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.
How did Republicans approach government funding during the 2013 and 2018 shutdowns?
Executive Summary
Republicans approached government funding in 2013 and 2018 with markedly different tactical priorities: in 2013 the House GOP pursued a piecemeal, program-by-program strategy that tied short-term funding votes to defunding or delaying the Affordable Care Act, while in 2018 Republican leaders centered funding negotiations on a single, high-stakes demand for border-wall money that led to the longest shutdown in modern history. The 2013 standoff produced atypical floor alignments and repeated short funding measures, whereas the 2018 fight was characterized by unified leadership pressure around a $5.7 billion wall request and a sustained refusal to accept partial reopenings, culminating in a 35‑day shutdown and significant intra-party friction [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. House GOP’s “pick-and-choose” gambit in 2013 looked like legislative guerrilla warfare
During the 2013 shutdown, House Republicans avoided presenting a single omnibus continuing resolution and instead advanced incremental votes to reopen discrete agencies and programs, from FAA operations to food‑assistance programs, often linking short-term funding to anti‑Obamacare measures. This created unusual voting patterns where many Republicans supported full funding for programs they usually sought to cut, and some Democrats opposed specific reopenings for strategic reasons, reflecting a chaotic tactical environment and a focus on healthcare repeal as the leverage point [1] [2]. The strategy aimed to create pressure on Democrats by fragmenting the federal funding debate, but it also exposed fractures in messaging and limited the ability to present a comprehensive governing alternative; political strategists later called it a risky bet that relied on piecemeal pressure rather than a unified, institution‑level compromise [5].
2. 2018’s showdown: border wall funding became the single nonnegotiable
By contrast, the 2018–2019 shutdown centered on a single, headline demand: $5.7 billion for a U.S.–Mexico border wall, with President Trump and many Senate GOP leaders insisting that any continuing resolution include that funding. The House did pass a short-term funding bill containing wall money, but it was designed knowing the Senate and White House dynamics would complicate passage, effectively making the wall the fulcrum of bargaining rather than an item among many [3]. That insistence against adopting the 2013-style piecemeal reopenings prolonged the impasse and produced a 35‑day closure of many federal functions, demonstrating a strategic shift from fragmented leverage to a concentrated, high-stakes demand backed by executive insistence [4].
3. Both tactics were leverage plays, but with different political trade-offs
Both 2013 and 2018 show Republicans using appropriations as leverage to advance policy aims, yet the trade-offs differed: the 2013 piecemeal approach sought to create policy wins through incremental concessions but risked incoherence and public confusion, while the 2018 all‑in wall demand simplified the bargaining position but amplified political costs when the shutdown persisted. Commentators and party strategists noted that the 2013 tactic could produce odd bipartisan votes and erode messaging discipline, whereas the 2018 posture created a singular blame line and allowed opponents to frame Republicans and the White House as responsible for the longest shutdown in recent memory [1] [6] [7]. Each approach exposed internal GOP divisions—between hard‑liners seeking policy purity and moderates seeking to avoid prolonged closures—which shaped outcomes and public response [6] [8].
4. Outcomes: policy wins, losses, and political fallout were asymmetrical
The 2013 strategy failed to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act and produced a 16‑day shutdown that many Republicans later characterized as a political loss, while the 2018 demand for wall funding also failed to secure the full amount sought and resulted in a longer, costlier shutdown that ended with a bipartisan spending deal without wall money at the scale requested. Both episodes backfired in different ways: 2013 eroded legislative cohesion and credibility on process, and 2018 generated broader public backlash and tangible operational disruptions for federal workers and services. Analysts concluded that using appropriations as a primary bargaining chip yielded limited policy advancement and substantial political and practical costs for those pressing the demands [5] [7] [8].
5. What this pattern tells us about Republican governance strategy and internal incentives
The contrasting tactics reflect evolving Republican leadership calculations, media environment effects, and the presence of powerful party actors—such as influential senators in 2013 and the president in 2018—who shaped whether the party pursued piecemeal pressure or a singular demand. Both approaches reveal an underlying willingness to tie funding to policy goals, but the choice between fragmentation and concentration hinges on perceived leverage, public tolerance for disruption, and intra‑party power dynamics. Observers warn that leveraging shutdown risk for policy gains produces recurring internal divisions and uncertain returns, a lesson drawn directly from the 2013 and 2018 experiences and documented in contemporary postmortems and strategic analyses [1] [6] [4].