Have any members of Congress returned pay received during a shutdown and when?

Executive summary — Short answer up front: Members of Congress have on multiple occasions declined, donated, or asked to have pay withheld during government shutdowns, most notably during the 2018–2019 lapse when more than 100 lawmakers refused pay; there is little public record of members formally “returning” pay already received, because congressional pay is a mandatory, permanent appropriation that typically continues unless lawmakers voluntarily forgo it ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Recent coverage in late 2025 shows renewed proposals to bar pay during shutdowns and reports that some lawmakers again asked their pay be held, but no broad statutory change has occurred and the practice remains ad hoc and voluntary ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

1. Why the question matters — Pay keeps flowing unless Congress acts

Congressional salaries are funded through a permanent appropriation enacted in 1983, which means members continue receiving paychecks automatically during funding lapses unless they take personal steps to decline or donate. Journalistic accounts from October 2025 explain that the budget mechanics place member pay in the category of mandatory spending, so pay does not stop simply because annual appropriations expire; stopping pay requires either new statute or individual action by members to refuse, redirect, or donate their checks ^{[3] [6]}. That structural fact explains why “returning pay” is uncommon as an automatic occurrence and why political proposals instead focus on cutting off pay prospectively during shutdowns.

2. What actually happened in the big shutdown example — 2018–2019

The longest shutdown in modern history, from late December 2018 into January 2019, produced the clearest example of congressional members taking a stand: reporting at the time identified more than 100 lawmakers — about 20 senators and 82 representatives — who refused their paychecks or pledged to donate them rather than keeping wages while federal workers went unpaid. Contemporary summaries and subsequent retrospectives list dozens of named members who publicly declined pay or rerouted it to charities, demonstrating that voluntary refusals are a real, repeatable political response ^{[1] [7] [2]}. Those actions were largely individual choices and did not change the underlying appropriation rules that allow pay to continue.

3. The distinction between “withholding,” “donating,” and “returning” pay

Reporting and Congressional practice distinguish three outcomes: members can ask the disbursing office to withhold future direct deposits, they can donate salary to charity or public causes, or they can attempt to return money already deposited. Most publicized actions have been withholding or donation pledges rather than documented returns of already-received pay, because the Treasury’s permanent appropriation and payroll mechanics make reversing disbursements administratively and legally different from simply refusing future pay. Coverage in late October and early November 2025 documents members asking to have pay withheld and pledging donations, but does not show a comparable wave of formally returned pay once distributed ^{[6] [5] [3]}.

4. The politics and proposals resurfacing in 2025 — New bills, old debate

In November 2025, senators and representatives introduced bills explicitly aimed at preventing congressional pay during shutdowns, signaling that some lawmakers want to shift the burden from voluntary gestures to statutory rules. Press releases and news coverage show lawmakers like Sen. John Kennedy and Rep. Bryan Steil proposing measures to bar pay during funding lapses, and media outlets reported at least 20 members requesting pay be withheld in the most recent shutdown cycle — again highlighting political pressure rather than an existing legal stopgap ^{[4] [5]}. These proposals face constitutional and practical roadblocks — including the 27th Amendment constraints and the need to create a new statutory mechanism — which explains why ad hoc refusals remain the predominant response.

5. Bottom line and unresolved information gaps — What’s proven and what isn’t

Established facts show that individual members have periodically declined pay, notably over 100 in 2018–2019, and that members can request withholding or donate salaries as a voluntary remedy; however, there is no comprehensive public record showing many lawmakers formally returning pay already processed during a shutdown, and recent 2025 coverage documents more withholding/donation pledges and new bills rather than a systematic return practice ^{[1] [2] [5] [3]}. The main gaps are administrative records from the House and Senate disbursing offices about whether any processed payments were later reversed, and legal analyses of how easily a returned paycheck could be clawed back; those gaps explain persistent public confusion and why reform proposals keep resurfacing ^{[6] [4]}.