Why the Minority Party Can Force a Government Shutdown

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Keeping federal agencies open takes more than winning a vote count. In the Senate, a government funding bill can pass by a simple majority, but it may first need a separate vote to end debate. That procedure, called cloture, normally requires 60 votes on ordinary legislation.

By withholding the extra votes needed to end debate, a minority can keep the bill from reaching the final vote. When that delay outlasts the government’s existing funding, a fight over Senate procedure can become a shutdown. That sequence shows who can block a bill. It does not settle who is responsible when an agreement fails.

Where the extra Senate votes are needed

For ordinary legislation, cloture requires three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn, normally 60 votes when there is no more than one vacancy. A majority with fewer than 60 senators therefore needs votes from outside its own ranks to overcome a filibuster, the use of extended debate to delay or block action.

The Senate can also use unanimous consent agreements, accepted by all senators, to limit debate and amendments. That is why the 60-vote threshold is a hurdle when opponents insist on extended debate, not a requirement attached to every vote on final passage.

Even the threat of a filibuster can give opponents leverage before a bill reaches the floor, encouraging supporters to accommodate their concerns. Opponents do not have to speak all night; the possibility of prolonged debate is enough to shape the negotiations.

Invoking cloture on ordinary legislation can still leave up to 30 hours of further consideration, with a separate three-fifths vote available to extend that time. So winning a cloture vote does not produce an immediate vote on the bill, which matters when a funding deadline is close.

The vice president may vote when the Senate is equally divided. That power can resolve a tie; it cannot turn a narrow majority into the three-fifths of senators needed for ordinary cloture.

The funding deadline turns delay into a shutdown

Congress uses a continuing resolution, often shortened to CR, to provide temporary funding when regular appropriations are absent. That stopgap can keep agencies operating while the regular annual spending bills remain unfinished.

A funding gap can occur at the start of the fiscal year on October 1, or later when a continuing resolution expires without replacement appropriations. If funding is not likely to resume during the first calendar day of the gap, the government generally begins shutting down affected activities.

The Constitution permits money to be drawn from the Treasury only in consequence of appropriations made by law. The Antideficiency Act generally bars federal officials from spending or committing more money than an appropriation makes available. It also bars them from committing the government to a payment before an appropriation is made, unless a law authorizes it.

A president’s desire to keep agencies open does not itself supply the missing legal authority to spend. Congress must send the president legislation passed by both the House and Senate in the same form.

The president can sign a bill or return it with objections, and Congress can override a returned veto with two-thirds in each chamber. Avoiding a shutdown therefore takes an enacted funding law, not just a winning vote in one chamber.

A congressional budget resolution is no substitute for a funding law: it sets a framework for later budget legislation but is not itself a law and does not authorize raising or spending money.

What actually stops, and what can continue

A shutdown can be partial when some regular appropriations have been enacted and others have not. Whether a particular service continues depends on whether it still has funding or another legal basis to operate.

Federal law permits certain work during emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. That exception does not cover ordinary ongoing functions whose suspension would not imminently threaten either.

Historically, at least some of the employees who administer mandatory benefits have kept working during a funding gap, because authority to keep running a program could be inferred from Congress’s direction that the payments continue. That depends on the absence of contrary legislative history, the record of what Congress intended, in the particular circumstances.

Social Security benefit payments can continue during a shutdown because they are funded through a permanent appropriation.

During the October 2013 shutdown, the National Park Service closed park grounds, visitor centers and concessions because its activities lacked appropriations, while allowing specified exceptions such as through-roads connecting places outside the parks.

Employees not covered by a funded bill may be furloughed, meaning placed temporarily off duty without pay, or excepted from furlough and told to work. Employees whose compensation is not funded by annual appropriations can be exempt from furlough.

Being told to work does not mean being paid on schedule. For any lapse that began on or after December 22, 2018, the federal back-pay law requires that furloughed employees, and excepted employees required to work, be paid at their standard rate. The pay is due at the earliest possible date after the lapse ends, subject to enactment of the appropriations acts ending it. The law does not make missed pay arrive during the lapse itself.

Restoring funding can restart government activity without undoing every economic loss the interruption caused. After the partial shutdown that began December 22, 2018 and ended January 25, 2019, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that about $3 billion in lost economic output would not be recovered. That shutdown centered on funding for new border barriers.

Blocking power does not settle political responsibility

Nothing in the ordinary cloture threshold assigns this leverage to Democrats or Republicans by name. A Democratic minority can withhold the votes needed to advance a Republican proposal, and a Republican minority can do the same to a Democratic proposal.

The House can accept a proposed compromise from the Senate, reject it, or propose further changes during an exchange of amendments. A Senate agreement can therefore fail to become law because of a separate dispute in the House or with the president.

Responsibility is a judgment about the choices made in a particular fight: which terms each institution demanded, which alternatives it accepted, and what agreement could have been enacted in time. The last failed vote identifies an obstacle; by itself, it does not establish who rejected every workable compromise or why each senator voted that way.

The January 2018 shutdown is an example. On January 18, 2018, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that Congress should pass the House funding bill while bipartisan talks continued, saying there was at least until March to reach an immigration agreement.

Schumer led the Senate’s Democratic minority in 2018.

