Last updated 13 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The federal government is heading toward a potential shutdown in fall 2025. Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, but the minority Democrats could still force the government to close.
This might be a surprise. The party in power should govern; when it fails, it should take the blame. But the reality is more complicated. Constitutional rules, Senate procedures, and political strategy combine to give the minority party real power to stop government funding.
This report explains how federal funding works, what happens during a shutdown, and why the Senate’s rules give a minority party the power to halt government operations.
How Federal Funding Works
The government needs appropriated money to operate. Without it, agencies cannot pay employees or deliver services. When the funding process breaks down, the government shuts down.
Congress Controls the Money
The Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse.” Only Congress can authorize spending. The President cannot spend money without congressional approval. This process is called appropriations.
The federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. Congress must pass funding laws by October 1. If it fails, a “funding gap” occurs.
The Annual Budget Process
In theory, the appropriations process follows “regular order.” The President submits a budget request to Congress by the first Monday in February. The Office of Management and Budget compiles this proposal, which outlines spending priorities for every federal agency.
Congress then takes over. The House and Senate Budget Committees each draft a budget resolution. This sets an overall spending limit for discretionary spending—the portion Congress debates annually, covering defense, national parks, and other programs.
This total is divided among 12 appropriations subcommittees in both chambers. Each subcommittee drafts one of 12 annual appropriations bills funding specific agencies. For these bills to become law, identical versions must pass both the House and Senate before going to the President.
Continuing Resolutions Fill the Gaps
Regular order rarely works anymore. In today’s polarized environment, Congress struggles to pass all 12 appropriations bills on time. When lawmakers cannot agree by October 1, they use a Continuing Resolution (CR).
A CR is temporary legislation that keeps the government open for a limited period. CRs typically continue funding at the previous fiscal year’s levels. They buy time for negotiations but signal deeper legislative problems.
Congress has not met the October 1 deadline for all 12 bills since fiscal year 1997. Since then, lawmakers have enacted 138 CRs to keep the government running. The formal appropriations process is broken. What should be routine governance has become recurring crisis negotiation.
What Happens During a Government Shutdown
A government shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass either full-year funding bills or a CR by October 1. This creates a “lapse in appropriations.” The government’s authority to spend money expires.
The Legal Basis
Shutdowns are legally required, not just political choices. The Antideficiency Act, a law from the 19th century, prohibits federal agencies from spending money Congress has not approved.
For decades, agencies interpreted this law loosely. They would continue operating during funding gaps, expecting Congress to eventually provide money.
This changed in 1980 and 1981. Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions interpreting the Antideficiency Act strictly. He concluded that a lapse in appropriations requires the government to shut down all “non-essential” functions. This interpretation created the modern government shutdown.
Who Works and Who Stays Home
During a shutdown, federal employees are divided into two groups. “Non-essential” employees are furloughed. They are placed on mandatory, temporary, unpaid leave and cannot work.
“Essential” employees must continue working without paychecks. This group includes active-duty military personnel, air traffic controllers, federal law enforcement agents, and TSA officers. Since 2019, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act guarantees all federal employees—furloughed or working—will receive back pay once the shutdown ends.
The 2025 standoff has introduced a significant change. The Trump administration’s OMB has directed agencies to prepare not just for temporary furloughs but for permanent layoffs through a “Reduction in Force” (RIF). An OMB memo instructed agencies to ready RIF notices for employees in programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”
This fundamentally alters shutdowns. Historically, they were temporary standoffs over policy, causing service disruptions and financial hardship for workers. The RIF threat transforms a shutdown into a tool for permanently reshaping the federal government.
For the administration, a shutdown becomes an opportunity to eliminate opposed programs and positions. One source close to the President stated he “privately welcomes the prospect of a shutdown because it will enable him to wield executive power to slash some government programs and salaries.” For the opposition, this raises the stakes from a temporary fight to a battle over whether certain government functions will continue to exist.
Effects on the Public
Some core government functions continue during a shutdown. Social Security and Medicare payments are not affected because they are funded through mandatory spending laws that do not require annual appropriation. Mail delivery continues because the U.S. Postal Service is self-funded. Military and law enforcement operations proceed.
Many other services stop. National parks and Smithsonian museums close. Federal agencies stop processing passports, small business loans, and federal housing loans. Food safety inspections are curtailed. Immigration hearings are delayed. In a prolonged shutdown, food assistance programs like WIC and SNAP could face funding shortages.
The economic impact can be substantial. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 35-day partial shutdown in 2018–2019 cost the U.S. economy $11 billion, with $3 billion lost permanently.
The Senate Filibuster and the 60-Vote Rule
Republicans control both chambers of Congress and the presidency. So how can Democrats block funding and trigger a shutdown? The answer lies in Senate rules.
Unlimited Debate
The Senate has a long tradition of unlimited debate. Any senator or group of senators can speak as long as they wish on a topic, preventing a bill from coming to a vote. This delaying tactic is the filibuster. It was designed to protect minority rights and encourage consensus. In the modern era, it has become a tool for obstruction.
Breaking a Filibuster
The only way to end a filibuster is through cloture. Under Senate Rule 22, cloture on most legislation requires three-fifths of all senators—60 votes. This 60-vote threshold controls nearly all major legislative action in the Senate, including spending bills needed to keep the government open.
Why Democrats Have Leverage
The 60-vote rule is the fulcrum of the shutdown debate. Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate. Even if every Republican votes for a CR, they would have only 53 votes—seven short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster.
