A Bigger Shutdown Fight Looms in September

President Trump seems eager for a standoff, as this week’s spending deal only delays inevitable hot-button policy battles.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, accompanied by Sens. Cory Gardner, John Barrasso, and John Thune, speaks to reporters following a policy luncheon Tuesday.
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Alex Rogers
Add to Briefcase
Alex Rogers
May 2, 2017, 8 p.m.

The Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s next 150 days could be even more di­vis­ive than the first 100.

On Tues­day, Pres­id­ent Trump tweeted, “Our coun­try needs a good ‘shut­down’ in Septem­ber to fix mess,” fol­low­ing his call to either elect more Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors or to change the rules of the Sen­ate in or­der to jam through his agenda. He was ap­par­ently frus­trated by re­ports that Demo­crats won a num­ber of con­ces­sions in ne­go­ti­at­ing the latest spend­ing bill to keep the gov­ern­ment open through Septem­ber—when high-pro­file fund­ing fights over abor­tion, a bor­der wall, de­fense money, and more could boil over.

The battle cry from the pres­id­ent ur­ging Con­gress to neg­lect its du­ties and shut­ter the gov­ern­ment was later called by Trump budget chief Mick Mul­vaney “a de­fens­ible po­s­i­tion.” But mem­bers of Con­gress slammed the tweet, call­ing it de­struct­ive to the le­gis­lat­ive branch’s ba­sic gov­ern­ing func­tion.

“No, we don’t need a gov­ern­ment shut­down, and no, we shouldn’t change Sen­ate rules on the le­gis­lat­ive fili­buster,” GOP Sen. Jeff Flake of Ari­zona tweeted back to Trump.

Jim Dyer, a Re­pub­lic­an le­gis­lat­ive guru who has spent more than 40 years spin­ning through the re­volving doors con­nect­ing the White House, Con­gress, and lob­by­ing cor­ridors of Wash­ing­ton, told Na­tion­al Journ­al that he’d nev­er heard any­thing like it be­fore.

“He is ob­vi­ously ex­press­ing some frus­tra­tion,” said Dyer. “You nev­er know with him. I’ve giv­en up, as maybe you have too, in try­ing to un­der­stand the mes­sages he’s try­ing to send out.”

While this most re­cent spend­ing fight has been ex­as­per­at­ing to the pres­id­ent, the next ones will prove even more chal­len­ging. After Con­gress passes the $1.1 tril­lion spend­ing bill this week, “then it really gets hard,” said Dyer, who now works at the Podesta Group.

In late May, Trump is ex­pec­ted to re­lease a budget for the next fisc­al year that will in­clude a re­quest for money to build the wall on the U.S.-Mex­ico bor­der, which was blocked by Con­gress in the latest spend­ing fight. Seni­or Re­pub­lic­ans on Cap­it­ol Hill wish that the pres­id­ent would move away from his top cam­paign pri­or­ity, and to­wards build­ing upon vic­tor­ies they earned in the new spend­ing bill, namely $1.5 bil­lion in new fund­ing to oth­er­wise se­cure the bor­der.

“It’s not help­ful to his goal and my goal to just be talk­ing about a bor­der wall,” Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the ma­jor­ity whip, told re­port­ers Tues­day. “I’d like to see a com­pre­hens­ive bor­der-se­cur­ity plan, and we’re work­ing to provide some ideas along that line that I think will help us sort of change the dis­cus­sion from more than just in­fra­struc­ture.”

The budget will be hard enough to pass even without the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­quest to build a bor­der wall. The Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion wants to add $54 bil­lion to­wards the de­fense of the coun­try while cut­ting that much in do­mest­ic pro­grams—an ask that Demo­crats and some Re­pub­lic­ans will vig­or­ously op­pose.

Then, in the fall, Re­pub­lic­ans will be hit with a dead­line to raise the U.S.’s bor­row­ing au­thor­ity. In 2015, when they con­trolled Con­gress but not the White House, 167 House Re­pub­lic­ans and 35 Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors voted against a bill that raised the debt lim­it and set the budget to 2017.

