How common is it for members of Congress to repay taxpayer money for campaign or promotional activities?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Members of Congress are legally guaranteed pay and, unlike most federal workers in a shutdown, can choose to keep, donate, or have their pay withheld — and many have publicly donated or refused pay as a political gesture [1] [2]. In recent shutdowns roughly one-fifth to nearly two-fifths of members have refused or donated pay (about 102 members in the 2018–2019 shutdown and “nearly 4 in 10” in the 2025 shutdown per available reporting) — showing repayment or refusal is common as a symbolic act but not a universal practice [3] [4].
1. Law and the options: why members can return or donate pay
The Constitution and subsequent practice mean members’ compensation is protected and disbursed even during funding lapses; that legal structure leaves the choice to individual members to accept, donate, return to the Treasury, or have pay withheld — a discretion reporters repeatedly note in 2025 coverage [1] [2]. Government Executive and Marketplace explain members can legally be paid during shutdowns but often “donate” or ask for withholding to avoid the optics of being paid while other federal employees are furloughed [2] [1].
2. Frequency in practice: how often do lawmakers repay or forgo pay?
Historical coverage shows opting out is a recurring tactic. During the 2018–2019 35-day shutdown at least 102 members publicly pledged to forgo or donate their salaries — roughly one in five members at that time — and reporting from 2025 indicates an even larger share in that year’s shutdown, with “nearly 4 in 10” House members not taking pay according to ABC News [3] [4]. These figures show repayment or refusal occurs often enough to be a predictable political response during high-profile funding standoffs [3] [4].
3. Motivation: political signaling vs. fiscal effect
Reporting frames these repayments as largely symbolic. Squared Compass and Roll Call note members use donated or withheld pay to signal solidarity with furloughed workers and to shift public perception about accountability for shutdowns; those donations rarely change the underlying budget calculus [3] [5]. Media and think-tank pieces also treat the practice as messaging rather than a structural policy reform that would prevent future pay during shutdowns [3] [5].
4. Variability and transparency: who reports and how complete is the data?
News surveys and office statements drive most counts of who gives back pay. ABC News’ survey covered reachable offices and estimated “nearly 4 in 10” House members declined pay; Squared Compass compiled lists of lawmakers pledging to forgo pay in 2025 [4] [3]. Available sources do not present a single official tally maintained by the House or Senate disbursing offices in real time; reporting relies on public pledges and office confirmations, so totals can change and likely undercount private decisions [3] [4].
5. Broader fiscal context and trade-offs
Analysts caution that even full-scale refusals by individual members have limited budgetary effect. Coverage about back pay and automatic cost-of-living adjustments emphasizes that the more consequential fiscal issues are statutory pay rules and COLA freezes, which affect long-term totals; organizations like the National Taxpayers Union and Congressional Budget Office analyses focus on those larger-dollar dynamics rather than one-off donations [6] [7]. Thus repayment-for-optics does not substitute for structural reforms some advocates call for [6] [7].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
Media coverage treats repayments two ways: as sincere solidarity (members say they refuse pay out of principle) and as political theater (opponents argue it’s symbolic posturing). Outlets such as Roll Call and Marketplace note lawmakers introduce bills or make pledges that are “messaging bills” to highlight federal-worker pain, while conservative-leaning taxpayer groups emphasize the cost of congressional pay and pensions to argue for harder rules [5] [7]. Each source’s focus — accountability, symbolism, fiscal impact — shapes how common and consequential the practice appears.
7. Bottom line for readers
Returning, donating, or withholding pay is a common, well-established response by members of Congress during high-profile funding crises: frequent enough to make headlines and to affect public narratives, but limited in fiscal impact and tracked imperfectly by journalists relying on office statements [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention a permanent, consistently enforced mechanism that automatically prevents congressional pay during shutdowns; instead the practice remains individual and voluntary [1] [2].