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: THE LAST 3 GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNS: OCTOBER 1, 2025: PRESIDENT TRUMP DECEMBER 22, 2018: PRESIDENT TRUMP JANUARY 20, 2018: PRESIDENT TRUMP ALMOST LIKE THERE IS A PATTERN HERE. Governor Gavin Newsom
Executive Summary
Governor Gavin Newsom’s tweet asserts that the “last 3 government shutdowns” (Oct 1, 2025; Dec 22, 2018; Jan 20, 2018) were all under President Trump, implying a pattern. The factual core — that shutdowns occurred on those dates and that Trump was president during the 2018–19 and January 2018 episodes — is supported by contemporary timelines, but the claim omits broader historical context about shutdown frequency, causes, and party control that complicates a simple “pattern” attribution [1] [2] [3].
1. What Newsom Claimed — A Tight, Provocative Timeline
Newsom’s statement lists three specific shutdown start dates and attributes them to President Trump, framing the recurrence as a pattern. The dates cited correspond to recognized federal funding lapses: the multi-week lapse beginning December 22, 2018 that extended into January 2019; the short shutdown in January 2018; and the October 1, 2025 lapse that began with the new fiscal year. Contemporary timelines and histories record these events and note Trump was president during the 2018–19 and January 2018 shutdowns; the October 1, 2025 shutdown occurred while Trump was president as well [1] [2] [3].
2. Do the Dates and Presidential Attribution Check Out? Yes — But With Nuance
The three dates are accurately tied to federal funding gaps documented in historical summaries of shutdowns. The January 2018 closure lasted three days and was associated with disagreements over immigration policy and border funding. The December 22, 2018 lapse became the 35-day shutdown spanning into January 2019, widely reported as the longest modern shutdown. The October 1, 2025 lapse began at the new fiscal year and is likewise recorded; each of these events occurred while Donald Trump occupied the presidency, so the basic factual claim is correct [2] [1] [3].
3. The Bigger Picture: Shutdowns Are Recurrent and Bipartisan
Shutdowns are part of a longer pattern of funding lapses stretching back decades: over 20 shutdowns in the past 50 years are documented, and 14 funding lapses since 1980 are cataloged in a recent history. Shutdowns arise from congressional failure to pass appropriations, not solely from unilateral presidential action, and have occurred under both parties. Framing three shutdowns under one president as a unique pattern overlooks the institutional mechanics and the role of Congress, which must pass funding bills or resolutions to avert a lapse [3] [1] [4].
4. Why Shutdown Causes Matter More Than Dates
The causes of the cited shutdowns differ in important ways: January 2018 centered on immigration and DACA-linked funding disputes; December 2018–January 2019 was centered on a border wall demand and funding impasse; October 1, 2025, stemmed from broader failure to agree on a short-term funding resolution amid partisan disagreement. Labeling these as a single “pattern” risks conflating distinct bargaining dynamics, legislative strategies, and political leverage points that determine both the likelihood and duration of shutdowns [2] [1].
5. Real-World Consequences Support Why Context Matters
Economic and workforce impacts have been substantial and measurable: the 2018–19 shutdown was estimated to cost the economy about $11 billion, and research shows shutdowns can increase federal employee turnover and reduce productivity, with past shutdowns linked to higher likelihood of employees leaving within a year. These impacts are central to evaluating political responsibility and policy costs, not just counting occurrences. The effects underline why contextualizing causes and actors—Congressional majorities, Senate filibusters, executive demands—matters for public accountability [4] [5].
6. Alternative Framings and Political Agendas to Watch For
Newsom’s phrasing serves a political purpose: highlighting perceived executive responsibility for repeated shutdowns. Opposing framings emphasize congressional gridlock or specific tactical choices by lawmakers, which dilutes sole executive blame. Analysts and officials often emphasize that shutdowns are the result of negotiations between the presidency and Congress; therefore, partisan actors may selectively cite dates to shape narratives. Readers should note agendas: state executives often seek nationalizing criticism for political advantage, while congressional leaders may point to cross-branch responsibility [6] [3].
7. What’s Omitted That Changes the Story
The tweet omits the wider shutdown history, the bipartisan occurrence of past funding lapses, and the different proximate causes behind each shutdown. It also omits the procedural role of Congress and Senate rules that influence funding outcomes. Including those facts would shift the rhetorical weight from a narrative of singular presidential culpability toward a systemic explanation where multiple actors and institutional features drive shutdown frequency and severity [1] [3] [7].
8. Bottom Line: Accurate Dates, Incomplete Framing
The claim that those three shutdowns occurred under President Trump is factually accurate, but presenting them as evidence of a unique presidential pattern is incomplete without acknowledging the bipartisan history of shutdowns, differing causes for each lapse, and Congress’s central role in funding. The core factual elements are supported by timelines and primers on the shutdown process, yet fuller accountability requires broader context about legislative dynamics and policy disputes that led to each lapse [1] [2] [4].