Government Shutdown Averted: As It Happened

So this long and terrible week is finally over. Chuck Schumer got what he wanted and there will be no government shutdown.

We’ll never know what would have happened had it gone the other way, but we are now entering a period in which the opposition party has voluntarily given up its last bit of leverage. Whatever happens next is out of Democrats’ control.

In the end, the CR passed on a 54-46 vote after cloture made it possible to clear it by a simple majority vote. As expected, Republican Rand Paul voted “no.” Two Democrats, Jeanne Shaheen and Angus King, voted “yea.” That means eight other Democrats (including Chuck Schumer) voted for cloture to ensure the bill would pass but then voted against the bill itself. That creates a bit of a problem if their reason to vote for cloture was that it was essential to keep the federal government open (as Schumer argued in his New York Times op-ed explaining his position), since a defeated CR would have closed it this very night. The other explanation is that they were simply afraid of getting blamed for a government shutdown, which is (a) not that clear and (b) not a terribly high-minded reason for taking such a position on votes of such importance.

Maine Senator Angus King (I) and New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen voted with Republicans for the CR. Rand Paul and the rest of the Democratic caucus all voted against it. Trump is now expected to sign the bill, which will fund the government until September 30.

A simply majority is all Republicans need. They’ll get it.

A final amendment to the CR was offered by Rand Paul, the sole Republican to vote against cloture, on grounds that it didn’t cut enough spending. Paul’s amendment would have doubled down on DOGE’s cuts to USAID and cut more. Interestingly 27 Republican senators voted for that amendment, presumably fearing that someone would suspect them of supporting humanitarian aid overseas. All Democrats voted “no,” of course, but the vote did send a message about the willingness of many Republicans to outdo Elon Musk.

In a bit of a surprise, a doomed Democratic amendment to the CR to defund DOGE drew a Republican vote: that of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. If you had to pick the Republican senator most likely to object to Musk’s assault on the federal government, it might well be Murkowski, whose state is very dependent on federal spending. Perhaps more to the point, Alaska doesn’t have party primaries, so she does not fear a primary challenge if she runs for another term in 2028. Indeed, she won her last reelection with a lot of Democratic and independent votes after Trump vowed to defeat her.

Looking at the list of Democrats who supported cloture, Axios’ Stephen Neukam noticed something:

That’s fascinating. Normally senators facing a reelection contest are more worried about swing voters than their party “base,” and often burn candles to the idol of bipartisanship. Democrats seem to believe the wind is blowing in a different direction in 2026. All of the Senate Democrats up for reelection just voted “no.”

Here are the amendments, per the Senate Periodical Press Gallery:

1. Merkley Amendment (1273): Exempts the application of certain rescissions. (Requires 60 affirmative votes to pass.)

2. Duckworth Amendment (1274): Grants reinstatement eligibility to veteran Federal employees involuntarily dismissed without cause and mandates agency reports on veteran employee terminations. (Requires 60 affirmative votes to pass.)

3. Van Hollen Amendment (1272): Prohibits the use of appropriated funds by DOGE. (Requires 60 affirmative votes to pass.)

4. Paul Amendment (1266): Reduces appropriations for the United States Agency for International Development.

The first amendment has already been defeated.

After the amendment votes, the Senate will vote on the CR to fund the government. Then there will be a vote on a separate bill to restore federal funding for Washington, D.C. — which Trump reportedly supports.

Passage of S. 1077: Approves local funds for the District of Columbia for FY 2025 per the Fiscal Year 2025 Local Budget Act of 2024 and establishes related provisions.

So aside from the great significance of this cloture vote in the real world of government, it was likely the closest we could get to a vote of “confidence” or “no confidence” in Chuck Schumer’s leadership. Had cloture failed, his position might have been endangered going forward. He survived it with a two-vote cushion , which probably means that once he got the requisite votes he told his conference they were free to vote as they wished. That so many of them chose to vote “no” tells you how they are reading the politics of this moment. I’d hate to be answering the phone in Chuck Schumer’s office right now.

