The federal government is barreling toward a Tuesday night shutdown deadline, and according to the White House and congressional Republicans, there’s only one person who can stop it: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
In what’s shaping up to be an unusual constitutional chess match, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Monday morning that President Trump was “giving Democrats one last chance to be reasonable,”
Government shutdown draws closer as congressional leaders head to the White House even as Democrats insist they’re the reasonable ones. But here’s where things get constitutionally fascinating – this shutdown fight is testing the limits of minority party leverage in ways we haven’t seen before.
At a Glance
- The government funding deadline is Tuesday at midnight, with no deal in sight
- Democrats are demanding Republicans commit to billions in enhanced Obamacare subsidies set to expire at the end of 2025
- The White House says there’s “nothing to negotiate” on the current spending bill
- Any funding solution requires at least seven Senate Democrats to pass due to filibuster rules
- Republicans control both chambers and the White House but need Democratic votes to govern
The Constitutional Wrinkle Nobody’s Talking About
Here’s what makes this shutdown different from every other political food fight you’ve watched: even with Republicans controlling the presidency and both chambers of Congress, government funding legislation requires at least seven Senate Democrats to pass if every Republican supports it. That’s not political negotiation – that’s constitutional math.
The 60-vote threshold in the Senate for appropriations bills isn’t some arcane procedural quirk. It’s a deliberate feature that forces the majority party to build consensus, even when they control everything else. The Framers designed the Senate to be the deliberative body, the place where narrow majorities couldn’t simply steamroll the minority.
But here’s where it gets interesting: Republicans are arguing they’re offering a “clean” continuing resolution – just keep the government running at current funding levels while everyone figures out the bigger budget questions. Democrats countered with a joint statement saying they’re “resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican healthcare crisis” – framing their demand for Obamacare subsidy extensions as a crisis Republicans created.
Who’s really holding whom hostage here?
“The president wants to keep the government open, he wants to keep the government funded.” – White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt
The Healthcare Leverage Play
Let’s be clear about what Democrats are actually demanding: enhanced premium tax credits for the Affordable Care Act that are set to expire at the end of 2025.. Without an extension, premiums could spike up to 75% Will your health care premiums spike if Congress doesn’t extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies? for millions of Americans who buy insurance through ACA marketplaces.
Republicans say fine, we can debate that later – the subsidies don’t technically expire until December 31 Why Obamacare funding is a sticking point in the fight to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats counter that waiting creates chaos for insurance planning and enrollment for 2026. Both sides have a point, which is what makes this constitutionally fascinating rather than just politically frustrating.
Here’s the structural question this fight exposes: When does legitimate use of constitutional leverage become hostage-taking? Democrats argue they’re using the only tool they have as the minority party to force action on something that will affect millions of Americans. Republicans argue that attaching policy demands to must-pass spending bills is exactly what Americans consistently say they hate about Washington.
The polling on this specific question is striking. A recent poll found Americans would blame Republicans more than Democrats for a shutdown (34% to 23%), and 52% said Democrats should withhold votes unless Republicans agree to restore healthcare funding.
But here’s what the Constitution doesn’t care about: polling. The Senate’s 60-vote requirement exists regardless of public opinion.
The Power Paradox
President Trump canceled a meeting with Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries last week Republicans and Democrats see incentives in a likely shutdown, only to reschedule it for Monday as the deadline loomed. That dance itself tells you everything about the constitutional bind both sides are in.
Trump and Republicans control the levers of government – the presidency, the House, the Senate. But they don’t control enough Senate votes to govern unilaterally on spending. Democrats control nothing except the ability to say “no” – but in the Senate’s constitutional structure, that “no” is enough to grind everything to a halt.
This is exactly the kind of constitutional friction the Framers intended. They didn’t want governing to be easy. They wanted it to require negotiation, compromise, and consensus-building. Whether you think that’s brilliant design or frustrating gridlock probably depends on which party you support at any given moment.
“We are resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican healthcare crisis.” – Schumer and Jeffries joint statement
But there’s a deeper question here about separation of powers: When Congress can’t pass a budget – the most basic function of the legislative branch – who wins? The executive branch gains enormous discretionary authority during shutdowns. A shutdown would leave President Trump and his congressional allies in charge of deciding which government functions continue How a government shutdown could give Trump more power.
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse precisely to check executive authority. A shutdown temporarily flips that script.
What The Founders Would Say
Madison would probably point out that this is Federalist 51 in action: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The Senate’s supermajority requirement for appropriations forces the majority to negotiate with the minority, preventing tyranny of the majority.
Hamilton might note that this is also evidence that the legislative branch needs more energy and decisiveness – exactly what he warned about in Federalist 70.
Jefferson would likely remind everyone that the Constitution doesn’t actually authorize most of what the federal government does anyway, so maybe a shutdown isn’t the worst thing.
But here’s what’s undeniable: the constitutional structure is working exactly as designed. It’s making governing difficult. It’s forcing both sides to either compromise or accept the consequences of deadlock.
The question isn’t whether Schumer should “change his mind” or whether Republicans should negotiate on healthcare. The question is whether our constitutional system of divided power, supermajority requirements, and deliberate friction can produce actual governance – or just gridlock.
The Constitutional Bottom Line
As the Tuesday deadline approaches, both sides are betting the other will blink first. Republicans are betting that Americans will blame Democrats for demanding policy concessions on a “clean” spending bill. Democrats are betting that Americans will blame Republicans for refusing to address healthcare concerns when they control all the levers of power.
But the Constitution doesn’t care who wins the blame game. It only requires that 60 senators agree before the government can be funded. Everything else – the messaging, the meeting cancellations, the press conferences – is just political theater playing out within constitutional constraints.
Maybe that’s the real lesson here: in our system, nobody can govern alone. Not even when they win everything.