"NOT THE FIGHT DEMS WANTED TODAY: Ahead of a midnight deadline to fund the government … at a moment when escalating tariffs and raging economic uncertainty have put the Dow on track for its worst week in two years … as President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out mass deportations as soon as today …
"NOT THE FIGHT DEMS WANTED TODAY: Ahead of a midnight deadline to fund the government … at a moment when escalating tariffs and raging economic uncertainty have put the Dow on track for its worst week in two years … as President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out mass deportations as soon as today … with the president due to speak this afternoon at the Justice Department amid ongoing concerns about its independence and the rule of law … Democrats are seized by a debate over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s reluctant support for the House GOP’s continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown.
The summary: On Tuesday, the House approved a stopgap that would keep the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year, 217-213. … On Wednesday, Schumer announced that the House-backed CR did not not have the eight Democratic votes needed to overcome a filibuster — which some observers interpreted to mean that Schumer was going to go all-in on opposing the CR. … Yesterday, Schumer announced that he will support the CR.
What Schumer said: “As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse,” he wrote in a Times op-ed, launching into four primary reasons for that calculation:
(1) A shutdown would give Trump and Elon Musk the ability to “destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now;”
(2) Republicans could use the shutdown to “cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen;”
(3) it’d mean “real pain for American families,” and;
(4) it would distract from the “chaos” reining across government and the economy.
Cue the outrage. While it’s almost a certainty that there are a sufficient number of Senate Dems who privately share Schumer’s thinking, you sure didn’t hear from them in the ensuing maelstrom of reactions.
Today, you’re going to want to watch a few different things …
1. The split within the Senate Dem caucus. Support for the CR does not break down neatly along ideological lines. Yes, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will vote for cloture. Yes, the most prominent lefties are nos. But it’s striking how many early-tenure Democratic senators — especially those from states Trump carried in 2024 — have lined up in opposition to the CR across a wide spectrum of views.
Consider this: In the hours after Schumer told his colleagues his position on the CR, Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) all reiterated their opposition to the CR. Add to that mix a few freshmen from bluer states, like Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and you start to see a breakdown that is perhaps less ideological than generational. These younger, newer members view the world differently, Senate insiders told Playbook last night.
2. The House Dem reaction. One of the most surprising developments of the last 12 hours is that late last night, House Democratic leadership — repeat: not backbenchers — felt compelled to release a fiery statement that does not give Senate Dems who support the CR much of any room for cover.
From the statement: “The far-right Republican funding bill will unleash havoc on everyday Americans, giving Donald Trump and Elon Musk even more power to continue dismantling the federal government,” read the joint release from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. “House Democrats will not be complicit.”
Thought bubble: When was the last time that fellow Brooklynites Jeffries and Schumer seemed on such different pages in such a public manner?
And the caucus seems unified: “Virtually every swing district House Dem walked the plank to vote NO for a reason,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) noted last night. The gentlewoman from Queens was at a House Dem retreat in Virginia, where some members were “so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running,” CNN’s Sarah Ferris reports. “The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were ‘so mad’ that even centrist Democrats were ‘ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,’ adding that they have ‘never seen people so mad.’”
3. If not fight now, then when? On some level, this is a debate about what an effective resistance looks like. “In a political economy that requires attention and friction, we are passing up a huge opportunity to fight an unpopular president and his billionaire buddy,” posted Mike Casca, AOC’s chief of staff. “Fights define you. FDR knew this. Harry Reid knew this.”
But but but: Former Reid right hand Adam Jentleson sees it quite differently: “Schumer is right. Dems are understandably spoiling for a fight but this was not it. … Fight — but pick smart fights.”
What would a “smart” fight look like? The “oppose the CR” argument is more or less as Casca laid it out. But there are, of course, other ways to see it. Matt Yglesias offers a different view: The House Dems’ approach failed to bring Republicans to the negotiating table because they ruled out giving any votes to the CR. As a result, the party-line bill had to placate conservative Republicans, and as such, shifted “public policy to the right somewhat.” Senate Dems were left with no cards, and keeping the government open is the less-bad option.
Or, as Senate Republicans see it: “The Democrats have A or B: Keep the government open or yield the authority to the president,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), told my POLITICO colleagues Jennifer Scholtes and Megan Messerly.
That’s the calculation Schumer made: “Musk has already said he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services,” Schumer said on the Senate floor last night. “A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country.”