The CR advances to the floor of the Senate on a 62-38 vote, with 10 Democrats joining all Republicans except Rand Paul.

New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen both voted “yes” as well, as did John Fetterman, as he’d been expected to.

That is nine Democrats and Republicans only needed eight to end the fillibuster — so the stopgap CR is going to be passed later tonight.

That’s five Democratic votes, including Cortez Masto.

Schatz has released a statement explaining his vote:

There will be up to 25 minutes for debate from three senators, then Majority Leader John Thune will speak.

Thanks to background amendment talks:

Also:

Ahead of the cloture vote, Paul has been given an opportunity to speak at length (against the CR).

This was likely a way to stave off further hijinks:

The Senate minority leader spoke with the New York Times’ Annie Karni:

“There is no off-ramp,” for a government shutdown, Mr. Schumer said in an interview Friday from his office just off the Senate floor. “The off-ramp is in the hands of Donald Trump and Elon Musk and DOGE. We could be in a shutdown for six months or nine months.”

He sees his job as leader as taking the long view and trying to avoid that outcome, which would lead to Democrats being “far more accosted” by angry constituents and activists than they are at the moment.

So, for now, Mr. Schumer said, “I’ll take some of the bullets.” …

Faced with the choice, Mr. Schumer said he had determined that a fight over funding the government would only muddle the much bigger fight Democrats were undertaking: pushing back against Mr. Trump’s plan to enact tax cuts for billionaires, financed by spending cuts impacting the middle class.

“That’s far more effective than arguing back and forth who’s the cause of a shutdown,” Mr. Schumer said, adding: “My internal gyroscope tells me I’m right.”

Reports the Washington Post’s Jeff Stein via X:

Putting aside for a second whether the shutdown is the correct or incorrect call for Dems, just worth noting that Trump will get more *legal* power over the federal budget under the CR, at least per numerous appropriators/approps experts I’ve interviewed.

Sen. Patty Murray (Washington) published a list of dozens of examples of programs that the House-passed measure could allow Trump to change w/o Congress.

For instance, Trump would have “near-absolute” authority over specific Army Corps of Engineers projects. More authority to pick which health-care or mental health programs to implement. “Broad discretion” over Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs, per Murray’s office.

And from Stein’s full Post story:

Democrats had hoped to include language in the bill requiring Trump to spend all the money in the measure and potentially thwart the unilateral cuts Trump and Musk are pursuing to agencies like the Education Department and Social Security Administration. But because Johnson was able to persuade all but one House Republican to back the measure, the GOP didn’t need any Democratic votes — which meant Republicans didn’t need to negotiate over that language before sending the bill to the Senate.

He’s not only the one Senate Republican who has said he’ll vote against the CR, he’s trying some last minute hijinks regarding the language:

He and the other House Democratic leaders at the presser pointedly didn’t say anything about Schumer.

Republicans will need at least another four “yes” votes on cloture — from the seven remaining Democrats who haven’t yet said how they will vote (assuming Gillibrand is already a “yes”).

Klobuchar’s statement:

I support the thirty-day short-term extension to keep the government open to complete bipartisan negotiations on the actual budget. I will not support the partisan proposal in part because it does not include Minnesota infrastructure projects, undercuts medical care and research, and makes major changes to reduce veterans’ health care, including for those exposed to burn pits.

Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto says she’s voting to avert a “devastating” government shutdown. That means 9 Senate Democrats remain publicly uncommitted.

That means there are now 10 Senate Democrats left who haven’t said what they’re going to do:

One House Democrat noted to Axios that they are going to pay a price anyway, so why not try to get something in return:

“The anger from yesterday has not subsided at all,” a House Democrat told Axios, adding that members feel “let down.”

