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.
Which senators are foregoing pay during the shutdown?
Executive Summary
Several senators publicly pledged to forgo or withhold their pay during the 2025 federal government shutdown, but the practice is largely symbolic because members of Congress cannot permanently cancel their pay; they can only request delayed disbursement or donate checks after the fact. Contemporary reporting identifies specific senators who announced they would withhold or donate pay — including Lindsey Graham, Andy Kim, Ashley Moody, Ron Johnson and at least one recent pledge from Jon Husted — while outlets note that lists are incomplete and actions vary by individual statement and timing [1] [2] [3]. Multiple news organizations and press releases confirm both the names and the legal constraints, and separate legislative proposals seek to bar pay during shutdowns altogether, reflecting a policy debate on whether symbolic forgoing is sufficient or statutory change is required [4] [5].
1. Who’s publicly said they’ll give up pay — names and scale that matter
Public reporting compiled lists naming specific senators who announced they would refuse, withhold or donate pay during the 2025 shutdown, with several outlets naming Lindsey Graham, Andy Kim, Ashley Moody and Ron Johnson among senators taking that position [1]. Individual announcements continued after those lists were published, as Ohio Republican Jon Husted formally requested the Senate Financial Clerk to withhold his salary until the shutdown ended, demonstrating the piecemeal nature of such pledges [2]. News outlets also listed more than 20 House members who took similar steps, indicating that while the practice was not universal, a significant minority of lawmakers across parties used the gesture to signal solidarity with furloughed federal workers [1]. The named senators are therefore a subset of lawmakers who publicly opted to render their pay politically costly during the impasse [3].
2. Legal reality: Symbolic gestures, not payroll immunity
Constitutional and administrative rules mean members of Congress legally continue to earn pay during shutdowns, and they cannot unilaterally cancel their compensation; instead, they may request delayed disbursement or donate the funds, turning the move into a symbolic political statement rather than a binding financial penalty [1] [6]. Reporting emphasizes this distinction repeatedly: lawmakers’ public pledges are meaningful as political messaging and solidarity with unpaid federal workers, but they do not change the statutory obligation that keeps congressmembers on the payroll unless Congress legislates otherwise [1] [6]. This legal structure also explains why watchdogs and critics call such gestures insufficient absent structural reform that would automatically withhold pay during shutdowns [5].
3. Why lists differ: Timing, definitions and reporting gaps
Different outlets produce different lists because there’s no centralized public register of withheld or donated pay; reporters compile whom lawmakers publicly announce, and events unfolded over weeks with added pledges after initial lists were published [1] [2]. Some pieces published in mid-October captured an early cohort of lawmakers willing to forgo pay, while later reports noted additional names or focused on the symbolic effect rather than creating exhaustive rosters [1] [3]. Other articles highlighted that many lawmakers did not make public statements either way, and administrative officials declined to comment publicly about payroll administrative decisions, reinforcing that any list based on public declarations will likely undercount actions taken quietly or after publication [3] [6].
4. Policy response: Proposals to make forgoing pay mandatory
Beyond individual pledges, lawmakers introduced bills aimed at automatically withholding lawmakers’ pay during shutdowns, including measures from Sen. John Kennedy and Rep. Bryan Steil seeking to deny pay until the government reopens [4]. Proponents argue statutory change would remove the need for symbolic gestures and create a stronger material incentive to avoid shutdowns; opponents warn about unintended consequences and constitutional constraints. Editorial and analytical pieces also proposed legislative fixes seeking to add harsher penalties — for example docking multiple months’ pay after a shutdown ends — underlining a bipartisan policy debate about whether voluntary donations suffice or whether a statutory deterrent is needed [5] [4].
5. Final assessment: What is verified and what remains uncertain
Verified facts show multiple senators publicly pledged to withhold or donate pay during the 2025 shutdown, and specific names appear in contemporary lists, but there is no comprehensive government-confirmed roster and legal limits make these acts largely symbolic unless Congress changes the law [1] [2]. The most reliable reporting combines initial lists with subsequent statements like Husted’s request to the Financial Clerk, illustrating ongoing additions; simultaneous legislative proposals indicate momentum toward statutory solutions that would create binding payroll consequences rather than voluntary gestures [2] [4]. Gaps remain in tracking every member’s private payroll choices, so any published list should be treated as a snapshot of public announcements rather than a definitive accounting of who ultimately did or did not receive pay [3] [6].