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 a government shutdown be prevented through bipartisan agreements?
Executive Summary
Bipartisan agreements can and historically have prevented government shutdowns by producing either full-year appropriations or short-term continuing resolutions, but achieving such deals requires overcoming political incentives and procedural hurdles in Congress. Recent reporting shows talks have increased and proposals exist that would structurally reduce shutdown risk, yet current negotiations can stall and adjournments indicate short-term prospects remain uncertain [1] [2] [3].
1. Why Bipartisan Deals Often Solve Shutdowns — and When They Don't
Bipartisan agreements are the primary practical mechanism to avert a shutdown because Congress can pass either the 12 regular appropriations measures or a short-term continuing resolution that keeps the government funded; historical precedent confirms this path works when both parties reach compromise, most recently in last-minute deals that have averted shutdowns [4] [5]. Structural reality: the power to fund the government lies with Congress and bipartisan majorities can exercise it, but process breakdowns — such as failure to pass bills before October 1 or strategic refusal by one party to negotiate — make shutdowns likely despite the existence of a clear legal remedy [1] [6]. The tension between policy riders and 'clean' funding bills frequently sabotages agreement efforts, leaving negotiations hostage to broader partisan objectives rather than the technical task of funding government operations [6] [7].
2. Recent Talks Show Momentum but Not a Guaranteed End to the Shutdown
Reporting from late October 2025 records increased bipartisan conversations and cautious optimism among senators that talks have "ticked up significantly," indicating improved bargaining activity that could lead to either a temporary fix or broader appropriations progress [3]. Nevertheless, the Senate adjourned without a breakthrough and the shutdown extended into the next week, illustrating the gap between negotiation and enactment; adjournments and weekend recesses have repeatedly interrupted momentum in the past, emphasizing that talk alone does not translate into enacted funding [8]. Political calendars, public pressure over disrupted services and holidays, and competing demands from leadership and rank-and-file members all shape whether this increased engagement results in a legally binding stopgap or full-year bills [3] [8].
3. Policy Stakes and Leverage: Why Parties Stall or Shift Positions
Partisan leverage drives much of the impasse: Democrats have advanced a short-term continuing resolution tied to health care protections and security measures, framing their demand as both policy-driven and institutional — protecting Congress's power of the purse — while Republicans have resisted joining that framework and sought 'clean' bills without additional policy, reflecting a classic strategic split that complicates bipartisan resolution [7]. The record shows that when either side ties appropriations to substantive policy riders or uses shutdown brinksmanship as leverage, bipartisan solutions become harder to achieve; conversely, when leaders prioritize avoiding economic and human costs, cross-party compromises typically follow, as in previous last-minute deals [6] [5]. Statements from party leaders and external political pressures illustrate how incentives, not just mechanisms, determine outcomes [7] [6].
4. Institutional Reforms and Proposals That Could Reduce Shutdown Risk
Beyond negotiations, proposals and legislation have been floated to reduce shutdown frequency, such as the Eliminate Shutdowns Act proposal to fund government at prior-year levels automatically, which would remove some leverage for brinkmanship and create procedural continuity if appropriations are delayed [9]. Analysts and explainers emphasize that long-term prevention depends on budget process reforms: passing the 12 appropriations bills timely, improving enforcement of deadlines, or adopting automatic continuing funding mechanisms, all of which require bipartisan buy-in to change entrenched norms and incentives [4] [2]. The history of sporadic compliance with the annual appropriations schedule — only four full completions in 40 years — demonstrates that reform, while feasible, faces institutional inertia and political resistance [1].
5. What the Evidence Adds Up To: Likelihood and Conditions for Prevention
The evidence converges on a clear conditional conclusion: bipartisan agreements can prevent government shutdowns and have done so in practice, but prevention is contingent on political will, timing, and whether parties accept compromises or procedural fixes that limit brinkmanship. Short-term avoidance is feasible through continuing resolutions or last-minute deals, as repeatedly documented; long-term prevention requires structural reforms such as automatic funding or stricter adherence to the appropriations calendar [5] [2] [9]. Current late-October reporting shows talks and proposals exist but also highlights that procedural pauses and partisan standoffs continue to threaten timely resolution, meaning prevention is possible but not guaranteed without specific concessions and institutional change [3] [8] [1].