“At the end of the day, because this is the only opportunity where we matter, we needed to get more from it, and we got nothing,” the lawmaker said. The Democrat noted that swing-district House lawmakers already see themselves getting roasted by Republicans for opposing a bill that could now pass anyway: “The NRCC ads are already happening.”

Meanwhile:

The swing-state senator’s announcement means there are now 12 Democrats who still haven’t signaled how they will vote on cloture.

As I note in my new post on Schumer’s shrug:

Democrats have taken a defeat and turned it into a debacle. House and Senate Democrats are divided from each other, and a majority of Senate Democrats are all but shaking their fists at their own leader, who did in fact lead them down a blind alley. While perhaps the federal courts will rein in the reign of terror presently underway in Washington (or perhaps they won’t), congressional Democrats must now become resigned to laying the groundwork for a midterm election that seems a long time away and hoping something is left of the edifice of a beneficent federal government built by their predecessors from the New Deal to the Great Society to Obamacare. There’s a good chance a decisive majority of the general public will eventually recoil from the misrule of the Trump administration and its supine allies in Congress and across the country. But at this point, elected Democrats are going to have to prove they should be trusted to lead the opposition.

Read the rest here.

By TPM’s count, there are three Senate Democrats who are expected to back cloture (and clear the path for the stopgap bill to pass): Fetterman, Schumer, and Gillibrand. Republicans need eight. 12 Senate Democrats haven’t signaled which way they are voting yet.

She has released a new statement on the CR battle:

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have offered the Congress a false choice between a government shutdown or a blank check that makes a devastating assault on the well-being of working families across America. Let’s be clear: neither is a good option for the American people. But this false choice that some are buying instead of fighting is unacceptable. 

I salute Leader Hakeem Jeffries for his courageous rejection of this false choice, and I am proud of my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus for their overwhelming vote against this bill. Democratic senators should listen to the women.

Appropriations leaders Rosa DeLauro and Patty Murray have eloquently presented the case that we must have a better choice: a four-week funding extension to keep government open and negotiate a bipartisan agreement. America has experienced a Trump shutdown before – but this damaging legislation only makes matters worse. Democrats must not buy into this false choice. We must fight back for a better way. Listen to the women, For The People.

Quite a day it’s turning out to be for Democrats.

And not long after:

According to CNN:

Privately, House Democrats are so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running at the caucus’ policy retreat. Multiple Democrats in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and others directly encouraged Ocasio-Cortez to run on Thursday night after Schumer’s announcement, this member said.

The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were “so mad” that even centrist Democrats were “ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,” adding that they have “never seen people so mad.”

This (Friday) afternoon, per Politico:

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has now teed up that procedural vote for 1:15 p.m. — and indicated he’d be willing to give Democrats a poised-to-fail vote on a four-week stopgap as part of a deal to speed up passage for Republicans’ CR. All 100 senators would have to green-light that, and as of Thursday evening, Schumer said there was no time agreement.

It’s not yet clear which six Senate Democrats will join Schumer and Fetterman to back the CR.

He’s sort of declaring victory — by thanking the minority leader for his “guts”:

A few arguments in favor of Schumer and others not trying to block the CR:

Matt Yglesias concurs:

This is correct, all my friends in DC are hopping mad about the way we are getting screwed on this bill (I am also mad) so it’s especially a hothouse environment for Hill staffers and members.

A shutdown is itself DOGE on steroids. Elon would declare whichever minority federal workers he doesn’t want to fire “essential” furlough everyone else and declare victory. You’d end up with Democrats begging the GOP to pass a CR and bring the workers back.

There is no language you could add to any bill that would avoid the looming Supreme Court showdown about the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act — if SCOTUS says that’s good law, then it’s good law. If they say it’s unconstitutional, no rider changes that.

With the surrender by Senate Democrats of their power to filibuster the House-passed GOP spending measure, congressional Democrats willingly gave up their only point of leverage over the demolition of the federal government as we’ve known it by the Trump administration.

