The United States government officially shut down at 12:01 a.m. on Wednesday, a stark reminder of the ongoing political dysfunction that has gripped Washington. This marks the 15th government shutdown in the U.S. since 1980 and the fourth during Donald Trump’s presidency, who previously oversaw the longest shutdown in history, which spanned 35 days starting in 2018.
The current shutdown is emblematic of the deep partisan divide that has taken hold of Congress and the broader federal government, reflecting a political system that struggles to meet even basic governance tasks like maintaining continuous federal funding.
Andrew O’Donohue, a political scientist at Harvard University, points out that America’s democracy is “highly unusual.” He explains that while governments around the world may face collapses due to coups, invasions, protests, or political disagreements, the specific phenomenon of government shutdowns due to partisan gridlock is largely unique to the United States. Other democracies often have political structures or constitutional provisions that prevent such shutdowns from occurring.
In many parliamentary systems, when a government fails to pass a budget, it typically results in no-confidence votes or resignations, leading to new elections. Crucially, these systems usually ensure that government services continue to operate even amid political turmoil.
The U.S. system, however, is structured quite differently. Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of Law in San Francisco, explains that shutdowns are a product of the nation’s “separation of powers” system. This design, intended to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, often results in legislative gridlock, particularly when opposing parties control different branches.
While the Founding Fathers envisioned this structure as a means to encourage dialogue and cooperation between rival parties, the reality has often been starkly different. The current government shutdown illustrates how political rivalries can obstruct the legislative process, leading to a complete standstill.
O’Donohue further elucidates that the interplay between rising political polarization and the design of U.S. political institutions creates an environment ill-equipped to pass legislation or manage basic governance tasks. This is particularly evident in the context of severe polarization, where achieving the supermajority needed in the Senate to pass laws becomes nearly impossible.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the “power of the purse,” which involves authority over taxation and spending. Every year, lawmakers are tasked with passing 12 appropriations bills by October 1, marking the start of a new fiscal year. If Congress fails to meet this deadline, it can resort to stopgap measures, or continuing resolutions, to temporarily fund the government at current levels—a practice that has become increasingly common in recent decades.
Recently, the Republican-controlled House did pass a stopgap measure, but it failed to gain traction in the Senate. Republicans there also blocked a Democratic proposal that aimed to address some of their concerns regarding health care funding.
Even in instances where one party controls multiple branches of government, as Republicans do currently, that does not guarantee a smooth legislative process. With a slim Senate majority of 53 seats, Republicans require Democratic support to meet the 60-vote threshold necessary for advancing legislation.
O’Donohue emphasizes that the current bitter divisions between the parties complicate efforts to reach the required supermajority in the Senate, making it challenging to sustain government operations.
Additionally, the Antideficiency Act of 1884 plays a significant role in facilitating government shutdowns. This law prohibits the obligation or expenditure of federal funds without congressional approval, a regulation that was narrowly interpreted in 1980 by then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti. His interpretation effectively mandated that federal agencies cease operations during funding gaps, a departure from the previous norm where agencies continued to function even amid such uncertainties.
Civiletti’s decision established the framework for the government shutdowns seen today, a reality he reportedly struggled to comprehend later in life. “I couldn’t have ever imagined these shutdowns would last this long of a time and would be used as a political gambit,” he remarked in a 2019 interview with the Washington Post, reflecting on how his legal opinion had been utilized in ways he never anticipated.
While government shutdowns have become a recurring issue in the U.S., their implications are far-reaching, affecting millions of Americans. With services temporarily suspended, federal employees will face pay disruptions until a new funding agreement is reached. Essential federal employees are still expected to report for work, while thousands of others face indefinite furloughs, leaving many in uncertain economic straits.
As the cycle of shutdowns continues, the need for systemic reform becomes increasingly apparent. The current political climate underscores the urgent necessity for a functioning government that prioritizes the needs of its citizens over partisan battles. The time has come for lawmakers to find common ground and establish a legislative framework that ensures the government remains operational, regardless of political disagreements.
