Introduction: The Real Shutdown Inside Congress
Marjorie Taylor Greene has surprised many by questioning her party’s shutdown strategy, making her seem more pragmatic than GOP leaders. On this issue, she is right: the federal government is dark, and the clock is running down. Whether or not this becomes the longest shutdown in U.S. history, the damage is already done.
Earlier shutdowns—Clinton’s fight with Gingrich in 1995, Obama’s battle with House Republicans in 2013, Trump’s 2018 border wall standoff—were disruptive but contained. Agencies furloughed workers, parks closed, markets wobbled, and then the government reopened, usually with a compromise. What makes this shutdown different is what’s at stake: not just funding, but Congress’s very capacity to function as a coequal branch of government.
For years, lawmakers have relied on short-term funding patches instead of passing real budgets. Each delay weakens Congress’s control over spending and strengthens the executive. Now, as some Republicans begin to break ranks, the deeper problem remains: a Congress afraid of blame, a GOP unwilling to confront Trump, and a presidency eager to fill the vacuum.
The real shutdown isn’t confined to darkened federal offices. It’s unfolding inside Congress itself—an institution that has slowly, and perhaps irreversibly, shut down its own ability to govern.
II. How Congress Got Here
The seeds of this shutdown were planted decades ago. The 1974 Budget Act was designed to restore congressional control after President Nixon refused to spend funds that lawmakers had approved. Ironically, that reform has become the mechanism of Congress’s undoing. Strict deadlines and complex rules encouraged political standoffs, and presidents quickly learned to take advantage whenever Congress failed to meet them.
By the 1990s, shutdowns had become political theater. Gingrich’s 1995 clash with Clinton was the first to weaponize the threat of closure as ideological leverage. Even then, congressional leaders accepted responsibility for ending the crisis because they still saw themselves as stewards of the institution. That sense of stewardship has disappeared, a stark reminder of how swiftly accountability fades when politics devolves into spectacle.
Today’s GOP treats fiscal chaos not as failure but as strategy. Speaker Johnson’s caucus, under pressure from the far-right Freedom Caucus, views paralysis as proof of principle—better to burn down the process than risk compromise. Earlier Republican leaders, from Howard Baker to John Boehner, recognized the true cost of dysfunction. Their successors have chosen submission instead.
Earlier Congresses assumed governing was part of their job. Appropriations bills were debated, amended, and passed through the usual committee process, known in Congress as ‘regular order.’ Committee chairs wielded expertise. Compromise was expected. Today, those habits have been replaced by crisis management through continuing resolutions and executive end-runs. Lawmakers act for the cameras, not the country.
If earlier generations of lawmakers worried about “big government,” today’s should worry about no government at all. This institutional drift stems from ideology, fear, and spectacle. Many Republicans have refused to confront Trump’s hold over their base, fearing that any challenge to him could provoke backlash from MAGA loyalists and cost them politically. Partisan identity has replaced institutional duty, leaving Congress adrift and the presidency stronger than ever.
III. The Quiet Transfer of Power
As Congress stalls, the presidency expands to fill the void. What once required deliberative congressional action is now rushed through in the form of executive orders and emergency declarations. The shutdown has only accelerated this trend, granting the White House de facto control over how and when to spend federal dollars.
It doesn’t take a coup to shift the balance of power, only routine abdication. Each continuing resolution, each emergency declaration, each delayed budget becomes another precedent for executive dominance. The pattern has persisted across administrations, but Trump’s second term has institutionalized it. He doesn’t need Congress to pass sweeping laws; he needs it to fail. The resulting concentration of power is quieter than a constitutional crisis, but every bit as consequential.
Meanwhile, the public grows accustomed to governing by decree. The expectation that presidents will solve every problem—from border policy to student loans—further marginalizes Congress. What the Founders designed as a system of shared power has become one of deferred responsibility, with the legislature acting as a spectator to its own diminishment.
IV. Conclusion: Reopening Congress
The shutdown will end, but the deeper crisis will remain. Restoring balance requires more than reopening the government; it demands reopening Congress itself.
First, lawmakers must return to regular order—passing appropriations through committees rather than relying on endless continuing resolutions. That alone would begin to reassert legislative authority over federal spending. Second, both parties must recommit to oversight as a shared constitutional duty, not a partisan weapon. The point of oversight is accountability, not ammunition.
Third, Congress needs leaders willing to defend the institution even at political cost. That means challenging executive overreach regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Members who still believe in representative government must start behaving like its custodians, not commentators on its decline.
Finally, the public must demand a functioning legislature. Voters, too, have a role in this crisis—rewarding those who govern responsibly, not those who perform outrage on cable news. The Founders built a system that depends on civic engagement to keep power in check. Without that, no reform will last.
The real shutdown isn’t about missed paychecks or closed parks. It’s about a democracy that can no longer perform its most basic task: self-government. The cure isn’t another executive order or emergency declaration—it’s a Congress that works. Reopening the government will take a vote. Reopening the Republic will take courage.
Robert Cropf is a Professor of Political Science at Saint Louis University.























image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.