Schumer's Specter of a Shutdown

Absent from the rationale presented by the minority Leader was that his capitulation allows Republicans and Trump to further evade scrutiny and culpability for their mess

Not long after Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer engineered enough of his party’s votes to smooth passage of the partisan Republican “Continuing Resolution” to avoid a government shutdown, he made sure that his rationale made it into a sympathetic piece in the New York Times.

According to Schumer, his maneuvers were adroit, leaving him to take the heat while giving leeway to many of his colleagues to vote “No” without it leading to a shutdown. This was not capitulation, his piece suggested, but leadership. Schumer underscored the dire consequences of an extended shutdown, where Trump alone could determine what is essential and what is non-essential. The example he used was Trump being free to completely eliminate food stamps.

Not mentioned in the column is that if food stamps were eliminated, it is not just the recipients who would suffer. Those hurt by such a drastic cut would include farmers, who benefit significantly from the program. Farmers—also hit by Trump tariffs; bird flu; essential, undocumented workers being detained and deported; and the critical water in California’s Central Valley being drained due to Trump’s performative attempt to humiliate a blue state—would be screaming bloody murder. The same logic was applied to other critical programs Trump deemed non-essential that affect swaths of everyday Americans, including many of his voters. Polls show voters would blame Republicans and Trump by a near 2-1 margin. Democrats would have their work cut out for them to keep the rightwing wind machine from blowing the blame in their direction, but it would have worked. With Republicans in charge of everything, they could end a shutdown in a nanosecond.

Schumer suggested that Trump could shut down the government for six months or a year without consequence and dismantle government unilaterally while keeping his favorite programs going. During a shutdown, no one is paid; workers deemed essential must come to work, but without pay. In previous shutdowns, Congress made sure government employees got back-pay when the shutdown ended (although not contractors, like those manning security desks or cleaning offices). The consequences were rough, to say the least, for those needing to make rent or mortgage payments while putting food on the table.

But keep this in mind: the longest shutdown in Trump’s first term lasted for 35 days; the famed Gingrich shutdown during Clinton’s presidency lasted 21 days. Though painful, most government employees found a way to make do, with part-time temporary jobs, help from friends, use of savings, or bridge loans.

Imagine if Schumer’s specter of a six month or year-long shutdown occurred. The largest share of government employees, including in Trump’s favored essential agencies and bureaus, would quit and find other jobs or get unemployment benefits to get by. That would include air traffic controllers, FBI and ICE agents, and key personnel protecting our military installations and embassies—not to mention programs affecting health and safety. As we have seen with the boneheaded DOGE move to fire all those safeguarding the nuclear arsenal, getting those mistreated workers to return or replacing them would be difficult, if not impossible.

TSA lines at airports would be interminable. Air traffic controllers forced to work at Starbucks while also manning the towers would not make people feel safe; those resigning because they could not afford to stay would have the potential to shut down air travel altogether. Taxpayers would not see their refunds; Social Security recipients would have major delays in their checks. The markets (the one thing Trump genuinely cares about) would plummet even more than they already have. The pressure on Republicans in Congress to reopen government would be intense and unrelenting. The backlash against their nihilism would be overwhelming.

All of which is to say that there would never be a six-month shutdown, much less one lasting an entire year. Of course there would be upheavals and damage. But the Schumer fallacy is to assume or propose that by capitulating, the damage will be less. True, it will not be as concentrated or immediate. But watch the damage we will have with a tyrannical president unleashed by the Supreme Court, a lawless but empowered Elon Musk, and—now—the destructive capabilities built into and enabled by this partisan CR.

In the meantime, we’ll have Trump humiliating Schumer with a victory dance, in addition to all the pernicious cuts and other damages borne from the CR. He and Musk will continue to bleed key programs dry, step by step. The number one admonition to students regarding the rise of tyranny—Do Not Capitulate—is lost.

Speaker Johnson and Leader Thune shut Democrats out of negotiations and dared them to oppose their awful CR in a game of chicken. Jeffries and House Democrats refused to flinch. Schumer did. Consequently, the base is disheartened and furious, and the storyline will now be the Democratic circular firing squad and infighting. For the next several days or longer, instead of focusing on Republican lawmakers facing angry constituents back home, the media lens will be trained on Democrats divided and in disarray, with Schumer on a book tour, facing angry crowds wherever he goes. Republicans and Trump will escape all scrutiny or culpability. Meanwhile, there is little sign that Senate Democrats will push back on incompetent, radical, or corrupt Trump nominees—including Dr. Oz for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Schumer’s motivation was in significant part to protect his vulnerable incumbents in 2026. We will see if we even have elections then. If we do, and there is no change in his wimpy approach, we will have a demoralized and disheartened base, and those vulnerable incumbents will be even more in peril.

Norman Ornstein is a political scientist, co-host of the podcast “Words Matter,” and author of books, including “It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism.”