Fact check: Which Senate Democrats voted against continuing resolutions or appropriations bills and on what dates?

1. The central claim: Democrats blocked stopgaps and appropriations — what the reports say

Multiple contemporaneous accounts converge on a simple factual narrative: Senate Democrats, collectively, voted against taking up or advancing certain House-passed continuing resolutions and appropriations measures in late September and October 2025. On October 28, 2025, the Senate failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to advance a House-passed reopening bill, with the tally 54–45 and only three Democratic caucus members supporting advancement ^[1]. Separate reporting frames the earlier September 30 action as a failed procedural attempt on a “clean” continuing resolution that also did not reach cloture, producing a 55–45 count in which Fetterman, Cortez Masto, and King voted with Republicans to try to avoid a shutdown ^[2]. These pieces present a consistent claim about timing and the numerical outcomes.

2. Timeline and vote specifics — dates, counts, and measures at issue

The timeline in the available reports centers on two key dates: September 30, 2025 and October 28, 2025. On September 30, the Senate recorded a 55–45 procedural result tied to a clean continuing resolution; three members of the Democratic caucus voted with Republicans in favor ^[2]. On October 28, a separate House-passed reopening bill failed to clear 60 votes, with a 54–45 outcome and the same three caucus members again in the Republican column for advancement ^[1]. Additionally, reporting identifies an October 16, 2025 action where Democrats voted against taking up the Fiscal Year 2026 Defense Appropriations Act, though the precise roll-call numbers for that procedural motion are summarized rather than fully enumerated in the analyses ^[3].

3. Who broke with the caucus — named senators and independent alignment

The reporting consistently identifies Senator John Fetterman (D), Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D), and Senator Angus King (I, caucuses with Democrats) as the three who voted to advance the continuing-resolution measures in late September and again in late October, siding with Republicans in procedural votes aimed at avoiding or reversing shutdown conditions ^{[2] [1]}. The sources frame these three as outliers within the Democratic caucus; the larger Democratic bloc opposed advancing the House bills. The labeling of King as an independent who caucuses with Democrats is important context because it explains why his votes are counted among the “three” breaking with the broader Democratic position ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Stakes described by sources — policy consequences and political messaging

Sources explain tangible policy stakes tied to these votes: the procedural defeats led to a government shutdown or blocked appropriations, affected federal programs and benefits including expiring healthcare subsidies, and raised concerns about military readiness tied to the blocked defense bill. Republican critics cast Democratic opposition as endangering troops and families, accusing Democrats of partisan obstruction ^{[4] [3]}. Conversely, the Democratic rationale for opposing House bills is implied in the accounts as rooted in policy disagreements over the content of the funding measures rather than procedural obstruction, though detailed Democratic statements are not reproduced in the provided analyses ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Conflicts, gaps, and where reporting differs — what’s left unspecified

The available analyses align on the broad outcomes and named senators, but they leave gaps: exact roll-call spreadsheets for the defense appropriations procedural votes are summarized rather than given in full, and some background on the Democrats’ procedural rationale or alternative proposals is not provided. One report cites a 54–45 October 28 vote and another a 55–45 September 30 vote, creating no contradiction but underscoring how multiple procedural motions across dates produced distinct numeric outcomes ^{[1] [2]}. The materials also include earlier, unrelated historical reporting that does not bear on the 2025 votes, signaling the need to separate dated context from the contested late-2025 actions ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

6. Bottom line — who opposed what and when, and why it matters

The fact pattern is clear: most Senate Democrats voted against advancing House-passed continuing resolutions and at least one appropriations motion in late September and October 2025, with Senators Fetterman, Cortez Masto, and Angus King breaking with the caucus by voting with Republicans on procedural CR votes; those procedural failures produced failed cloture tallies of 55–45 (Sept. 30) and 54–45 (Oct. 28) and contributed to funding stalemates and criticism over the policy consequences ^{[2] [1] [3]}. The principal omission in the coverage is detailed roll-call breakdowns for every appropriations motion and explicit Democratic justifications; that absence limits a full forensic accounting but does not undermine the core conclusions established by the contemporaneous vote totals reported. ^{[1] [2] [3]}