Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fulcrum Roundtable: Government Shutdown

Opinion

Federal employees sound off
Government shutdown
wildpixel/Getty Images

Welcome to the Fulcrum Roundtable.

The program offers insights and discussions about some of the most talked-about topics from the previous month, featuring Fulcrum’s collaborators.


Consistent with the Fulcrum's mission, the Fulcrum Roundtable strives to share many perspectives to widen our audience’s viewpoints.

The most recent U.S. government shutdown lasted from October 1 to November 12, making it the longest in American history at 43 days.

It began after Congress failed to pass a continuing resolution, leading to the furlough of about 900,000 federal employees and the closure of numerous agencies and institutions.

The shutdown ended when President Trump signed a funding bill on November 12, which temporarily extended government funding until January 30, 2026, and approved three full‑year appropriations bills.

Although the shutdown has concluded, its ripple effects remain: federal employees are facing steep increases in health insurance premiums, and delayed economic data releases have complicated assessments of U.S. growth.

Politically, the shutdown coincided with declining approval ratings for the administration, underscoring the broader impact of the prolonged stalemate.

Helping us make sense of it all are two Fulcrum collaborators.

Bobby J. Smith II, an Associate Professor of African American Studies at the University of Illinois—Urbana-Champaign. He is also the author of the James Beard Award-nominated book, Food Power Politics: The Food Story of the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement.

Joseph Crupi, a legal scholar who studies the legislative process. He previously served as a Scholar-in-Residence at the Law Library of Congress.

- YouTube youtu.be

In the column, Crisis Not Averted: How Government Shutdown Exposes America’s Food Insecurity, Bobby wrote about SNAP benefits:

To be very clear, what the world is witnessing right now isn’t just another political game. It is the latest move in the administration’s War on Food Security, or the ability of many Americans to access safe and nutritious food.

This war began when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 on July 4 of this year, effectively transforming food into a political weapon. The law severely cut food stamps and terminated the SNAP-Ed program, which provided food and nutrition education to millions of low-income individuals.

In Arbitration Could Prevent Government Shutdowns, Joseph wrote that the way Congress makes decisions seems almost designed to produce government shutdowns:

Senate rules require a three-fifths supermajority to close debate on most bills. In practice, this means that senators from both parties must agree to advance legislation to a final vote. In such a polarized political environment, negotiating an agreement that both sides can accept is no easy task. When senators inevitably fail to agree on funding bills, the government shuts down, impacting services for millions of Americans.

Joseph argues that arbitration could offer a way out:

In arbitration, the parties to a dispute select a neutral third party to resolve their disagreement. While we probably would not want to give unelected arbitrators the power to make national policy decisions, arbitration could help resolve the much more modest question of whether an appropriations bill could advance to a final vote in the Senate.

I invite you to read their columns and those of all of The Fulcrum's contributors. It's time well spent.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.


Read More

Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. and Puerto Rico flags
Puerto Rico: America's oldest democratic crisis
TexPhoto/Getty Image

Puerto Rico’s New Transparency Law Attacks a Right Forged in Struggle

At a time when public debate in the United States is consumed by questions of secrecy, accountability and the selective release of government records, Puerto Rico has quietly taken a dangerous step in the opposite direction.

In December 2025, Gov. Jenniffer González signed Senate Bill 63 into law, introducing sweeping amendments to Puerto Rico’s transparency statute, known as the Transparency and Expedited Procedure for Access to Public Information Act. Framed as administrative reform, the new law (Act 156 of 2025) instead restricts access to public information and weakens one of the archipelago’s most important accountability and democratic tools.

Keep ReadingShow less