Fact check: Who voted no on the continuous funding act 2026 that caused the shutdown

Executive Summary — Two sentences that answer the question directly and set the frame

The Senate roll call shows 45 senators voted “Nay” on the cloture motion to proceed to the Continuous Funding Act (a FY2026 stopgap), a Senate procedural threshold that prevented the bill from moving forward and precipitated the funding lapse ^[1]. Multiple roll-call summaries and news analyses corroborate that the bill required 60 votes to overcome a filibuster or cloture, and because it fell well short of that supermajority the measure failed despite simple-majority Yea totals reported in some iterations ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

1. Who actually said “no” — the roll-call picture that matters

The authoritative numerical record repeated across the analyses is that 45 senators voted Nay on the cloture/motion to proceed that blocked the Senate from taking up the FY2026 continuing resolution; contemporaneous roll-call summaries enumerate specific names among those voting NAY, including Democratic senators such as Alsobrooks (D‑MD), Baldwin (D‑WI), and Bennet (D‑CO) listed in a roll-call extract ^{[1] [4]}. The procedural vote that failed was not a final passage vote but a cloture motion or motion to proceed, which by Senate rules requires 60 votes to succeed; therefore, a simple numerical majority in favor did not suffice and the 45 Nays effectively prevented further consideration ^{[1] [2]}. News accounts emphasize that the Nays included a mix of senators acting on principle, caucus discipline, or tactical leverage, but the roll-call counts are the operative fact causing the impasse ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Conflicting tallies and multiple failed efforts — why numbers look different in reports

Press and congressional summaries list several related votes on different continuing-resolution vehicles that occurred across September and October 2025, producing slightly different tallies—reports show tallies of 54–45, 55–45, 52–42 and 47–53 depending on which procedural motion or specific bill (H.R. 5371, S.2882, or other CRs) is being described ^{[1] [4] [3] [5]}. These discrepancies arise because the Senate repeatedly voted on multiple measures and motions to proceed, and because a cloture requirement (60 votes) governs many of those motions; a 54‑45 “yea‑nay” count can be recorded on a cloture vote but still fall short of the 60 needed to invoke cloture, which is why different outlets report the same event with different emphases ^{[1] [2]}. The essential, consistent fact across summaries is that one or more cloture/motion‑to‑proceed votes failed because they lacked 60 votes, and the effective tally against progression was 45 Nays in the cited roll calls ^{[1] [4]}.

3. Which senators are repeatedly identified in the “no” column across sources

Multiple roll‑call extracts and reporting names specific senators who appear in the NAY lists across the cited documents; for example, a roll-call summary explicitly names Alsobrooks, Baldwin, and Bennet among the Nays, and other reports highlight senators such as Rand Paul in the mix of opposition at different moments ^{[1] [6]}. Other analyses note that several Democrats who normally oppose shutdowns still voted against particular procedural motions at various times — in at least one instance only three Democrats voted to reopen the government while many opposed the offered text, illustrating cross‑caucus complexity rather than a simple party-line swarm ^{[6] [5]}. Because the source extracts include partial lists rather than a complete enumerated roster within the provided analyses, the safest, documented claim is that 45 senators voted Nay on the decisive cloture/motion to proceed vote referenced in the roll calls ^{[1] [4]}.

4. House votes and the broader tug-of-war — why the shutdown continued despite some passage

Separately, the House passed a continuing-appropriations vehicle with a narrow margin at one point — reported as 217 Yea to 212 Nay — but House passage does not bind the Senate, and subsequent or different Senate measures (S.2882, H.R. 5371 and other CRs) failed to obtain the 60‑vote threshold in the upper chamber ^{[7] [3]}. The analyses show a pattern of iterative stopgap proposals and repeated Senate defeats: measures passed or attempted in one chamber repeatedly stalled in the other, and even when the simple majority favored opening debate or adopting a CR, the Senate’s supermajority cloture rule meant that the 45 Nays were sufficient to block further action and maintain the shutdown ^{[1] [2]}. This cross‑chamber dynamic explains how House passage did not prevent the funding lapse.

5. What the differing narratives suggest about motives and political framing

Reporting and congressional summaries describe the Nays and the failed votes with competing framings: some accounts frame the opposition as Democratic obstruction or principled resistance to Republican policy riders, while others highlight Republican defections or strategic holds by individual senators like Rand Paul ^{[6] [5]}. The provided analyses show these competing narratives reflect partisan agendas and tactical positioning rather than disagreement over the raw roll‑call arithmetic; the numeric constant is that procedural cloture failed because it did not reach 60 votes and 45 senators were recorded as voting Nay on the pivotal motions ^{[1] [6]}.

6. Bottom line answer and how to confirm the full list

The direct, documentable answer is that 45 senators voted “Nay” on the cloture/motion to proceed associated with the Continuous Funding Act/FY2026 CR, and that roll‑call records name specific senators in that group ^{[1] [4]}. To obtain a complete, line‑by‑line roster of those 45 Nays consult the Senate roll‑call entries referenced in the analyses — the cited