I’d do everything possible to avoid a similar calamity in the future.
Under ordinary circumstances, people like you and me — who believe that government is essential for the common good — would fight like hell to keep the government funded beyond September 30.
But we are not in ordinary circumstances. The U.S. government has become a neofascist regime run by a sociopath.
That sociopath is using the government to punish his enemies. He’s using the government to rake in billions of dollars for himself and his family.
He’s using the government to force the leaders of every institution in our society — universities, media companies, law firms, even museums — to become fawning supplicants: pleading with him, praising him, and silencing criticism of him.
He is using the government to disappear people from our streets without due process. He is using the government to occupy our cities, overriding the wishes of mayors and governors.
He is using the government to impose arbitrary and capricious import taxes — tariffs — on American consumers. He is using the government to worsen climate change. He is using government to reject our traditional global allies and strengthen some of the worst monsters around the globe.
Keeping the U.S. government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times.
So I for one have decided that the best route is to shut the whole f*cking thing down.
Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem.
Argument for a tough negotiation stance, willing to shut down
Others are urging Democrats to take a strong negotiating position, asking for real concessions and being willing to shut down the government to get them.
Former Republic Congressman Adam Kinzinger writes: “The Democrats should stop worrying about getting blamed and focus instead on shaping the outcome.”
To do that, they need a clear, achievable list of demands. Not a wish list that can be dismissed as partisan theater, but concrete items that Republicans must accept if they want Democratic votes. Protecting Ukraine funding. Safeguarding basic health and safety regulations. Defending Social Security and Medicare from backdoor cuts. Ensuring fair election administration. Shutting the doors on DOGE. These are not radical positions. They are broadly popular and well within the mainstream. And Democrats should make it clear that without them, there is no deal.
The progressive organizing group Indivisible takes a similar position:
We are calling on Democrats to oppose any Republican budget that allows Trump’s chaos and lawlessness to continue unchecked. Any government funding deal must halt his attacks on federal
agencies and programs that Americans count on for their health, safety, and
economic security and begin reining in the corruption of Trump’s regime.
Journalist Jonathan Alters says: "In a world of short attention spans, Democrats should go to the ramparts on just three ... issues, with a tightly focused popular solution for each." He suggests:
H.T.T. — health, tariffs and troops in the streets. The first two are directly related to affordability, with health-care premiums and drug costs surging and tariffs causing steep price increases, not to mention resentment from parents who don’t want the president telling them, as he did in April, that it’s OK if they can now afford only two dolls for Christmas.
Argument against a shut-down
Others argue that a tough Democratic position is, at best, an exercise in futility and, at worst, a political “own goal” that will come back to bite Democrats in the 2026 mid-term elections.
Some of this argument comes from inside Senate Democrats:
One Democratic senator who requested anonymity to comment on political dynamics within the Senate Democratic Caucus said progressives who are angling to run for president have pushed for the most confrontational approach with Republicans.
“Most people want to avoid brinkmanship, except some of those people who may be running for president, because I think people understand that it’s important to keep the government operating,” the lawmaker said.
Others argue that a shut-down would be both bad policy and bad politics:
It’s tempting for parties to play hardball and try to use a government shutdown to force action on specific policy issues. The theory is that the shutdown will either cause enough pain for the other party that it will come back to the bargaining table ready to offer concessions, or that public opinion will turn against the other party and those shutting down the government will reap future electoral benefits.
The problem is that it has basically never worked. The party trying to leverage the shutdown doesn’t get the other side to the bargaining table; instead, the other side simply demands an unconditional reopening of the government while pointing out all the ways the shutdown is hurting defense, federal workers, and people trying to go to Yellowstone. Public opinion turns against those trying to leverage the shutdown, and they eventually cut a face-saving deal.