Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Can democrats use congressional appropriations to bypass a government shutdown?
Executive Summary
Democrats cannot unilaterally bypass a government shutdown merely by passing appropriations in the Senate; the Antideficiency Act and the constitutional appropriation process mean funding measures must become law to authorize spending. Political and administrative maneuvers can soften impacts or target specific programs, but they cannot fully override a shutdown without either House passage and presidential approval or legally available emergency authority [1] [2].
1. What proponents are claiming — “Senate Democrats can fund the government alone” and why that’s compelling political theater
Supporters of a Senate-only funding strategy emphasize that the Senate can draft and pass appropriations bills and attach them to must-pass legislation to keep programs running, framing this as a way to protect services from shutdown fallout. That claim is powerful in public debate because the Senate is a co-equal chamber with appropriations authority, and high-profile Senate action can pressure the House or the White House to act to avert public harm [3]. However, the claim glosses over the constitutional reality that a bill becomes effective only when enacted into law, meaning Senate passage alone does not create binding appropriations unless it reaches the president’s desk and is signed or a veto overridden [1].
2. The legal straight jacket — Antideficiency Act and why spending needs a law
Federal agencies are governed by the Antideficiency Act, which bars spending or obligating funds without an appropriation enacted by Congress, and agencies must follow appropriations language precisely. That legal framework prevents agencies from continuing discretionary activities in the absence of a current appropriation or valid continuing resolution, and it distinguishes temporary stopgaps from permanent authorizations. Courts and government practice have repeatedly interpreted this statute to mean administrative workarounds cannot legally substitute for enacted appropriations, so even persuasive Senate text cannot lawfully be implemented until all legislative and executive steps are complete [1] [4]. This legal principle undercuts arguments that legislative passage in one chamber can unilaterally restore operations.
3. Practical levers Democrats could try — what’s within reach and what’s not
Democrats can use several practical levers that have political and partial operational effects: pass targeted appropriations in the Senate to create clear legislative texts for negotiation; push for minibuses or single-issue bills that force conference with the House; or pass a continuing resolution that funds specific programs. These tactics create political pressure and provide negotiating templates, but they cannot legally restart agency spending without either House concurrence and presidential assent or some statutory emergency authority. The strategies also risk being blocked procedurally in the House or vetoed, so they are tools for leverage, not legal bypasses [3].
4. Executive behavior and stopgap administrative steps — how the White House can amplify or blunt effects
The executive branch can influence the shutdown’s impact by how it interprets existing authorities, prioritizes disbursements, or applies waivers, and administrations sometimes use discretion to limit visible harm to the public. The Trump Administration’s actions in this shutdown included withholding grants and cancelling projects not required by the funding gap, demonstrating how executive choices can either exacerbate or mitigate damage [5]. Yet these choices do not change the underlying law: administrative adjustments can shift outcomes on the margins but cannot authorize spending that lacks a congressional appropriation [5] [2].
5. Politics matter more than legal cleverness — the House, the president, and public pressure
The constitutional process vests appropriations with both chambers of Congress and the president’s signature, so the decisive actors remain the House majority and the White House. Even a unified Democratic Senate cannot force spending into law against House opposition and a presidential veto. Political calculations — fear of blame for furloughed workers, voter reaction to service disruptions, and negotiation over policy riders — determine whether a legislative compromise emerges. The body politic, public services, and advocacy groups can amplify pressure, but the structural levers are political, not purely legal [3] [6].
6. Bottom line — realistic expectations and likely paths forward
The bottom line is straightforward: Democrats cannot legally bypass a shutdown solely through Senate appropriations; they can create leverage, craft negotiating texts, and protect certain programs in law if they can secure House approval and presidential signature, or rely on narrow emergency provisions where available. Administrative actions can improve or worsen the public impact, but they do not constitute appropriations. Given the current standoff and the scope of services affected, the most viable route to end the shutdown remains a negotiated legislative solution that results in enacted appropriations or an agreed continuing resolution [1] [3].