Fact check: Which members of Congress are refusing to pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government and what are their stated demands?

1. Who’s Voting No — A Clear Democratic Block Holding Out for Healthcare Wins

Senate Democrats have consistently declined to back the GOP-authored continuing resolution, framing their opposition around health-care policy changes rather than procedural objections. Democrats insist on negotiating extensions of enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are scheduled to expire at year’s end, as a condition for supporting any stopgap funding measure; leadership has signaled that reopening the government without those concessions is unacceptable to the caucus ^{[1] [4]}. Three Democrats broke with the majority to vote for the House bill, illustrating some intra-party divergence, but the overall Democratic posture remains to link funding to healthcare relief and reversal of proposed Medicaid cuts. That stance has repeatedly blocked cloture in the Senate, where 60 votes are required to advance the GOP measure, and has been the proximate cause of the 13 failed roll calls to advance the House bill ^[2].

2. Who’s Pushing for a “Clean” CR — Unions, Businesses, and Cross-Sector Coalitions

A broad coalition of more than 300 stakeholders—ranging from the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) to trade groups like the National Association of Home Builders and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—has publicly urged Congress to pass a clean continuing resolution that reopens the government and restores pay and certainty for federal workers and affected industries ^[3]. The AFGE specifically lobbied Democrats to abandon conditional strategies and back a clean CR, arguing the human and economic costs of a shutdown outweigh bargaining leverage. Business and labor groups frame the clean-CR demand as a stability priority for supply chains, construction, agriculture and aviation, portraying the demand for negotiations on healthcare as an unacceptable risk to immediate economic functioning ^[3].

3. Republican Calculus: Reopen, Targeted Payments, or Press for Cuts

Republican leaders have advanced the House-passed CR repeatedly, arguing it is the straightforward path to ending the shutdown, but they face internal conservative resistance demanding deeper spending cuts and details on funding priorities tied to broader GOP fiscal plans. House conservatives, including figures like Rep. Ralph Norman and members aligned with fiscal hawk demands, have objected to Speaker proposals seen as too moderate, seeking steeper reductions or offsetting measures tied to tax or spending priorities ^{[5] [6]}. Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have explored piecemeal approaches—paying certain groups such as troops or targeted federal employees—to blunt political fallout while insisting that the simplest path remains passage of a governmentwide CR ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Legal and State-Level Pressure: Lawsuits and SNAP Risks Raise the Stakes

The shutdown’s secondary effects have escalated the dispute into the courts and state capitals: a coalition of 25 states plus D.C. sued the administration over suspension of SNAP benefits, framing the cutoff as unlawful and highlighting the humanitarian stakes for millions reliant on food assistance ^[2]. The prospect that SNAP, childcare supports, and other benefits for tens of millions could be disrupted has added urgency to calls for a clean CR and fed into lobbying from diverse interest groups. States’ legal action and the visibility of SNAP risks have sharpened public scrutiny and provided a cross-partisan pressure point that complicates purely ideological bargaining in Washington ^{[2] [7]}.

5. Political Incentives and the Road Ahead: Leverage, Messaging, and Deadlines

The standoff reflects competing incentive frames: Democrats seek policy wins—chiefly an extension of ACA subsidies and reversal of Medicaid cuts—using the CR as leverage, while Republicans emphasize the need to reopen government now and press for spending discipline or targeted relief measures. External actors—from unions to business groups to state attorneys general—apply countervailing pressure for a clean CR, while House conservatives push for deeper cuts, creating a three-way tug that complicates a quick resolution ^{[1] [3] [6]}. With multiple failed Senate votes and an impending calendar of benefit expirations, political calculations will hinge on who absorbs short-term blame and whether either side perceives a strategic advantage in prolonging negotiations versus accepting a compromise that splits their coalition ^{[2] [8]}.