Johnson uses Democrats’ past warnings to flag looming government shutdown as deadline nears

House Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday released a memo aimed at casting Democrats as inconsistent on the threat of a government shutdown, arguing that Senate leaders who once warned against a shutdown are now threatening one unless Congress agrees to a slate of partisan policy changes.

The memo comes as Republicans and Democrats continue a high-stakes standoff over federal funding with a hard deadline looming: Oct. 1, when a stopgap or new funding measure would need to pass both chambers to avert a lapse in funding. Johnson’s document cites past remarks by Senate Democrats and others, suggesting a contrast between then and now as the parties maneuver over a short-term funding extension and broader policy goals.

In the memo, Johnson frames the House’s recent action as responsible and contrasts it with Democratic threats to force a shutdown unless competing demands are met. He quotes then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who in September 2024 warned that a shutdown would hurt average Americans, arguing that the consequences would be borne by families, veterans, and seniors who rely on federal services.

The memo also cites a 2018 comment from Sen. Bernie Sanders, asserting that shutting down the government would be a dangerous action that would impact tens of millions who rely on government services. Johnson’s compilation traces a thread through past discussions around the same funding fights that resurfaced during current negotiations.

Johnson’s read on the current moment aligns with a broader GOP push to frame the Democratic stance as unacceptable or unworkable, while Democrats emphasize the need to protect programs and ensure a functioning government. The memo also highlights earlier standoffs, including a late-2023 bargaining phase in which Sen. Mark Kelly warned that a shutdown could have serious consequences—ranging from disrupted pay for servicemembers to delays at airports and jeopardized nutrition assistance for children.

Sen. Chris Murphy’s remarks from late 2023 are cited in the memo as advocating for keeping the government open and suggesting that reasonable voices must avoid treating perfection as the enemy of the good. And Sen. Maggie Hassan, who voted to advance the GOP’s stopgap funding measure earlier in the year, is noted in Johnson’s compilation as acknowledging that shutdowns risk national security and livelihoods, underscoring the bipartisan concerns about instability.

The memo quotes a Hassan spokesperson who said Hassan remains concerned about a shutdown and continues to urge President Trump and Congressional Republicans to negotiate with Democrats to keep the government open and pass a funding bill that protects access to health care for millions of Americans. The memo also notes how the political dynamics played out in the House, where 58 Democrats voted against a resolution honoring the life and legacy of Charlie Kirk as part of a separate, unrelated measure debated in the same session that produced the short-term funding extension.

The White House and House Republicans have argued over the terms of any extension. The House passed a continuing resolution last week to keep funding levels roughly the same, a move that included about $30 million for lawmaker security and $58 million requested by the White House for executive and judicial branch security. The Senate’s response to that CR was mixed, with many Democrats opposing movement on the bill and some Republicans crossing party lines to vote against beginning debate.

With the October 1 deadline approaching, both sides accuse the other of either pushing for a shutdown or refusing to compromise on essential spending levels and policy riders. Republicans contend Democrats are pressing for broader policy changes and larger subsidies, including enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at the end of 2025 without congressional action. Republicans have also pointed to the relative stability of funding levels since fiscal year 2024, arguing that Democrats are leveraging the current moment to force policy concessions that go beyond funding.

Democrats counter that any funding plan must keep the government open and protect health care access. They have argued that Republicans’ demands would alter spending priorities and could jeopardize the stability of health care subsidies and other safety-net programs. The party’s leadership has signaled a willingness to negotiate but insists that a clean funding bill, free of extraneous provisions, is essential to avert a shutdown and maintain government operations.

The public standoff has drawn attention to the broader political dynamics as the 2024 election cycle continues. Democrats say the GOP’s approach reflects a broader pattern of using the government’s funding deadline as leverage for policy goals that go beyond funding itself, while Republicans insist that Democrats have not offered a viable plan to keep the government open without concessions.

As the clock ticks toward Oct. 1, the procedural debates in both chambers are likely to shape the tone of the negotiations and the public messaging from both sides. The discussions come as the parties continue to navigate contentious issues, including defense and border policy, health care subsidies, and a range of discretionary programs that would be affected by any funding lapse.

Scholars and former aides note that a shutdown could have ripple effects across federal services, from military pay to airport operations and social safety-net programs. In the current cycle, both parties have emphasized the potential consequences to various constituencies, pointing to past warnings as they press their case to their respective bases.

The public statements echo a familiar pattern in high-stakes federal funding fights: a balancing act between immediate funding needs and longer-term policy goals, played out against a backdrop of partisan rhetoric and the looming financial deadline. As lawmakers return to their chambers to craft a funding package, observers say the outcome will hinge on whether either side is willing to concede on contentious provisions while preserving a functioning government.

The situation remains fluid, with aides cautioning that negotiations could shift quickly as new proposals or concessions emerge. Fox News Digital sought comment from Schumer and Murphy, but their offices did not immediately respond. Elizabeth Elkind, a politics reporter for Fox News Digital, is following the story for additional developments. [Images inserted inline where relevant in the narrative.]

In another focal point of the funding fight, the broader Democratic caucus has argued for protections around health care subsidies and related programs, while Republicans have pressed for tighter spending controls and policy conditions. The tension underscores the difficulty of reconciling two political visions for the federal budget as the government’s fiscal year progresses and the shutdown clock advances toward the looming deadline.

The political narrative continues to evolve as lawmakers weigh the options. With the price of inaction rising, both sides acknowledge that any path forward will require negotiations that bridge fundamental disagreements over spending priorities, health care policy, and the government’s role in funding and governing. The coming days are expected to reveal whether a short-term stopgap can be extended long enough to avert a shutdown or if a longer-term agreement will need to be brokered under tighter political constraints.

The shelving of a broader agreement and the ongoing debates have kept the focus on the mechanics of funding—how much money to keep flowing, what programs to protect, and how to manage the policy add-ons that accompany a funding bill. The parties’ willingness to engage in constructive negotiations remains a key determinant of whether the government can be kept open through the critical period and beyond, or whether the country will face a shutdown that could have wide-reaching effects on services and daily life for millions of Americans.

As lawmakers consider their next steps, observers say the dynamic remains highly volatile. The outcome may hinge on procedural motions, potential amendments, and the relative leverage each party retains as they navigate this high-stakes moment in U.S. politics.