Government Shutdown Approaches as Senate Democrats Block GOP Spending Bill
Government Shutdown Approaches as Senate Democrats Block GOP Spending Bill
By Ralph R. Smith
Creating Political Brinkmanship: Government Shutdowns Did Not Exist Before 1980
A federal government “shutdown” as we know it today did not exist before 1980. That’s not because there was never a lapse in appropriations—it was not uncommon—but because when funding temporarily lapsed, government employees still worked and were paid (albeit a bit late). The system functioned without the political brinkmanship that has become familiar since the 1980s.
The modern shutdown framework dates back to Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, who served under President Jimmy Carter. In 1980, Civiletti authored two legal opinions that created the “either exists or it does not” rule: if funds are not appropriated, the federal government must cease non-essential operations. He also clarified that the president maintains constitutional authority to continue essential functions, which gave rise to the classification of “essential” versus “non-essential” federal workers.
Technically, a future Attorney General could issue a different legal opinion and overturn Civiletti’s interpretation. Historically, such shutdowns were not the intent of Congress in the late 19th or early 20th centuries. And for over a century—from the post-Civil War era through the 1970s—the federal government weathered funding gaps without drama or disruption.
Today’s Budget Standoff and Risk of Shutdown on October 1, 2025
Based on various news reports, as of September 19, 2025, U.S. lawmakers are embroiled in a budget impasse.
The House passed a GOP-backed short-term continuing resolution (CR) to fund federal agencies through November 21, including $88 million in new security funding in response to the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
The Senate, however, rejected that proposal 44–48, failing to meet the 60-vote threshold. A competing Democratic proposal, which included expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and restored Medicaid funding, also failed in a close 47–45 vote.
As a result, no spending agreement is in place, and funding is set to lapse at the end of the day on September 30, 2025, ushering in a potential partial government shutdown starting October 1, 2025.
Why This Feels Different—and Why It Matters
The current dispute has escalated into full-blown political theater. Political leaders on both sides are framing a shutdown as a referendum on their party’s priorities—with Democrats blaming GOP intransigence and Republicans accusing Democrats of using healthcare as a partisan lever.
According to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “Republicans cannot expect that another take-it-or-leave-it extension of government funding that fails to address healthcare costs is going to cut it for the American people. By trying to make this partisan, Donald Trump and Republicans are shutting the government down.”
According to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD): “Eventually it’s going to be an up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to keep the government open. Democrats seem more intent in satisfying their very leftist base, who is desperately wanting to see a government shutdown.”
Neither side is currently willing to bend. Democrats demand that any continuing resolution address healthcare concerns—notably permanent Obamacare subsidies and the reversal of Medicaid cuts—while Republicans insist on a “clean” CR without policy riders. This standoff is increasing the odds of a shutdown.
This climate differs sharply from the pre-1980 era. It’s now not just a lapse in funding—but a tool for political leverage, designed to draw media attention and rally support from constituencies. Shutdowns today do not streamline government—they paralyze it.
Federal employees face furloughs, delayed pay, and disrupted services. Even essential staff—like air traffic controllers and law enforcement officers—typically must continue working without pay until appropriations are signed. The episodic hardship now defines the shutdown experience, unlike earlier funding gaps when operations simply continued.
Could The Attorney General (Current or Future) Reverse This?
The current Attorney General could issue an alternative legal interpretation of Civiletti’s opinions—just as in 1980. If such an interpretation declared that a lapse in funding does not require cessation of non-essential work, shutdowns as we know them would effectively be abolished.
Whether today’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, would issue such an opinion is unknown. Historically, the shutdown framework was never the intent of Congress—it evolved through legal interpretations evolving over time.
Politics and a Government Shutdown
The reality is that a shutdown provides political leverage. Politicians get to expound on national television on which party is “right” and which party is “wrong” in their budget priorities. It makes our politics more divisive than is necessary. It certainly does not create a more efficient government. And, as many FedSmith readers have recounted, it creates hardship and inconvenience for many federal workers.