Congressional Democrats have a weapon in the government shutdown fight that nobody’s talking about: time. While Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress, and the Supreme Court, they’re watching Trump’s approval ratings crater into the high 30s as his administration openly threatens to use the shutdown to gut federal programs in blue states. The conventional wisdom says the minority party always loses shutdown fights – they did in 2013 over Obamacare defunding, they did in 2019 over Trump’s border wall. But here’s what makes this different: Trump isn’t just using the shutdown as leverage to pass policy. He’s using it as an excuse to dismantle constitutional governance itself, and every day that continues might actually strengthen Democrats’ hand for the battles that matter most.

At a Glance

• Trump’s approval rating has dropped to the high 30s during the shutdown, with underwater ratings on nearly every issue
• The administration is using the shutdown to cut $8 billion from blue states that voted for Kamala Harris
• Traditional shutdown politics assumed minority parties seeking concessions would get blamed – but polling shows Republicans taking more blame this time
• Democrats are gambling that sustained confrontation now strengthens their position for 2026 midterms and beyond
• At stake: whether the Constitution’s appropriations power means anything when the President treats funding lapses as opportunities rather than crises

Why This Shutdown Is Constitutionally Different

Every government shutdown is technically a failure of the appropriations process the Framers designed. Article I, Section 9 says “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” When Congress can’t pass appropriations, government stops. That’s constitutional friction working as intended – making it hard for any faction to govern without broad support.

But Trump isn’t treating this shutdown as a problem to solve through negotiation. He’s treating it as what he called an “unprecedented opportunity” to permanently cut programs he couldn’t eliminate through normal legislative processes. The administration has announced $8 billion in cuts to green energy funds exclusively in states that have two Democratic senators and voted for Kamala Harris. New York infrastructure projects worth $18 billion have been frozen.

That’s not negotiating leverage. That’s using a constitutional crisis to bypass the constitutional process. When Congress appropriates money for specific programs and the President simply refuses to spend it – even after the shutdown ends – that’s called impoundment, and it’s been illegal since the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse as the ultimate check on executive power. If the President can turn funding disputes into opportunities to unilaterally rewrite the budget, that check disappears.

OMB Director Russ Vought has been advocating this approach for years, including as the lead author of Project 2025. The strategy is deliberate: force a shutdown, use it to make cuts Congress never approved, then blame Democrats for the chaos if they object.

The Polling That Changes Everything

Traditional shutdown politics followed a clear pattern: whoever was seen as holding up spending to extract policy concessions got blamed by voters who overwhelmingly said shutdowns shouldn’t be used as bargaining chips. That’s why Republicans lost badly in 2013 when they shut down the government trying to defund Obamacare, and again in 2019 over border wall funding.

But polling two weeks before this shutdown showed something unusual: Americans said they’d blame Republicans more than Democrats (34% to 23%) even if Democrats voted down funding unless Republicans restored healthcare subsidies. More striking, 52% said Democrats should withhold votes unless Republicans agreed to restore that healthcare funding.

That’s Americans explicitly endorsing the minority party using a shutdown as leverage – exactly what they’ve consistently opposed for decades. The difference appears to be that enhanced Obamacare subsidies are overwhelmingly popular (77% support in polling), while Trump’s approval on healthcare is catastrophically bad. One poll showed 64% disapproval on his handling of healthcare, with even 30% of Republicans disapproving.

When the policy you’re fighting for is more popular than the President, and the President’s overall approval is in the high 30s, normal shutdown politics don’t apply.

Democrats are betting that Trump’s instinct to escalate and threaten – cutting blue state funding, promising mass layoffs, using the shutdown to target political opponents – will drive his numbers even lower and energize opposition heading into the 2026 midterms.

The Taxation Without Representation Problem

Here’s where Trump’s shutdown strategy creates a genuine constitutional crisis: the $8 billion in cuts he’s targeting go exclusively to states that voted Democratic. Those states include the biggest “donor states” – California, New York, New Jersey – that pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending, effectively subsidizing red states.

Now Trump is saying those states will continue paying full federal taxes but won’t receive appropriations that Congress already approved. Their senators voted for those appropriations. Their representatives voted for them. The programs were authorized by law. But the President has decided to cancel them anyway because he doesn’t like how those states voted.

That’s not just bad politics. It’s arguably taxation without representation – the exact grievance that sparked the American Revolution. The Founders were so concerned about this that they gave Congress, not the President, the power to tax and spend precisely to prevent the executive from using fiscal policy as a weapon against political opponents.

If blue states continue paying federal taxes while the President unilaterally cancels their appropriations, that’s the executive branch overriding congressional decisions about how to spend money raised from citizens who had representation in those decisions. The Constitution doesn’t permit that, regardless of what OMB memos say about executive authority during shutdowns.

Why Democrats Might Actually Want This Fight

The conventional political wisdom says Democrats should cave, get the government reopened, and fight another day. That’s what they’ve done in past shutdowns, often getting little or nothing in return. But several Democratic strategists and constitutional scholars are making a different argument: this is the fight, and prolonging it might actually serve their interests better than resolving it.

The argument goes like this: Trump is already dismantling constitutional checks and balances, illegally removing federal employees, ignoring court orders, and consolidating power. Making a deal with him to end the shutdown doesn’t stop any of that – it just gives him political cover while he continues doing it. Every concession Democrats make signals that his approach works and should be normalized.

The Trump administration cannot credibly commit to following any deal because it’s already shown it doesn’t follow laws or court orders. So why make deals?

Instead, prolonged confrontation serves several Democratic goals. First, it keeps Trump’s authoritarian tendencies front and center in public consciousness. Every day the shutdown continues, Trump threatens more cuts, more layoffs, more targeting of blue states. That makes it harder for Americans to ignore what’s happening.

