Fact check: Has any U.S. senator voluntarily refused salary during a government shutdown?

1. Who said they’d give up pay — and why it matters for optics and precedent

Contemporaneous compilations and local reporting list named senators and representatives who publicly refused pay or pledged to donate it during the shutdown, including high-profile senators cited in aggregated lists and local stories; these reports present the refusals as both symbolic gestures of solidarity with furloughed federal workers and as political statements aimed at public perception ^{[1] [2]}. The act of declining pay during a shutdown carries political and public-relations weight because Congress normally continues to be paid by law even when parts of the government are closed; these voluntary refusals therefore serve to highlight perceived inequities and to pressure colleagues to resolve funding disputes, while also setting informal precedents that can influence future legislative proposals ^{[4] [3]}.

2. How many members and which senators — the patchwork reporting problem

Multiple sources compiled lists of lawmakers foregoing pay, but the coverage is not uniform and the counts vary across reports; one aggregation names specific senators such as Lindsey Graham, Ron Johnson, and Andy Kim among those pledging to refuse salary, while other outlets emphasize broader numbers of members from particular states or delegations who made similar commitments ^{[1] [6]}. This variation reflects differences in reporting scope and verification methods: some outlets assembled comprehensive rosters of named members, while others highlighted local delegations or individual pledges, producing a patchwork of confirmations rather than a single authoritative roll call of all senators who refused pay ^{[2] [1]}.

3. Legal reality versus voluntary gestures — what refusal accomplishes and what it doesn’t

Legally, members of Congress continue to be entitled to their salaries unless Congress changes the law; voluntary refusal or donation of pay does not change statutory pay rules but can influence public debate and spur legislative initiatives to alter compensation during shutdowns ^[4]. Some members filed formal requests to have their pay withheld or signaled they would donate paychecks, and those actions function as personal ethics decisions and statements of solidarity rather than binding changes to pay law, which requires formal statutory or procedural adjustments to make salary suspension automatic during future shutdowns ^{[3] [5]}.

4. Political cross-currents and the agendas shaping coverage

Reporting shows bipartisan participation in pay refusals, with both Republicans and Democrats among those making public pledges; aggregated lists and local accounts frame the refusals variously as altruism, political signaling, or pressure tactics aimed at budget negotiations ^{[1] [2]}. The presence of partisan framing is evident: some outlets emphasize solidarity with workers and fairness, while others underscore political theater intended to shift public blame, so readers should recognize that coverage can reflect different agendas—either elevating moral leadership or critiquing performative politics—depending on the outlet and the story’s focus ^{[4] [5]}.

5. What coverage omits and the longer-term implications for policy

News items documenting voluntary refusals frequently omit the procedural limits of those gestures, including the fact that voluntary forfeiture does not change entitlement law and that any permanent remedy would require legislative change; some reports focus on names and donations without fully tracing the legal pathway to altering pay during shutdowns ^{[1] [2]}. The visible result has been renewed legislative interest in proposals to bar congressional pay during funding lapses, but the background legal context and the potential unintended consequences of such laws—like complications for salaries processed retroactively after a short shutdown—are less consistently emphasized across the coverage ^{[4] [5]}.

6. Bottom line: established fact and continuing debate

It is an established fact that multiple U.S. senators and representatives voluntarily refused or pledged to forgo their pay during the 2025 government shutdown, with documented lists and local reports naming specific members and describing donations to charity or formal requests to withhold salary ^{[1] [2]}. The practice is symbolic and legally limited—effective as a public statement and a catalyst for policy proposals but not a substitute for statutory change that would alter how congressional pay is handled in future shutdowns, a point underscored by ongoing legislative debate and the mixed coverage available in October 2025 ^{[4] [5]}.