Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Congress Avoids a Shutdown But at What Cost?

Congress Avoids a Shutdown But at What Cost?

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 14, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis

On March 14, the GOP-led Senate passed a stopgap spending bill to keep the federal government running until September 30. The bill’s passage was made possible by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s last-minute reversal—shifting from opposing the measure and advocating for a shorter extension to allowing the bill to advance. His decision was purely tactical: he feared Democrats would be blamed for a shutdown.

Schumer’s move provided the necessary votes to overcome procedural hurdles, effectively thwarting a Democratic filibuster. While Republican support for Trump’s budget was unsurprising, the Democratic leadership’s decision to go along was a stunning concession. It handed the Trump administration a significant victory while further eroding Congress’s budgetary authority, shifting more spending power to the executive branch.


Schumer attempted to justify his decision as preventing Trump from consolidating control during a shutdown. However, many within his party saw it as a capitulation that, ironically, granted Trump the unchecked power Democrats were trying to avoid.

The Stopgap Measure: What It Does and Doesn’t Do

Democrats initially opposed the bill because it lacked clear congressional directives on fund allocation. Republicans used a budget tool known as a continuing resolution (CR) instead of passing an appropriations bill. Unlike a traditional budget, which assigns specific funding to agencies and programs, the CR merely extends existing funding levels without dictating how those funds must be spent. It is the latter that is the cause for great concern.

This omission grants the Trump administration unprecedented control over federal spending, including the ability to cut funding for certain agencies or redirect money toward favored programs.

This is not just a technicality—it is a fundamental shift in power. The federal budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 was the result of detailed bipartisan negotiations, setting clear parameters for how agencies should spend taxpayer dollars. The CR removes these guardrails.

While agencies technically receive the same funding levels, the Trump administration now has the discretion to withhold, delay, or redirect funds at will. What should be Congress’s responsibility has been ceded to the president.

Beyond that, the CR merely delays critical fiscal decisions. Instead of resolving budget disputes, Congress has kicked the can down the road until September, setting up another round of political brinkmanship. Arguably, Schumer’s decision to allow the CR to go forward weakens the Democrats’ bargaining position for the next round.

The Risk for Future Budgets

While the short-term effects are bad, the long-term consequences are disastrous. This cycle of short-term fixes weakens the stability of government operations and hinders federal agencies from making long-term plans. Hiring freezes, delayed contracts, and deferred policy initiatives are now the norm.

In effect, Congress’ failure to act decisively strengthens Trump’s ability to reshape the federal government by default, reducing oversight, weakening regulatory agencies, and centralizing power within the executive branch.

If Congress continues using temporary spending patches instead of passing full appropriations bills, it risks permanently shifting control over the budget to the president.

Future presidents, regardless of party, will have a blueprint for bypassing congressional authority, using CRs to dictate spending priorities without congressional approval. This would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Washington and plainly violate the Constitution’s provisions that give Congress the power to make these decisions.

Agencies may start ignoring Congress altogether, looking instead to the White House for funding guidance. Legislative oversight will weaken, allowing the president to govern through discretionary spending rather than legislation. Constitutional checks and balances will erode, increasing the risk of an imperial presidency where executive power grows unchecked.

Congress Must Reassert Its Authority

The nation cannot afford Congress to be a passive player in the budget process. Lawmakers must pass detailed appropriations bills rather than rely on continuing resolutions.

They need to strengthen oversight of executive actions to prevent spending from being used as a political weapon. Bipartisan coalitions should be built to restore regular order in the budget process. This is not new; this is how things were done before the current Congress, right up to last year.

Members of Congress must also engage with the public to highlight the importance of congressional control over spending and the dangers of unchecked executive power. It is probably something of a stretch to expect Republicans to criticize Trump, but Democrats must do so.

While the latest CR prevented an immediate shutdown, it did so at the cost of congressional authority. By delaying real budget negotiations until September, Congress has set the stage for yet another fiscal crisis, one that Trump can exploit to further consolidate power.

If lawmakers fail to reclaim their role in the budget process, they risk permanently ceding their constitutional authority, allowing future presidents to reshape federal spending with little to no oversight.

The consequences of such a shift could fundamentally alter American democracy, turning budgetary control into a tool of executive power rather than a function of representative government.

Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.

Read More

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less
Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked
Independents will decide the election. What do we know about them?
zimmytws/Getty Images

Tired of the Two-Party Gridlock? Independents Offer a Way Out

Something feels wrong. American Democracy is supposed to be the beacon of hope that leads the free world. But for far too many, it feels like our votes do not elect leaders who truly represent what is best for our families and our communities.

Affordability of basic necessities is out of reach, and issues that have over 70% support from the public rarely get a second glance from those who are supposed to represent us. And at this point, our representatives are too busy fighting to maintain power than they are fixing the issues that we as Americans face.

Keep ReadingShow less
Best and Worst U.S. Presidential Cabinets Ranked: What the Research Reveals

The Oval Office is set for a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Norway's Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store at the White House on April 24, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Best and Worst U.S. Presidential Cabinets Ranked: What the Research Reveals

I commend news agency columnists who publish research-based and value-added (versus “my opinion”) op-eds on a daily or frequent basis. Submitting an occasional essay allows me time to ponder contemporary issues and explore the latest hot topic.

Since Aug. 6, Perplexity and Google have helped me examine over 30 documents to determine the best and worst U.S. presidential cabinets. Based upon academic studies and expert analysis, here are the results.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Importance of Being Media Literate

An image depicting a group of people of varying ages interacting with different forms of media, such as smartphones, tablets, and laptops.

AI generated

The Importance of Being Media Literate

Information is constantly on our phones, and we receive notifications for almost everything happening in the world, which can be overwhelming to many. Information is given to us in an instant, and more often than you think, we don’t even know what exactly we are reading.

We don’t even know if the information we see is accurate or makes sense. Media literacy goes beyond what we learn in school; it’s a skill that grows as we become more aware and critical of the information we consume.

Keep ReadingShow less