The United States Congress has many complex duties, but its most fundamental, most essential responsibility is to fund the government it creates. This is the bedrock of its power. Today, in a remarkable display of political brinkmanship, the Senate has formally chosen to fail at that task, rejecting a path to compromise and setting the nation on an inexorable course toward a government shutdown.
How Did Both Parties Say ‘No’?
The anatomy of Friday’s failure was a study in talking past one another. Republicans, having passed a short-term funding bill through the House, presented it as a take-it-or-leave-it offer.
Democrats countered with their own proposal, attempting to leverage the must-pass bill to extend expiring health care subsidies and place checks on the President’s ability to withhold funds.
Both were rejected. The votes were not a surprise, but they were a confirmation that neither side has any intention of negotiating before the Sept. 30 deadline. With the House now cancelling session days and senators heading home, a shutdown is no longer a risk – it is the near-certain outcome of a deliberate political choice.
The Constitutional Bedrock: The Power of the Purse
This stalemate is more than a policy dispute; it is an abdication of a core constitutional duty. The founders, wary of a tyrannical executive, deliberately vested the power to fund the government – the “power of the purse” – solely in the hands of the legislative branch.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution makes it clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
This is the legislature’s ultimate check on the executive. For Congress to be unable to exercise this power, not due to an external crisis but due to its own internal paralysis, is a profound institutional failure. Senate Majority Leader John Thune laid the dynamic bare with his ultimatum to Democrats:
“Looks to me like it’s this or a shutdown.”
A Deeper Fear: The Impoundment Question
Fueling the Democratic opposition is a crisis of faith that extends beyond this one bill. There is a palpable fear that even if Congress were to pass a budget, the Trump administration – specifically White House budget director Russ Vought – would simply refuse to spend the money as allocated.
This concern over executive impoundment strikes at the very heart of the separation of powers.
It raises a question that renders the entire appropriations process meaningless: Why pass a budget if the President can unilaterally ignore it?
This fear, rooted in historical clashes that led to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, suggests the current shutdown fight is merely a symptom of a much deeper constitutional conflict over who truly controls the nation’s finances. The stalemate in Congress is not happening in a vacuum; it is happening in the shadow of an executive branch that Democrats believe will not honor any deal they make.