A new paradigm for shutdowns

Barring a last-minute agreement between President Trump and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, funding for the federal government will expire at 11:59 p.m. tonight. While government shutdowns have become a standard part of the appropriations process in recent years, this fight is unique and reveals the new paradigm under which policy is crafted in President Trump’s second term.

What’s so special about it?

First, this shutdown is being instigated by congressional Democrats, namely Schumer, whose Democratic minority filibustered a government funding bill passed by the Republican-controlled House. The House-passed bill is a Continuing Resolution (“CR”) that simply extends funding levels at their current level. The federal government has been operating under a CR since the end of the Biden administration, meaning Senate Democrats are filibustering President Biden’s appropriations levels.

Why would they do that? With minority factions in both the House and Senate, Democrats have been impotent in their ability to stymie President Trump’s agenda. They are desperate to show something to their frustrated base, no matter how thin the substance. To bring some substance to this fight, Democrats are demanding that an extension of Affordable Care Act premium subsidies passed at the height of the COVID pandemic be added to the CR. Expect to hear a lot about this issue if the shutdown persists.

Why are President Trump and congressional Republicans content with a CR at Biden-era spending levels instead of a new appropriations bill reflecting their spending priorities? We have entered a new political paradigm in which the executive branch—not Congress—can do the most to reduce the size and scope of government.

Until this year, conservatives have opposed CRs. They wanted to use the annual appropriations process to cut spending and eliminate woke, wasteful, and weaponized federal programs, eliminate annual deficit spending, and reduce the national debt (now $38 trillion). Annual appropriations were the only way to accomplish any of that, and CRs were understood as “kicking the can down the road.” Year after year, conservative lawmakers would hold out for meaningful changes, often resulting in a temporary government shutdown, only to eventually fold under the weight of political pressure.

However, President Trump and his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, came into office in January 2025 with a plan to revive lawful authorities of the president in spending that had long lay dormant, namely the powers of impoundment and rescission. In short, these powers allow the president to decline to spend money that Congress has appropriated, sending it back to the treasury. This means that conservatives in Congress no longer bear the sole weight of cutting spending; the president can do it, too. Suddenly, a CR that merely keeps funding flat from previous years is both a cut in real terms with inflation and nominally (since annual appropriations always increase the topline spending number), and an opportunity for the president to make additional cuts.

That’s juicy, but here’s where it gets even better: If there is a government shutdown due to a lapse in congressional authorization, the president and his team, led by Russ Vought, must decide how to prioritize whatever federal revenues are received. Like a family managing their household budget, the president decides whether to pay the credit card bill or cut the cable, only the options are keeping national parks open or funding research for transgender hormone therapy in mice. The result could be the largest reduction of the administration state in American history.

It’s a win-win for conservatives and a very difficult place for congressional Democrats, who after decades of delegating congressional authority to the executive branch find themselves standing atop Haman’s gallows now that President Trump is in charge and willing to use those same powers to the fullest extent allowed by law.