The minority party can and did shut down the government under the existing Senate rules and precedents. The system described below does not exist (yet). This view casually dismisses the intercurrence sustaining the filibuster and the politics necessary to facilitate historic change in Congress.

Matt makes a critical point. The pain of the shutdown was seriously ramping up while pressure on Republicans had yet to really build. They were losing in polls but not by a margin that would cause them to abandon Trump or Thune. Very skeptical Dems would have won much more by holding out longer.

Can't be certain of the full story for each of the eight Dems. I'm more certain that Schumer prefers to let us believe that he orchestrated or at least allowed the outcome than that he failed to keep his party united.

Democrats over-performed during the shutdown, polled well, and won elections. However, an ACA deal, nuclear Senate, or impoundment rules were a big stretch, at best, and mostly not feasible. More shutdown and "trying harder" can't change Republican majorities. joshhuder.substack.com/p/an-entirel...

My entirely too early assessment of the Senate deal. Still a lot of unknowns but like this shutdown, this deal was a little surprising. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

Are Democrats supposed to keep the government closed forever? A minority party cannot force the majority to act responsibly.

No party that ever started a shutdown won it. It's a little shocking how many people genuinely believed Dems could win policy concessions. Democrats caved because their phones were likely ringing off the hooks from people without paychecks, food assistance, the ability to travel safely, etc.

Leaders don't have this kind of power. They do not direct senators' votes. They can pressure or persuade but this notion Schumer can block senators from breaking ranks is pure myth.

Republicans won't nuke the filibuster because they don't want to vote much (most?) of Trump's agenda. Why go on the record about unpopular policies when you can silently kill them instead?

Look, Pelosi was a great leader but that included a ruthless streak that mired numerous political careers to stay on top for over 20 years and in office for almost 40. If you want members genuinely enabling the next generation, write about Ed Perlmutter or Charlie Dent.

When Nancy Pelosi stepped down as Speaker I was asked to evaluate her time as leader, which was really exciting until the scope and scale of that task began to settle in. Put simply, she is among the greatest speakers in House history. www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi...

If by guardian, he means literally removing the House of Representatives' from any governing role on tariffs and other matters, sure. Maybe somebody in the universe can remember a speaker who was more pliant to the President than Mike Johnson, but I can't.

Senator Tuberville has made some pretty epic tactical blunders during his time in the Senate. But, he gets this one spot on: Americans do not care about Senate rules. Nuking the filibuster wouldn't create the uproar many Democrats assume. But Republicans won't do it anyway.

Look, I love polling, considerably more than most people. But if you start crafting an agenda from what polls well, rather than starting with what a better world looks like, one that connects to the general public's needs, and how you get from here to there, then you have no business in politics

Since 1980, winning a popular vote majority in presidential elections is fairly rare. Democrats only won it 3 times in 45 years. If you zoom out, neither party is particularly popular. Any critique of one party's policy platform easily applies to the other.

Who is staffing this anonymous Republican senator who claims Congress doesn't have a role in deciding what constitutes an emergency? This gets a big 'F' in my class. www.semafor.com/article/10/2...

New Congress, Two Beers In! We discuss the shutdown, Congress’s spending power, enduring constitutional fights, the Epstein files, and Rep-Elect Grijalva. Listen here! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/t...

The separation of powers rests not solely on politicians wanting power, but politicians wanting power because their constituent and political interests differ from other branches. The nationalization of politics has significantly undercut these differences between local/national constituencies.

Substack has reinvigorated long-form blogging, which has been great. On the other hand, I think it's really hurt opinion writing. It's been discouraging to watch writers I really respected post borderline-derogatory slop about people, parties, ideologies, etc.

Mike Johnson is the elected leader of the House of Representatives but he wouldn't have the job nor can he pass significant bills without Trump's help swaying HFC-types. It's not a recipe for tight constitutional constraints when the leader of a rival institution is too weak to perform his job.

Some quick thoughts on Democrats' surprising early-polling advantage. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

What an icon. I was going take my daughter to her talk next week. Very sad news. www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2...

As a reminder, doing the work necessary to conduct RIFs during a shutdown is illegal

Are Democrats doomed to lose the shutdown? Probably. They want a bold public argument to justify their shutdown but their leaders struggle to deliver that leadership. This is a feature of congressional leadership. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

The irony is Democrats could make an unpopular President more popular by shutting down the government in an effort to highlight his unpopular policies.

Threatening a very unpopular thing to scare Democrats off a shutdown may backfire. The biggest shutdown downside (of many) is potentially galvanizing Republicans behind Trump. But that could be blunted if the admin decides on executing very unpopular things. www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

For majority members, discharge petitions signal the intensity of their support. It's not unusual for them to face (often immense) pressure from leaders. It is unusual when petitions succeed in the face of that pressure. In this case, leadership looks beat. www.semafor.com/article/09/2...

