The Funding Battle That May Benefit Trump
Defeating Donald Trump and Elon Musk's battle against the federal government isn't as simple as finding a single, effective solution.
TroibNews 
With President Donald Trump and Elon Musk aggressively pursuing reforms through their “Department of Government Efficiency,” Democrats are keen to mount a counteroffensive and are identifying what they perceive to be a potent leverage point.
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Andy Kim was asked if he would consider shutting down the government when funding expires on March 14. He responded, “They are simply trying to dismantle the government. I cannot support efforts that will continue this lawlessness that we’re seeing.”
The rationale is clear: since Republicans will likely require Democratic support to keep the government funded—due to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and the House conservatives’ reluctance to back any funding bill—Democrats could potentially use this to their advantage and press Trump and Musk to reconsider their strategies.
However, based on experiences from previous shutdown battles, I can assert that this may not be as advantageous a position for Democrats as many believe. Not only is this fight one that Democrats may struggle to win, but it could also play directly into the hands of Trump and Musk.
To grasp the implications of a DOGE-centric shutdown driven by Musk’s agenda, we need to analyze both the practical and political consequences.
First, it’s uncertain whether a shutdown initiated by Trump would resemble the federal shutdowns seen over the past four decades.
The modern framework for federal shutdowns originates from a 1980 memorandum created for President Jimmy Carter by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti. This document detailed what a lapse in funding would entail for federal agencies, stating they could engage in no spending except for what was necessary to ensure an orderly cessation of their functions. This was later modified to allow for expenditures tied to ensuring human safety or protecting property.
Put simply, a bureaucratic decision enabled the shutdown, and it could also be ended by bureaucratic means. Trump’s new attorney general, Pam Bondi, might not even need to overturn Civiletti’s guidance: The Office of Management and Budget plays a critical role in defining what constitutes essential activities and what does not under this memo.
What we know about Trump’s recently confirmed OMB director, Russ Vought, suggests he has little regard for established bureaucratic norms. It’s conceivable that he may collaborate with Trump and Musk to designate a wider array of favored agencies to continue functioning while sidelining others, thus shutting down their operations and furloughing their employees.
A DOGE shutdown could consequently provide Musk, Vought, and others with the freedom to reshape the federal government in the very ways that Democrats aim to resist — potentially serving as a boon to their agenda.
On the political front, evidence indicates that the MAGA faction of the Republican Party does not believe there would be a significant political cost associated with a government shutdown. Trump was the architect of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history at the end of 2018. Although his approval ratings dipped temporarily, they quickly rebounded.
For Democrats, moving towards a shutdown strategy poses substantial political risks.
For one, they would be resorting to a tactic they have traditionally rejected: using the threat of a government shutdown to extract concessions. Historically, the party has felt uneasy about this approach, and there’s no sign that Democratic leaders would feel comfortable with this tactic now.
Moreover, it’s a challenging message to convey to the American public that the government is being shut down as a means of saving the government itself. What might seem logical in Washington can be perplexing to the broader population. Democrats are acutely aware that in a shutdown scenario, the party that establishes the narrative generally prevails.
Additionally, Trump and Republicans currently hold the political advantage. According to a recent CBS poll, despite a tumultuous period where Trump and Musk disrupted U.S. foreign aid and overhauled the federal workforce, Trump maintains a solid 53 percent approval rating.
The same CBS survey revealed that 68 percent of voters believed the Trump administration was either spending the right amount or not enough; only 32 percent felt there was excessive spending. Despite considerable negative press surrounding Musk and his potential conflicts of interest, a majority view him favorably regarding his influence on government operations and spending.
Furthermore, a core principle of shutdown dynamics suggests that it is often the party pushing for policy changes that incites the shutdown that bears the brunt of the blame.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is fully aware of this dynamic; during a 2018 standoff when he and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to leverage government funding to secure protections for undocumented immigrants, they promptly retreated under pressure.
This understanding probably influenced Schumer's recent “Dear Colleague” communication, in which he indicated a preference for bipartisan cooperation to avoid a government shutdown. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also appears reticent to engage in a shutdown battle. Instead, he established a “Rapid Response Task Force” aimed at countering Trump and Musk.
