Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Probably Another Shutdown

Opinion

U.S. capitol.

The current continuing resolution, which keeps the government funded, ends this Friday, January 30.

Getty Images

The current continuing resolution, which keeps the government funded, ends this Friday, January 30.

It passed in November and ended the last shutdown. In addition to passage of the continuing resolution, some regular appropriations were also passed at the same time. It included funding for the remainder of the fiscal year for the food assistance program SNAP, the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, military construction, Veterans Affairs, and Congress itself (that is, through Sept. 30, 2026).


As of Friday, January 23, the House had passed the remaining appropriations for fiscal year 2026. It appeared that the Senate would then pass those bills this week and government operations would go uninterrupted.

Then, this past weekend, Department of Homeland Security agents killed yet another legal observer of their activities in Minneapolis. Alex Pretti's death brings the number of DHS shootings since September to 12. Four of those shootings have been fatal.

Pretti's death seems to have been the last straw for Senate Democrats. Since Saturday, enough of them have said that they will not vote for more funding for the Department of Homeland Security as currently proposed that, unless Republicans find a way to compromise, the government will again be shut down, albeit only partially this time.

At the moment, Senate Republicans say they are unwilling to make any changes to the existing appropriations bills.

Even if Republicans do compromise in some way, perhaps by rearranging the existing legislation to separate DHS funding from all the other agencies, there would still be a short partial shut down at the very least because the House will not return to session before January 30.

So, assuming for now that a shutdown occurs, what would that mean? Well, first of all, this time, no food support would be endangered and the VA would keep running because those agencies were among the ones whose full year appropriations were passed last November.

It might mean interruption in agencies like the Department of State, Transportation, Health and Human Services, Housing and Labor. It might mean some interruptions in the Department of Defense, but like last time, the administration would be looking for ways to shuffle existing funds to continue paying military personnel.

It almost certainly will have little or no effect on the operations of DHS even though that's the agency at the center of the dispute. Why not? Because, like last the last time around, the White House will likely designate DHS as essential and look for workaround funding without regard to the legality of that funding.

The Senate is, officially, in session from the end of the day today through the week. However, due to the big winter storm this past weekend, no votes are scheduled until tomorrow at least. There are 20 committee meetings this week, including one on Wednesday where Secretary of State Marco Rubio is expected to testify about Venezuela.

It is unclear right now where things will go right now. Our colleagues at The First Branch Forecast explain the political considerations that Democrats are mulling right now. They also provide a fascinating summary of why the Government Publishing Office was established: in short, private enterprise isn't always better or cheaper than public agencies.

See you all on Friday.


Probably Another Shutdown was originally published on GovTrack.us and is republished with permission.


Read More

An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less
United States Capitol building and blurred American flag against blue sky

America’s aging Congress has no maximum age limit. Could a constitutional amendment create age limits for lawmakers and better represent younger voters?

TGI /Tetra Images

Congress Has an Age Floor and No Ceiling. That's Backwards for Gen Z.

Senator Dianne Feinstein's visible decline in her final years in office. Senator Lindsey Graham's sudden death. Senator Mitch McConnell's own recent hospitalization, and his halting explanation of it afterward. Three senators, three separate incidents, no obvious connection between them, except that the saga of these three senators is really one story about the problem of not knowing when to step down. That framing asks the right question of individual leaders. But it assumes the problem is a matter of personal judgment, each senator, in his or her own time, finding the wisdom to recognize the moment has passed. I think that gets the American version of this problem backwards. Congress's age problem is not a string of individual judgment calls. It is a structural feature of the Constitution itself, and it is quietly reshaping who gets represented in American government.

The Constitution sets a floor for federal office and no ceiling. A representative must be at least twenty-five. A senator must be at least thirty. A president must be at least thirty-five. Nothing in the document says how old is too old. Combine that asymmetry with the enormous advantages of incumbency, better name recognition, fundraising networks, committee seniority, and the result is predictable: a Congress that can start young but can never age out. It can only age up. The 119th Congress is now the third oldest in American history, with an average member age of nearly fifty-nine and a Senate averaging in the mid-sixties. This is not a temporary blip. It is the natural output of a system with a gate on one end and no gate on the other.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first
a large white building with a flag on top of it

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the third and final installment of our series on “Article the first.” Previous parts examined the history of the single inverted word that turned an intended floor into a ceiling and its impact on the amendment’s failed ratification. This concluding part outlines the path forward for enlarging the House today.

Part 3 — The Path Forward

Keep ReadingShow less
The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

Painting from 1856 by Junius Brutus Stearns of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

The Enduring Illusion of Article the first

This is the second of a three-part series on the First Amendment proposed by Congress in 1789—often called “Article the first”—which was never ratified. Part 1 explained how a single inverted word in the text created a mathematical absurdity that has been misread for 237 years. This second part explores the untold history of how that defect affected the original ratification process in state legislatures.

Part 2 — The Untold History

Keep ReadingShow less