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.
Did any U.S. senators publicly refuse pay during the 2018 2019 federal government shutdown?
Executive Summary
Twenty U.S. senators publicly pledged to forgo or donate pay during the 2018–2019 federal government shutdown, part of a broader group of 102 members of Congress who announced they would decline or redirect their salaries; this was widely reported at the time as an act of symbolic solidarity with unpaid federal workers [1] [2]. Contemporary summaries and lists confirm the figure of 20 senators, name numerous individuals across both parties who committed to donate pay, and emphasize that these gestures were largely political statements rather than a change to underlying legal pay rules for lawmakers [1] [3].
1. Who said “I’ll refuse pay”? The public tally that shaped the story
Major contemporary coverage compiled an aggregate figure: 102 members of Congress—20 senators and 82 representatives—publicly pledged to forgo or donate their pay during the 35-day shutdown, and multiple news outlets published lists of senators who announced donations to charities and local causes. These lists included high-profile progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, centrists and conservatives such as Shelley Moore Capito and Martha McSally, and a range of others from both parties, signaling a cross‑aisle rhetorical response to the stalled appropriations fight [1] [2] [3]. The reports consistently frame these actions as visible solidarity with furloughed federal employees, using quantified counts to underline the scope of congressional statements.
2. The legal and practical reality: symbolic gesture versus payroll law
News reports and analyses noted a legal constraint: members of Congress cannot unilaterally waive or permanently forfeit their constitutionally anchored pay; the 27th Amendment and federal payroll mechanisms limit how pay can be handled, meaning many pledges involved directing pay to charities or withholding transfers rather than legally refusing salary [1] [3]. Coverage emphasized that the pledges were therefore largely symbolic, relying on voluntary donation or temporary administrative measures rather than changing the legal entitlement to compensation. Reporters flagged that the public acts were designed to spotlight hardships among federal workers and to politically pressure colleagues rather than to alter members’ statutory pay status [1].
3. Who’s on the lists? Names, donations, and notable exceptions
Contemporaneous reporting named a significant subset of the 20 senators: Michael Bennet, Richard Blumenthal, Shelley Moore Capito, Bob Casey, Steve Daines, Mazie Hirono, John Hoeven, Patrick Leahy, Joe Manchin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Martha McSally, Jacky Rosen, Bernie Sanders, Dan Sullivan, Chris Van Hollen, Mark Warner, Tina Smith, Elizabeth Warren, and others listed in various outlets as diverting checks to food banks, domestic‑violence programs, veterans’ services or local charities [3] [2]. Coverage also recorded dissenting views: some senators publicly dismissed such pledges as political theater or declined to participate, with a few saying the optics were unhelpful while others noted administrative limits on their ability to act [3].
4. The political frame: solidarity, accountability, and media emphasis
Journalistic accounts treated the refusals as part of a broader narrative about accountability—lawmakers used pay pledges to signal they would not personally profit from a shutdown that harmed rank‑and‑file federal employees. Media outlets contextualized the donations as a tactic to apply public pressure on leaders negotiating border‑wall funding and appropriations, while also noting the punitive limits of existing law and the ephemeral nature of the gesture once back pay was later enacted for most furloughed workers through legislation [4] [1]. The reporting balanced praise for solidarity with scrutiny of whether such pledges affected bargaining or were mainly symbolic in public perception.
5. Remaining gaps and why accurate lists matter for public accountability
Reporting across sources agreed on the headline figure—20 senators among 102 total members publicly committed to donate or forgo pay—but several pieces noted incomplete documentation and variability in follow‑through, leaving open questions about who actually redirected checks, the timing of donations, and whether all pledges were acted upon administratively [1] [4] [5]. This gap matters because public claims of sacrifice carry political weight; verifying which senators completed donations versus announcing intent affects assessments of sincerity and accountability. Contemporary sources provided named examples and totals but did not produce a universally authoritative, itemized ledger of every senator’s final action [1] [3].