“I’m trying to figure out what leverage we actually have,” Jeffries remarked last week regarding the potential of a shutdown as a means to confront Trump and Musk. “They control the House, the Senate. And the presidency. It’s their government. What leverage do we have?”
Many senior Democrats concede privately that opposing Trump’s campaign against “waste, fraud, and abuse”—regardless of its chaotic undertones—places them at a substantial disadvantage.
At present, the challenge facing Jeffries and Schumer is that their members are facing pressure from a Democratic base eager for a fight—any fight.
Lawmakers are presently channeling that frustration into impassioned letters, ineffective protests, and cable news appearances that seem futile as the DOGE initiative progresses through various agencies. Consequently, there’s little enthusiasm about negotiating a funding agreement with a Republican Party and a president who seem poised to disregard it outright.
What’s more complex to explain is that there’s no simple method to counter Trump and Musk's initiatives; winning this battle will likely require a prolonged effort to shift public opinion against the GOP. While Democrats may hope that legal challenges can slow down potential setbacks, a shutdown could instead exacerbate the damage.
Therefore, anticipate senior Democrats to temper discussions of a shutdown this week by reiterating several key points. They are likely to underscore, as Jeffries did last week, that Republicans currently hold power and therefore bear the responsibility to deliver for the American people. In effect: If things deteriorate, the onus is on the GOP.
Additionally, expect them to focus on the adverse impacts of Trump and Musk’s proposed cuts rather than the cuts themselves, framing the issue with the question: Are they truly fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises?
There was a glimmer of hope for Democrats in that otherwise bleak CBS poll: nearly half of Americans, 47 percent, noted that prices had continued to rise since Trump took office, while only 3 percent believed they had decreased. Lowering costs for Americans formed the crux of Trump’s message to voters. Yet, he has shown scant attention to this since assuming the presidency, instead promoting policies—including broad tariffs and costly tax cuts—that could aggravate the situation.
As Schumer articulated on Monday, “Through a relentless messaging push, we are exposing how their policies will drive up everyday expenses, strip essential protections, and prioritize the wealthy over working Americans.”
However, it’s hard to see how a shutdown aligns with that strategy.
Anna Muller contributed to this report for TROIB News
On “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Andy Kim was asked if he would consider shutting down the government when funding expires on March 14. He responded, “They are simply trying to dismantle the government. I cannot support efforts that will continue this lawlessness that we’re seeing.”
The rationale is clear: since Republicans will likely require Democratic support to keep the government funded—due to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold and the House conservatives’ reluctance to back any funding bill—Democrats could potentially use this to their advantage and press Trump and Musk to reconsider their strategies.
However, based on experiences from previous shutdown battles, I can assert that this may not be as advantageous a position for Democrats as many believe. Not only is this fight one that Democrats may struggle to win, but it could also play directly into the hands of Trump and Musk.
To grasp the implications of a DOGE-centric shutdown driven by Musk’s agenda, we need to analyze both the practical and political consequences.
First, it’s uncertain whether a shutdown initiated by Trump would resemble the federal shutdowns seen over the past four decades.
The modern framework for federal shutdowns originates from a 1980 memorandum created for President Jimmy Carter by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti. This document detailed what a lapse in funding would entail for federal agencies, stating they could engage in no spending except for what was necessary to ensure an orderly cessation of their functions. This was later modified to allow for expenditures tied to ensuring human safety or protecting property.
Put simply, a bureaucratic decision enabled the shutdown, and it could also be ended by bureaucratic means. Trump’s new attorney general, Pam Bondi, might not even need to overturn Civiletti’s guidance: The Office of Management and Budget plays a critical role in defining what constitutes essential activities and what does not under this memo.
What we know about Trump’s recently confirmed OMB director, Russ Vought, suggests he has little regard for established bureaucratic norms. It’s conceivable that he may collaborate with Trump and Musk to designate a wider array of favored agencies to continue functioning while sidelining others, thus shutting down their operations and furloughing their employees.
A DOGE shutdown could consequently provide Musk, Vought, and others with the freedom to reshape the federal government in the very ways that Democrats aim to resist — potentially serving as a boon to their agenda.