Second, it denies Trump the appearance of normalcy. If Democrats negotiate and compromise, it creates the impression that this is ordinary politics. Refusing to play ball sends the message that Democrats view the current situation as fundamentally illegitimate.

Third, and most importantly for 2026, it creates sustained pressure that could drive even bigger backlash. Trump’s approval is already terrible. Democrats need massive turnout in the midterms to have any chance of taking back the House and making gains in the Senate. A months-long shutdown that constantly reminds voters of Trump’s attacks on federal programs might be worth the short-term pain.

The Constitutional Gamble

Democrats are essentially gambling that constitutional principles matter more than short-term political calculations. The principle at stake is whether Congress’s power of the purse means anything.

If the President can refuse to spend appropriated funds, unilaterally cut programs Congress authorized, and target states based on their voting patterns – all during a shutdown he’s using as cover for actions that would be illegal during normal operations – then congressional authority over spending is dead. Future presidents will simply manufacture funding crises whenever they want to bypass congressional appropriations.

The Framers designed the appropriations process to be difficult. They wanted spending to require broad consensus. That’s why they gave the House – the chamber closest to the people – the power to originate revenue bills, and required both chambers plus presidential approval to spend money.

When that system breaks down and nobody can agree, the Constitution assumes government will largely stop until political pressure forces compromise. What it doesn’t contemplate is the President using the breakdown as an opportunity to govern unilaterally by making permanent policy changes under cover of “emergency management” during a funding lapse.

If Democrats bail Trump out now by passing funding without addressing the underlying constitutional violations, they’re complicit in destroying congressional power.

What the Founders Would Say

Madison would immediately recognize what’s happening: the executive branch is usurping legislative authority over spending. In Federalist 58, he wrote that the power of the purse is “the most complete and effectual weapon” for protecting legislative rights against executive encroachment. If the President can spend or not spend as he pleases regardless of what Congress appropriates, that weapon is gone.

Hamilton, despite his preference for strong executive power, argued in Federalist 78 that the executive and judiciary must be kept in their proper spheres. Using a shutdown to permanently defund programs Congress authorized is the executive leaving its sphere and entering the legislative one.

Jefferson would probably say this proves his warnings about executive overreach were correct, and that Congress needs to assert its authority more aggressively. He’d likely support Democrats refusing to compromise until constitutional norms are restored.

But all three Founders would be troubled by the broader breakdown. They created a system that requires cooperation and compromise. When neither side will yield and government stops functioning, that’s a failure of the system itself – or at least a failure of the political culture needed to make the system work.

The 2026 Calculation

Democrats are betting that whatever pain this shutdown causes in the short term will be offset by massive gains in the 2026 midterms. The next national election is over a year away, giving them time to make Trump’s authoritarian overreach the central issue.

If they’re right that Trump’s unpopularity will continue growing as he escalates – cutting blue state funding, mass layoffs, using ICE to target political opponents – then taking control of the House gives them oversight powers, subpoena authority, and the ability to block further authoritarian consolidation.

Taking the Senate is a longer shot given which seats are up, but gains there increase their leverage even without a majority. And if Trump’s overreach is bad enough, a wave election could deliver both chambers.

But that’s only possible if Democrats can sustain public attention on Trump’s constitutional violations. A quick shutdown resolution lets him claim victory and move on. A prolonged confrontation keeps the issues alive and growing.

Republicans can pass a budget on their own if they want – they control everything. The fact that they’re demanding Democratic votes while simultaneously threatening to gut Democratic priorities reveals the weakness of their position.

The Risk of Political Miscalculation

There’s an obvious risk to this strategy: Americans might blame Democrats anyway. Sustained shutdowns hurt real people – federal workers missing paychecks, services disrupted, economic uncertainty. If voters conclude that Democrats are prolonging pain for political gain, the backlash could be severe.

There’s also risk that Trump successfully pins the blame on Democrats through sheer repetition and media dominance. He’s already calling this the “Democrat Shutdown” and claiming they’re “betraying Americans.” If that narrative sticks, Democrats’ constitutional stand becomes just partisan obstruction in voters’ minds.

And there’s risk that even if Democrats win the political fight, the constitutional damage is already done. Every day the shutdown continues with the President unilaterally cutting programs sets precedent for future executives. Breaking constitutional norms is easier than rebuilding them.

But Democrats appear to have concluded that those risks are worth taking because the alternative – making deals with an administration that openly ignores laws and court orders – just enables further constitutional erosion while giving Trump political wins.

The Constitutional Reality Check

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the Constitution doesn’t provide clear answers when political polarization reaches this level. The Framers designed a system that assumes good faith disagreements resolved through compromise. They never imagined a President who views constitutional constraints as obstacles to overcome rather than principles to follow.

Democrats’ strategy of prolonged confrontation tests whether American political culture can still generate enough pressure to force respect for constitutional norms. If Trump’s overreach triggers massive backlash that delivers Democrats congressional power in 2026, the strategy works. If voters don’t care or blame Democrats instead, constitutional checks on executive power become even weaker.

The power of the purse only matters if Congress is willing to use it even when that’s politically painful. Right now, Democrats are gambling that taking a stand on constitutional principles – even if it prolongs a painful shutdown – is better than signaling that Trump’s approach to governance is acceptable.

Whether that gamble pays off won’t be clear until 2026. But the constitutional principle is clear: if the legislative branch won’t defend its own authority over spending, that authority doesn’t exist. And if the opposition party makes deals with an executive branch that openly violates the Constitution, they’re complicit in its destruction.

Sometimes the most powerful weapon is the willingness to say no – and keep saying it until constitutional governance is restored or voters decide they don’t actually care about constitutional governance anymore. Democrats are about to find out which one America chooses.