In the January 2018 negotiations, Senator Chuck Schumer sought immigration legislation for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, rather than waiting until March.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, gave eligible immigrants temporary protection from removal and permission to work. Under the administration’s announced phase-out, beneficiaries whose protection expired after March 5, 2018 would be unable to renew it, although court orders subsequently kept renewals available.

H.R. 195 carried the proposed extension of government funding. On January 19, 2018, a motion to end debate on the House’s latest version of H.R. 195 failed with 50 yeas, 49 nays and one senator not voting. More senators voted yes than no, yet the motion failed because invoking cloture required three-fifths, not a simple majority. The stopgap then funding the government expired that day, and the funding gap lasted two full days, concluding on January 22.

Later in January 2018, Schumer supported reopening the government after an agreement to consider immigration legislation if a broader deal was not reached by February 8. In a January 22 floor speech on that agreement, Schumer said McConnell had moved forward with a last-minute extension that he knew lacked the votes, and that senators of both parties had voted against it.

In 2025, Republicans controlled the House, Senate and presidency. A government-wide funding gap began on October 1, 2025 because neither regular appropriations nor a continuing resolution had been enacted.

That day, the Senate rejected cloture on the motion to take up H.R. 5371, a continuing appropriations bill, by 55 yeas to 45 nays. Cloture on the motion to take up the alternative funding bill, S. 2882, also failed, with 47 yeas and 53 nays. Both motions needed three-fifths support; the House funding bill had more yes votes than no votes but still fell short.

Before the shutdown, Schumer argued on September 10, 2025 that Democrats needed input into a bipartisan funding agreement and warned about the approaching expiration of Affordable Care Act premium tax credits, which help pay for health insurance. During the shutdown, Republican Majority Leader John Thune argued on October 21, 2025 that Democrats should reopen the government first, after which the parties could immediately discuss the health insurance dispute.

The shutdown ended when a law combining three regular appropriations acts with temporary funding for the remaining nine was signed on November 12, 2025.

When checking a vote record, read the question voted on before treating a procedural defeat as a vote against final passage. A no vote on cloture establishes opposition to that procedural motion, not a complete explanation of the senator’s preferred funding agreement.

A shutdown can begin with a fight between the chambers

In 2013, Republicans held the House majority and Democrats held the Senate majority. On September 20, 2013, the House approved a continuing resolution that would have prohibited federal funding for the Affordable Care Act, the health insurance law. The Senate’s amendment omitted that defunding language.

The House then pursued amendments repealing the law’s medical-device tax and delaying its implementation by one year. On September 30, 2013, the Senate voted 54 to 46 to table the House amendments, setting them aside.

With no regular appropriations bills enacted at the start of that fiscal year, the funding gap began October 1, 2013 and concluded October 17, after 16 full days. The episode shows that a Senate minority withholding the votes to end debate is not the only possible cause of a shutdown: the two chambers can disagree over what the funding law should contain.

Negotiation and the limits of procedural shortcuts

The partial shutdown spanning late 2018 and early 2019 ended when a continuing resolution was signed into law on January 25, 2019, allowing affected departments and agencies to reopen. The immediate solution can be temporary funding rather than a final settlement of the full-year spending fight.

Budget reconciliation, an optional process for putting a budget resolution’s policies into effect, uses expedited procedures, including a 20-hour Senate debate limit and a requirement that amendments relate to the measure’s subject. The Congressional Research Service says reconciliation’s spending instructions have applied almost exclusively to direct spending, also known as mandatory spending, which funds entitlement programs such as Medicare. Discretionary spending, which mainly funds agency operations, is provided in annual appropriations acts.

Reconciliation is therefore a separate budget procedure, not a way to exempt an ordinary funding bill from the Senate’s debate rules.

A formal change to the Senate’s rules faces a debate threshold of its own. Under the standing rules, ending debate on a proposal to amend those rules requires two-thirds of senators present and voting.

The Senate has also changed the application of cloture through majority-vote precedents: in 2013 it lowered the threshold for nominations other than to the Supreme Court, then extended that approach to Supreme Court nominations in 2017. Those precedents concern nominations; ordinary legislation retains the three-fifths threshold described above.

The policy dispute over the filibuster turns on how much bargaining power a minority should retain when a majority is prepared to act. In a June 10, 2021 interview, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell defended the threshold as requiring broad bipartisan support and protecting the Senate as an institution.

McConnell pointed to six major bipartisan bills passed in the first five months of that year and continuing negotiations over infrastructure. His case treats agreement beyond the majority as evidence that the restraint can produce cooperation.

In a March 16, 2021 floor speech, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin supported reform, including a talking filibuster, and argued that increased obstruction had reduced debate and bipartisan cooperation. Durbin said senators elected to the majority should do more in response to the people who sent them. In that 2021 speech, Durbin said the Senate took 49 votes to break filibusters from 1917 to 1970, fewer than one a year, and had averaged more than 80 a year since 2010. A talking-filibuster proposal would require senators using a filibuster to speak on the floor.

To understand the next shutdown fight, follow the funding deadline through to the proposed law: who can bring it to a vote, who will accept its terms, and whether it can be enacted before the money runs out.