On the political front, evidence indicates that the MAGA faction of the Republican Party does not believe there would be a significant political cost associated with a government shutdown. Trump was the architect of the longest government shutdown in U.S. history at the end of 2018. Although his approval ratings dipped temporarily, they quickly rebounded.
For Democrats, moving towards a shutdown strategy poses substantial political risks.
For one, they would be resorting to a tactic they have traditionally rejected: using the threat of a government shutdown to extract concessions. Historically, the party has felt uneasy about this approach, and there’s no sign that Democratic leaders would feel comfortable with this tactic now.
Moreover, it’s a challenging message to convey to the American public that the government is being shut down as a means of saving the government itself. What might seem logical in Washington can be perplexing to the broader population. Democrats are acutely aware that in a shutdown scenario, the party that establishes the narrative generally prevails.
Additionally, Trump and Republicans currently hold the political advantage. According to a recent CBS poll, despite a tumultuous period where Trump and Musk disrupted U.S. foreign aid and overhauled the federal workforce, Trump maintains a solid 53 percent approval rating.
The same CBS survey revealed that 68 percent of voters believed the Trump administration was either spending the right amount or not enough; only 32 percent felt there was excessive spending. Despite considerable negative press surrounding Musk and his potential conflicts of interest, a majority view him favorably regarding his influence on government operations and spending.
Furthermore, a core principle of shutdown dynamics suggests that it is often the party pushing for policy changes that incites the shutdown that bears the brunt of the blame.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is fully aware of this dynamic; during a 2018 standoff when he and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi attempted to leverage government funding to secure protections for undocumented immigrants, they promptly retreated under pressure.
This understanding probably influenced Schumer's recent “Dear Colleague” communication, in which he indicated a preference for bipartisan cooperation to avoid a government shutdown. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries also appears reticent to engage in a shutdown battle. Instead, he established a “Rapid Response Task Force” aimed at countering Trump and Musk.
“I’m trying to figure out what leverage we actually have,” Jeffries remarked last week regarding the potential of a shutdown as a means to confront Trump and Musk. “They control the House, the Senate. And the presidency. It’s their government. What leverage do we have?”
Many senior Democrats concede privately that opposing Trump’s campaign against “waste, fraud, and abuse”—regardless of its chaotic undertones—places them at a substantial disadvantage.
At present, the challenge facing Jeffries and Schumer is that their members are facing pressure from a Democratic base eager for a fight—any fight.
Lawmakers are presently channeling that frustration into impassioned letters, ineffective protests, and cable news appearances that seem futile as the DOGE initiative progresses through various agencies. Consequently, there’s little enthusiasm about negotiating a funding agreement with a Republican Party and a president who seem poised to disregard it outright.
What’s more complex to explain is that there’s no simple method to counter Trump and Musk's initiatives; winning this battle will likely require a prolonged effort to shift public opinion against the GOP. While Democrats may hope that legal challenges can slow down potential setbacks, a shutdown could instead exacerbate the damage.
Therefore, anticipate senior Democrats to temper discussions of a shutdown this week by reiterating several key points. They are likely to underscore, as Jeffries did last week, that Republicans currently hold power and therefore bear the responsibility to deliver for the American people. In effect: If things deteriorate, the onus is on the GOP.
Additionally, expect them to focus on the adverse impacts of Trump and Musk’s proposed cuts rather than the cuts themselves, framing the issue with the question: Are they truly fulfilling Trump’s campaign promises?
There was a glimmer of hope for Democrats in that otherwise bleak CBS poll: nearly half of Americans, 47 percent, noted that prices had continued to rise since Trump took office, while only 3 percent believed they had decreased. Lowering costs for Americans formed the crux of Trump’s message to voters. Yet, he has shown scant attention to this since assuming the presidency, instead promoting policies—including broad tariffs and costly tax cuts—that could aggravate the situation.
As Schumer articulated on Monday, “Through a relentless messaging push, we are exposing how their policies will drive up everyday expenses, strip essential protections, and prioritize the wealthy over working Americans.”
However, it’s hard to see how a shutdown aligns with that strategy.
Anna Muller contributed to this report for TROIB News
