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.
Has Congress ever passed a law to withhold its own pay during a shutdown?
Executive Summary
Congress has not passed a law that automatically withholds its members’ pay during a federal shutdown; members’ salaries generally remain payable because of constitutional and statutory protections, and recent legislative efforts to change that have been proposals that failed to become law. Multiple lawmakers have proposed or introduced bills to bar member pay during shutdowns, and some members have voluntarily asked to have their pay withheld, but no statute or constitutional amendment currently forces withholding during a lapse in appropriations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why pay continues for lawmakers while others go unpaid — the legal split that matters
Members of Congress continue to receive pay during funding lapses because Congressional compensation is treated differently under existing laws and the Constitution. The Twenty-seventh Amendment prevents changes in Congressional pay from taking effect until after the next election, which complicates efforts to reduce pay as a response to a shutdown, and Article I protections and statutory funding mechanisms have been interpreted to allow salaries to be disbursed even during appropriations gaps. News reporting and legislative summaries note that lawmakers’ pay is not automatically withheld by statute during shutdowns, creating a legal distinction between how rank-and-file federal employees and members of Congress are treated during funding lapses [6] [7] [5].
2. Recent attempts to force lawmakers to forfeit pay — proposals, not laws
Multiple lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at withholding Congressional pay during shutdowns, notably efforts by Representative Bryan Steil and Senator John Kennedy to require members to forfeit pay if appropriations lapse; these bills remain proposals that did not pass into law. Press releases and coverage show Steil introduced the Withhold Member Pay During Shutdowns Act, and Kennedy’s No Shutdown Paychecks to Politicians Act drew attention but faced objections and procedural blocks in the Senate. These initiatives reflect political pressure and public frustration but, as of the cited filings and reporting, they are legislative proposals rather than enacted statutes [1] [2] [3].
3. Voluntary withholding and political signaling — how members respond without a statute
In the absence of a law, some members have independently chosen to forgo or redirect their pay during shutdowns, either by asking the Treasury to withhold payments, donating checks to charity, or publicly pledging not to accept compensation until the deadlock ends. Coverage documents around two dozen lawmakers making such voluntary requests, and individual members have used this as a political gesture to signal accountability. These voluntary actions demonstrate both the symbolic weight of pay forfeiture and the practical limits: voluntary withholding depends on individual choice and does not create a uniform policy or legal requirement [5] [7].
4. Constitutional and practical barriers to a statutory fix — the amendment that complicates change
The Twenty-seventh Amendment’s requirement that salary changes take effect only after the next House election has been cited as a constitutional barrier to laws that would reduce pay or impose withholding for current members during a shutdown. Legal scholars and reporters have flagged that efforts to unilaterally cut or suspend pay could run afoul of that amendment, or at least face legal uncertainty, because a court could view a withholding as a compensatory change effective immediately. That constitutional constraint shapes why proposed bills face both political and legal obstacles and why the Supreme Court has not definitively ruled on the question [6] [8].
5. The politics and prospects — why bills stall and what would change the status quo
Legislative proposals to withhold pay fail for a mix of reasons: procedural objections, partisan disagreement, and constitutional concerns, as seen in recent Senate pushback and blocked measures. Advocates argue that withholding would align lawmakers’ incentives with federal employees and taxpayers; opponents point to constitutional text and the precedent that Congressional compensation is insulated to protect independence. Changing the status quo would likely require either a carefully drafted statute that survives constitutional scrutiny, a new constitutional amendment, or broad bipartisan agreement to enact a law paired with legal defenses — none of which have materialized into enacted law in the episodes documented [3] [6] [9].
6. Bottom line and what to watch next — monitoring proposals and voluntary pledges
The factual bottom line is clear: Congress has not enacted a law to withhold its members’ pay during a shutdown; only proposals and voluntary measures exist, and constitutional constraints complicate statutory fixes. Watch for whether sponsors of recent bills refile measures, whether courts weigh in if Congress or the Treasury withholds pay, and whether a broader political consensus emerges to overcome Amendment 27 concerns — developments that would change the legal landscape and convert proposals into enforceable law [1] [2] [4] [5].