It’s clear that some Democrats regarded that leverage as imaginary to begin with: in waving the white flag Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer argued that a government shutdown would actually tighten Trump’s grip over federal agencies and personnel, and it’s also true that his Republican colleagues in both Houses showed exactly zero interest in defending Congress’s spending and program-authorizing powers from Trump, Musk, and Vought.

But whether it was the right move or not, this retreat from quite literally the last ditch of resistance to Trump’s destructive agenda means it’s now up to the courts to rein in the unbelievable power grabs being executed by this administration through multiple means. It’s always possible Republicans will have some falling out among themselves that stalls the steamroller, but barring that, we officially have a one-party authoritarian government in Washington right now. It’s sobering to realize that so much immensely fateful litigation is very likely to wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court that Trump did so much to shape, but perhaps at least five justices will find the backbone to resist Trump’s claims of a constitutional right to do whatever the hell he wants.

“While the CR bill is very bad, the potential for a shutdown has consequences for America that are much, much worse,” Schumer said Thursday evening on the Senate floor, while explaining why he would not vote against the GOP’s stopgap bill to fund the government. He said Trump would use the shutdown to expand his power:

For sure, the Republican bill is a terrible option. It is not a clean CR. It is deeply partisan. It doesn’t address far too many of this country’s needs. But I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option. …

I believe it is my job to make the best choice for the country, to minimize the harms to the American people. Therefore, I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.

Here’s video of his remarks:

The New York Times reports that the minority leader “told colleagues in their private luncheon at the Capitol on Thursday that he would vote to clear the way for a final vote on the Republican bill extending government funding, according to multiple people familiar with the comments.”

Maybe not:

Punchbowl D.C.’s Andrew Desiderio adds that:

Behind closed doors, most of them seem to agree that a shutdown — especially in this particular moment — could be much more painful (substantively and politically) than any previous shutdown.

But publicly, they want to seem like they’re “fighting” Trump/Republicans.

Arizona’s Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego were both considered possible “yes” votes for the Republican stopgap, but they now say they oppose it. Here’s the statement from Kelly:

I took an oath to protect the constitution. I cannot vote for the Republican plan to give unchecked power to Donald Trump and Elon Musk. I cannot give permission for inflation-causing tariffs and firing thousands of veterans, things that are already having devastating effects on Arizonans and Americans. This might be a tough decision, but that’s what this job is about.

New Jersey’s Andy Kim is against it, too, declaring in a statement that:

Republicans have made it so Musk and the most powerful win and everyone else loses. I don’t want a shutdown but I can’t vote for this overreach of power, giving Trump and Musk unchecked power to line their pockets. I’m a NO on the CR. 

New Mexico’s Martin Heinrich and Maryland freshman Angela Alsobrooks, too:

Colorado’s John Hickenlooper is also a no:

It’s just one poll, but:

Something for Democrats contemplating the impact of a potential government shutdown should keep in mind is that DOGE cuts, while the most publicized part of Team Trump’s agenda for disrupting the federal government and reducing its size, is only one part.

There’s also the Reductions-in-Force of up to 700,000 federal employees that Trump initiated by executive order last month that will go public this very day with agency plans to fire staff. There are the plans to impound (i.e., refuse to spend] appropriated funds that is Russ Vought’s favorite baby, as my colleague just noted below. There are back-up plans to promote congressionally endorsed rescissions (i.e., clawbacks) of previously appropriated funds. There are, even more obviously, the cuts in appropriations included in the supposedly “clean” CR before the Senate.

And not far down the road are the massive future cuts that will be mandated in the “one big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill, mostly to pay for Trump’s tax cut promises. For Democrats and for public employees, it’s like standing on a beach and seeing wave after wave after wave of tsunami waters approaching. The courts may stop or diminish one or two or three, but there’s always another one on the way. In this context a government shutdown will be just another source of pain.