A gov't shutdown is below the fold news today and for good reason after Kimmel was pulled from the air. Nonetheless, internal Democratic politics looks like it may force their leaders into a shutdown. politicalwire.com/2025/09/17/c...

The base has an ambitious wish list of impossible policies. Democratic leaders want to avoid an embarrassing (and inevitable) defeat. So they've proposed ACA tax credits to satiate the hunger for rabid political opposition. This is the "let them eat cake" version of legislative politics.

Democratic leaders are at a point where they need a shutdown just to avoid rebellion. No party that forced a shutdown ever won. But they may need to shoot themselves in the foot just so they can keep fighting. www.semafor.com/article/09/1...

This is a critical insight. The manner in which Republicans went nuclear involved reducing cloture on a resolution. A resolution in a bill. It's not law. Regardless, it is a bill that governs procedure. The House also used procedural resolutions to circumvent filibusters in the 1880s.

A shutdown makes almost no sense. Democrats won't win policy. They will lose in the polls. Yet, it's probably going to happen regardless because coalition management demands it. Why Chuck Schumer may need to channel John Boehner. open.substack.com/pub/joshhude...

Replies to this piece are predictable and a good example of why a shutdown makes rational sense. Democrats need a shutdown for basic coalition management at this point. But the fact remains: they will ultimately lose.

The ICA and OMB points are spot on. The rest are popular policy requests. There's now a lot of punditing on finding "the" argument but most of these fall under a general anti-tyranny banner that could motivate congressional Dems. Any electoral reluctance among them really misreads shutdown history.

Alternative headline: DOGE violated court order and the law by blocking university grants via government payment systems. www.thecrimson.com/article/2025...

Trump's limitless view of his own power is starting to draw criticism from a few conservatives - what can we learn from these arguments - about anti-Trump conservatism and the possibility of coalition for the rule of law? open.substack.com/pub/goodpoli...

Random congressional fact: There have been more House members censured in the last 5 years than there were in the previous 130.

They also felt safe granting the president wide discretion because a great many of those grants came with legislative vetoes, which the Court destroyed in 1983 ... papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

There's really very little about the 1850s that lends itself to modern comparison. Republicans didn't coalesce behind abolition until the 1860s; it straddles party systems (fall of the Whigs and creation of the Republican Party); and set against backdrop of sectional politics.

It’s always worth reading @jonathanbernstein.bsky.social I’d say today’s post is an urgent read. open.substack.com/pub/goodpoli...

Very good point. I'm not confident it is *completely* meaningless yet... but it's headed there very quickly. Its anti-establishment ethos lost its essence when MAGA became the establishment.

This is a great piece on impoundment by Phillip Wallach. Congress needs to address this loophole, even if it is of dubious legality. It's wouldn't be hard to add a provision. (ex. any rescission request must arrive 6-months prior to the end of the fiscal year). www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-pr...

Will Rs who voted for the One Big Beautiful Bill pay an electoral price? My latest at Mischiefs of Faction (with refs to work by @brendannyhan.bsky.social @johnsides.bsky.social & others). open.substack.com/pub/misofact...

New Congress, Two Beers In! @mattglassman312.bsky.social and I discuss the BBB, its institutional consequences for the House and Senate, and the status of Congress’s power of the purse. Listen here! podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/c...

It's sort of stunning to hear Republicans discuss repealing portions of the bill they just passed into law a week ago. www.semafor.com/article/07/1...

Great op-ed on congressmembers' constitutional right and legal authority to oversee executive branch activities. DHS and other agencies to not have the authority to block members from observing these facilities. thehill.com/opinion/cong...

Must read from @sarahbinder.bsky.social on the implications of Republicans nuclear event to pass the big bill. They stripped a major guardrail in reconciliation, which has implications for appropriations and future fiscal decisions. goodauthority.substack.com/p/three-big-...

You should absolutely read @stevevladeck.bsky.social explainer for Trump v. CASA case limiting lower court iniunctions. Here the kicker paragraph: open.substack.com/pub/stevevla...

This makes four members this Congress who leaped more senior colleagues to win ranking member positions. (h/t @jamiedupree.bsky.social's Regular Order)

Good thread but I disagree with this point. Congress passed war powers resolution in Trump 1.0 b/c he lacked authorization to strike an Iranian general. Trump vetoed. Congress *has* acquiesced to presidents but it’s also true Chadha irreparably weakened Congress’s tools to constrain presidents.