Last March, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer embarrassed himself and his party by colluding with Senate Republicans to round up votes to block a filibuster over Trump’s budget cuts, and then getting absolutely nothing in return. The impoundments, rescissions, and deeper cuts continued, as did Trump’s general lawlessness.
As the government faces an October 1 shutdown unless Congress can make a deal for a continuing resolution to keep spending at current levels, there had been signs that Schumer was planning to rinse and repeat, fearing that Democrats would be blamed for any shutdown. A variant was the idea that Democrats would go along with Republicans in exchange for one high-profile Republican concession—keeping subsidies for Affordable Care Act policies at current levels.
But now, the signs are that Senate Democrats will hold out for a much stronger deal—or let Republicans take the fall for refusing to bargain and letting the government shut down for a time. Schumer seems to be cornered into doing the right thing.
Why? The context has drastically changed since March. Trump’s policies have become more extreme and more unpopular. The 2026 midterms are six months closer. Schumer has lost a lot of credibility with his caucus.
The emerging Democratic caucus position is that Republicans would have to agree to enforceable terms that would block further impoundments or rescissions; there would need to be drastic changes in health policy generally, and not just on ACA subsidies, which affect less than 10 percent of the population. Democrats will hold out for restoration of Medicaid and other health funds as well, as well as changes in vaccine policy.
If Trump’s multiple health cuts persist, they will affect not only those on Medicaid or with ACA-backed policies. Government health care spending and regulation indirectly subsidizes all private health insurance by covering or constraining some costs so that insurance doesn’t have to. Projections are that all policyholders face major premium increases after October 1. In demanding Republican concessions on a broad front of health policy issues as the price of a budget agreement, Democrats will make a huge deal of this risk.
Either way, Democrats win politically. If Republicans refuse to go along, they take the fall for allowing the government to shut down rather than agreeing to a compromise on issues that most Americans support. And if Republicans do agree to a deal, Democrats will have demonstrated muscle and principle on issues that resonate with most Americans. Even better, Republicans will have been backed into constraining Trump.
This scenario is not quite a done deal in the Democratic caucus, but it’s close. There are still a handful of Democrats in both houses who would play small ball in exchange for keeping the government open. A line making the rounds in the Democratic caucus is that there are three parties in Congress—Republicans, Democrats, and Appropriators.
Some Democratic representatives and senators who chair appropriations committees and subcommittees think that if they can work constructively with their Republican counterparts and pass a few relatively noncontroversial appropriations bills before the October 1 deadline for a shutdown, this could supposedly build bipartisan trust and pave the way for a more comprehensive budget deal. The touching assumption is that these are normal times.
Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, has a good working relationship with her Democratic counterpart, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state. Collins, who is up for re-election and needs the cover of bipartisanship, has been promoting this approach. But nearly all Senate Democrats have had a bellyful of Collins, who postures moderate and almost invariably gives Trump what he wants.
Of course, it’s always possible that the Democrats with Schumer as leader will snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, but budget politics are definitely moving in a better direction.