According to Fox News’ Elizabeth Elkind:

The White House has already started mapping out how to make good on its promise to slash federal spending in preparation for a six-month government funding bill to pass through Congress.

Two people familiar with the conversations told Fox News Digital that President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought are working on a strategy for impounding federal funds that Congress is expected to allocate this week, before the partial government shutdown deadline on March 14.

Trump and his allies have made no secret of their belief that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is unconstitutionally constraining the powers of the president. But the new development is a significant step toward a likely legal showdown as Democrats warn they will respond if Trump tries to bypass Congress on federal spending. The fight could go all the way up to the Supreme Court.

One reason Republicans are more or less keeping quiet as Senate Democrats try to decide whether to block or go along with a CR keeping the government open is that they think they win either way, as Rachel Bade of Politico reported:

White House officials brashly predicted to me that while Elon Musk has gotten flack for dismissing tens of thousands of workers, it’s the Democrats who will take the blame for more than 2 million federal employees getting furloughed, tax returns getting slowed and other benefits and programs getting shuttered if a shutdown occurs…. There’s another reason the White House isn’t sweating a shutdown: Senior officials agree that when coffers run dry, the Trump administration — specifically Vought, the longtime cost-cutting conservative now running OMB — would have unprecedented flexibility to choose which agencies get to stay open and which don’t. 

It’s less clear how a government shutdown would affect the legal standing of both DOGE and OMB in pursuing the unilateral cuts in spending and personnel they are pursuing on parallel tracks. Federal courts are beginning to rein in DOGE a bit, and nobody really thinks SCOTUS will agree with Vought that the president can ignore Congress altogether and do whatever he wants to the public sector. A shutdown will muddy the waters even more, but one thing is for sure: it will get the public’s attention in a big way, and may cast light into the dark corners where Vought and Musk prefer to operate.

AOC is a little late to the Schumer-bashing party over the CR, but she gets there just as Senate Dems may be reconsidering a cave:

One development that may be influencing Senate Democrats to hang tough in opposition to the House-passed CR needed to keep the federal government open is a remarkable statement from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the largest federal employee union:

With thousands of federal workers either fired, placed on administrative leave, or at immediate risk of losing their jobs, AFGE members have concluded that a widespread government shutdown has been underway since January 20 and will continue to spread whether Senators vote yes or no. 

Forcing a government shutdown is the only shred of leverage Democrats have to compel some limits on executive actions imposing mass firings of federal employees and demolition of federal programs Republicans don’t like. And now the largest organization representing those employees says using that leverage is essential even if that means a shutdown that will lead to furloughs of a vast number of workers and work without pay for others.

Notes TPM’s Kate Riga on Bluesky:

I’ve truly never seen Senate Dems so tight-lipped. The usually chatty Brian Schatz to me: “I’m not gonna be commenting on any of that; we’re still in negotiations.” Lots of referring to old statements. Get the sense no one wants to get out ahead of their skis, at least before today’s lunch meeting

Bloomberg adds:

Senate moderates continued to be coy about whether they would block the House bill if the shutdown deadline was imminent. Senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Elissa Slotkin all demurred when asked.

As of Wednesday night, it looked like a path was emerging whereby Senate Democrats would abandon plans to filibuster the House-passed spending bill (known as a CR, for “continuing resolution”) needed to keep the government from shutting down midnight on Friday. In exchange for allowing a cloture motion to cut off debate, they’d obtain the right to offer an alternative 30-day CR (without the defense and border-security spending add-ons and domestic spending cuts the House insisted on), which would go down on a party-line vote. This would be quickly followed by passage of the House CR on a party-line vote as well. Progressive social-media reaction to this rather deceptive strategy was savage, and Thursday morning there were scattered signs of renewed militance on the part of previously wavering Senate Democrats like Mark Warner and John Hickenlooper. Maybe Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer knows where his conference is going, but it’s a mystery to everyone else.