The question now: How many other Senate Dems are making the same calculation?" (Politico)
"NOT THE FIGHT DEMS WANTED TODAY: Ahead of a midnight deadline to fund the government … at a moment when escalating tariffs and raging economic uncertainty have put the Dow on track for its worst week in two years … as President Donald Trump is expected to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to carry out mass deportations as soon as today … with the president due to speak this afternoon at the Justice Department amid ongoing concerns about its independence and the rule of law … Democrats are seized by a debate over Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s reluctant support for the House GOP’s continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown.
The summary: On Tuesday, the House approved a stopgap that would keep the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year, 217-213. … On Wednesday, Schumer announced that the House-backed CR did not not have the eight Democratic votes needed to overcome a filibuster — which some observers interpreted to mean that Schumer was going to go all-in on opposing the CR. … Yesterday, Schumer announced that he will support the CR.
What Schumer said: “As bad as passing the continuing resolution would be, I believe a government shutdown is far worse,” he wrote in a Times op-ed, launching into four primary reasons for that calculation:
(1) A shutdown would give Trump and Elon Musk the ability to “destroy vital government services at a significantly faster rate than they can right now;”
(2) Republicans could use the shutdown to “cherry-pick which parts of government to reopen;”
(3) it’d mean “real pain for American families,” and;
(4) it would distract from the “chaos” reining across government and the economy.
Cue the outrage. While it’s almost a certainty that there are a sufficient number of Senate Dems who privately share Schumer’s thinking, you sure didn’t hear from them in the ensuing maelstrom of reactions.
Today, you’re going to want to watch a few different things …
1. The split within the Senate Dem caucus. Support for the CR does not break down neatly along ideological lines. Yes, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) will vote for cloture. Yes, the most prominent lefties are nos. But it’s striking how many early-tenure Democratic senators — especially those from states Trump carried in 2024 — have lined up in opposition to the CR across a wide spectrum of views.
Consider this: In the hours after Schumer told his colleagues his position on the CR, Sens. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) all reiterated their opposition to the CR. Add to that mix a few freshmen from bluer states, like Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and you start to see a breakdown that is perhaps less ideological than generational. These younger, newer members view the world differently, Senate insiders told Playbook last night.
2. The House Dem reaction. One of the most surprising developments of the last 12 hours is that late last night, House Democratic leadership — repeat: not backbenchers — felt compelled to release a fiery statement that does not give Senate Dems who support the CR much of any room for cover.
From the statement: “The far-right Republican funding bill will unleash havoc on everyday Americans, giving Donald Trump and Elon Musk even more power to continue dismantling the federal government,” read the joint release from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Whip Katherine Clark and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar. “House Democrats will not be complicit.”
Thought bubble: When was the last time that fellow Brooklynites Jeffries and Schumer seemed on such different pages in such a public manner?
And the caucus seems unified: “Virtually every swing district House Dem walked the plank to vote NO for a reason,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) noted last night. The gentlewoman from Queens was at a House Dem retreat in Virginia, where some members were “so infuriated with Schumer’s decision that some have begun encouraging her to run against Schumer in a primary, according to a Democratic member who directly spoke with Ocasio-Cortez about running,” CNN’s Sarah Ferris reports. “The member said that Democrats in Leesburg were ‘so mad’ that even centrist Democrats were ‘ready to write checks for AOC for Senate,’ adding that they have ‘never seen people so mad.’”
3. If not fight now, then when? On some level, this is a debate about what an effective resistance looks like. “In a political economy that requires attention and friction, we are passing up a huge opportunity to fight an unpopular president and his billionaire buddy,” posted Mike Casca, AOC’s chief of staff. “Fights define you. FDR knew this. Harry Reid knew this.”
But but but: Former Reid right hand Adam Jentleson sees it quite differently: “Schumer is right. Dems are understandably spoiling for a fight but this was not it. … Fight — but pick smart fights.”
What would a “smart” fight look like? The “oppose the CR” argument is more or less as Casca laid it out. But there are, of course, other ways to see it. Matt Yglesias offers a different view: The House Dems’ approach failed to bring Republicans to the negotiating table because they ruled out giving any votes to the CR. As a result, the party-line bill had to placate conservative Republicans, and as such, shifted “public policy to the right somewhat.” Senate Dems were left with no cards, and keeping the government open is the less-bad option.
Or, as Senate Republicans see it: “The Democrats have A or B: Keep the government open or yield the authority to the president,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), told my POLITICO colleagues Jennifer Scholtes and Megan Messerly.
That’s the calculation Schumer made: “Musk has already said he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services,” Schumer said on the Senate floor last night. “A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country.”
The question now: How many other Senate Dems are making the same calculation?" (Politico)