This gives Senate Democrats immense leverage. By threatening to filibuster the funding bill, they can prevent it from coming to a vote. Their votes are necessary for passage. When Senate Democrats withhold their votes to block a funding bill, they are not passive bystanders. They are active participants wielding procedural power that forces them to share responsibility for the outcome.
The September/October 2025 Standoff
The theoretical power of the Senate minority becomes clear in the real-world battle over 2025 funding. The conflict is not over whether to fund the government, but over the terms.
The Republican Proposal
The Republican majority, backed by President Trump, has advanced what they call a “clean” Continuing Resolution. Their proposal would extend current government funding levels through November 21, 2025, without major policy changes or additions. They argue this is the most responsible path forward, averting a shutdown while providing time to negotiate the 12 full-year appropriations bills.
Republican leadership blames Democrats for the impending shutdown.
President Trump said: “These people are crazy, the Democrats. If it has to shut down, it’ll have to shut down. But they’re the ones that are shutting it down.” He has repeatedly characterized Democratic policy requests as “unserious and ridiculous demands.”
Vice President JD Vance stated after a failed White House meeting: “I think we’re headed into a shutdown because the Democrats won’t do the right thing.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said: “What the Democrats have done here is take the federal government as a hostage—and by extension the American people—to try and get a whole laundry list of things that they want.”
Democratic Demands
Democrats are using their filibuster power to refuse votes for the clean CR unless their policy priorities are addressed. Their demands focus primarily on healthcare:
- Extending Affordable Care Act subsidies that help lower health insurance costs, which are set to expire
- Reversing Medicaid cuts included in President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”
- Restoring federal funding for public media
Democratic leaders argue they are fighting for policies critical to millions of Americans.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “We’re hearing from the American people that they need help on health care.” After meeting with Trump, he added: “There are still large differences between us.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said: “We are ready, we are willing, we are able to find a bipartisan path forward… What we will not do is support a partisan Republican spending bill.” In a joint statement with Schumer, he accused the President of “marching the country toward a painful Republican shutdown.”
Failed Negotiations
The standoff has been marked by acrimonious public statements and unproductive meetings. President Trump initially canceled a scheduled meeting with Schumer and Jeffries, calling them “unserious.” A later meeting was held but ended in stalemate with no deal reached.
Administration officials hinted at willingness to discuss ACA subsidies but insisted such talks could only happen “in the context of an open government.” This means Democrats would have to vote to prevent a shutdown first. This political brinkmanship, with each side daring the other to blink, has pushed the government to the edge of a shutdown.
The Political Calculus
A government shutdown is a high-stakes political gamble. Both parties weigh potential policy gains against the risk of public backlash, using history and polling to inform their strategies.
Historical Patterns
Past shutdowns offer lessons. The public tends to blame the party it perceives as the aggressor or as holding the government hostage for ideological demands.
| Year(s) | Duration | President (Party) | Congressional Control | Core Dispute | Perceived Political Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995-1996 | 21 days | Bill Clinton (D) | Republicans (House & Senate) | Republican demands for deep spending cuts in a balanced budget | Widely seen as a political victory for President Clinton; Republicans were largely blamed |
| 2013 | 16 days | Barack Obama (D) | Divided (D Senate, R House) | Republican demands to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act | Republicans received most of the blame and did not achieve their policy goals |
| Jan. 2018 | 3 days | Donald Trump (R) | Republicans (House & Senate) | Democratic demands for protections for “Dreamer” immigrants | Ended quickly with a promise for a future vote; seen as a tactical retreat by Democrats |
| 2018-2019 | 35 days | Donald Trump (R) | Divided (R Senate, D House) | President Trump’s demand for funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall | President Trump ultimately reopened government without securing wall funding; seen as a victory for Democrats |
The pattern suggests that the party seen as initiating the crisis for narrow partisan goals often pays a political price. This is the risk Republicans run by refusing to negotiate on healthcare and the risk Democrats run by blocking a clean funding bill.
Current Polling
Public opinion in 2025 leans toward blaming the party in power. A Morning Consult poll found that 45% of voters would blame congressional Republicans for a shutdown, compared to 32% who would blame Democrats. A Navigator Research poll showed a plurality blaming Trump and Republicans by a 22-point margin, widening to 25 points among independent voters. This gives Democrats a perceived advantage in public opinion.
Strategic Calculations
The Democratic decision to risk a shutdown rests on three factors. First is procedural leverage from the Senate filibuster, which gives them power to block the funding bill. Without the 60-vote rule, their opposition would be symbolic.
Second is the political appeal of their demands. They have anchored their fight in healthcare—extending ACA subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts—an issue where they generally hold a public opinion advantage over Republicans. Polling shows voters view reversing Medicaid cuts as worth fighting for, even at the risk of a shutdown.
Third is perceived blame allocation. Armed with polling showing the public is more likely to blame the majority party, Democrats calculate they can force a shutdown and have Republicans bear the brunt of political fallout.
Republicans are making the opposite bet. They believe the public will see Democratic actions as unreasonable hostage-taking and will reward the GOP for holding firm on a clean bill that performs the basic function of keeping the government open.
Both sides are engaged in a high-stakes gamble with the stability of government services and the paychecks of millions of federal workers hanging in the balance. While the majority party holds ultimate responsibility to fund the government, the minority’s power to block that funding makes them an inescapable and responsible party to the outcome.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
