Why Aren’t Policymakers Meeting to Avoid a Shutdown?

With less than a week left to avoid a government shutdown, virtually no high-level meetings have taken place to discuss an agreement to pass a short-term continuing resolution. Senate Majority Leader Thune (R-SD) and Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) have made no attempt to sit down. Nor have Speaker Johnson (R-LA) and House Minority Leader Jeffries (D-NY).

Then early this week, Minority Leaders Schumer and Jeffries floated a proposal to meet with the President, a meeting between President Trump and Democratic leadership was planned for Thursday and abruptly cancelled; reportedly after House GOP leadership reached out to the President urging him not to take the meeting out of concern that he’d strike a deal with Democrats on their request to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies. Republicans in both chambers are holding firm that a short-term continuing resolution is not the proper vehicle to address such a policy – ironically, an almost exact inverse of the situation that led to the 2013 shutdown.

But reality is that the stalemate on FY26 funding is about much more than disagreements over healthcare policy or the appropriate forum in which to negotiate it. The tension of the current political environment, accelerated by recent events, is palpable.

Congressional Democrats are frustrated by their inability to meaningfully stop or slow the actions of the administration and their counterparts in the majority. There’s immense pressure from the left to push back in some way. Forcing a shutdown presents a possible answer – but at what cost?

Republicans are facing plenty of their own challenges: a farm crisis, rising consumer prices, a worsening housing crisis, discouraging employment numbers, and a messaging problem with their signature legislation. A government shutdown, particularly an extended one, could greatly exacerbate these issues.

Aside from the immediate harm caused by a government shutdown (which is significant, particularly for communities in the DC-metro area and other cities with high federal employment), the biggest mitigating factor is that neither side is certain who will be blamed for a shutdown.

Much like the situation in March of this year, it doesn’t seem like concessions to incentivize a yes-vote for Democrats are on the table. So, once again, Senate Democrats have to decide between essentially bailing out the Senate Majority for nothing in return or risking financial harm to Americans and deterioration of federal services. Pure frustration may lead to the latter this time.  

The silver lining for Dems is that since the solution at hand is a short-term CR, which only lasts through late November, another opportunity to negotiate funding levels and potential policy riders is right around the corner. It also helps that a CR is merely a continuation of FY25 funding levels, rather than full-scale appropriations bills shaped by the majority, which would contain spending cuts that are nonstarters for Democrats.

But the problems that got us to this point won’t be solved in 7 weeks, and in all likelihood, we’ll be in a similar (if not the same) situation then. Either way, congressional leaders can’t solve any problems if they aren’t meeting. That first step needs to occur in order to open a dialogue and avoid the hardships created by government shutdowns.