Then, by Sept. 30, Re­pub­lic­ans will have to pass a bill to fund the gov­ern­ment after the pres­id­ent and his budget chief ad­voc­ated to shut it down. Oth­er stick­ing points be­sides the bor­der wall, such as fund­ing for Planned Par­ent­hood and cer­tain Obama­care sub­sidies for low-in­come people, will ree­m­erge. That spend­ing fight will be even more dif­fi­cult than the latest one be­cause ap­pro­pri­at­ors have not yet had time to work on any of their bills.

“We’ve got 12 bills. We haven’t had one markup. So there’s no way we’re go­ing to get all of our ap­pro­pri­ations done by Septem­ber,” said one House Re­pub­lic­an ap­pro­pri­at­or, Rep. Tom Rooney of Flor­ida.

These are all ba­sic gov­ern­ment func­tions, not to men­tion the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion’s goal to pass both health care and tax-re­form bills that would dra­mat­ic­ally change the U.S. eco­nomy. Those ef­forts build on each oth­er. Passing the health care bill and a budget make it easi­er to pass tax re­form, since the Obama­care-re­peal bill would lower the tax baseline ne­ces­sary to make it rev­en­ue neut­ral, and with rules that avoid the 60-vote threshold.

But des­pite their ag­gress­ive agenda this year, and their will­ing­ness to pass both health care and tax re­form with only 51 votes through the budget-re­con­cili­ation pro­cess, Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors knocked Trump’s call to change the rules in or­der to make it pos­sible for them to ad­vance bills with only a simple ma­jor­ity, ar­guing that the 60-vote threshold for most le­gis­la­tion was use­ful when they wer­en’t in power. In his press con­fer­ence Tues­day, Ma­jor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell re­it­er­ated that the Sen­ate would not get rid of the le­gis­lat­ive fili­buster.

While he did not re­peat his past dis­pleas­ure with Trump’s tweet­ing, Mc­Con­nell on Tues­day was joined by oth­er Re­pub­lic­ans in a call for the pres­id­ent to go ana­log.

“I really do wish some­body would take his iPhone away from him,” Sen. Bob Cork­er, a Re­pub­lic­an from Ten­ness­ee, said to re­port­ers.

Daniel Newhauser and George E. Condon Jr. contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
Rosenstein Holds Presser On Russian Indictments
3 days ago
U.S. Indicts 13 Russian Nationals For Election Interference
3 days ago

The indictment, filed in the District of Columbia, alleges that the interference began "in or around 2014," when the defendants began tracking and studying U.S. social media sites. They "created and controlled numerous Twitter accounts" and "purchased computer servers located inside the United States" to mask their identities, some of which were stolen. The interference was coordinated by election interference "specialists," and focused on the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and other divisive issues. "By early to mid-2016" the groups began supporting the campaign of "then-candidate Donald Trump," including by communicating with "unwitting individuals associated with the Trump Campaign..."

Gates Said to Be Finalizing a Plea Deal
3 days ago

"Former Trump campaign adviser Rick Gates is finalizing a plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller's office, indicating he's poised to cooperate in the investigation, according to sources familiar with the case. Gates has already spoken to Mueller's team about his case and has been in plea negotiations for about a month. He's had what criminal lawyers call a 'Queen for a Day' interview, in which a defendant answers any questions from the prosecutors' team, including about his own case and other potential criminal activity he witnessed."

Another Defeat for Immigration Legislation in the Senate
3 days ago

"The Senate on Thursday rejected immigration legislation crafted by centrists in both parties after President Trump threatened to veto the bill if it made it to his desk. In a 54-45 vote, the Senate failed to advance the legislation from eight Republican, seven Democratic and one Independent senators. It needed 60 votes to overcome a procedural hurdle. "

House Intel Panel Could Charge Bannon with Contempt
3 days ago

"The House Intelligence Committee has scheduled a Thursday meeting to hear testimony from Steve Bannon—but it's an open question whether President Donald Trump's former chief strategist will even show up. The White House sent a letter to Capitol Hill late Wednesday laying out its explanation for why Trump's transition period falls under its authority to assert executive privilege, a move intended to shield Bannon from answering questions about that time period." Both Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute the White House's theory, and have floated charging Bannon with contempt should he refuse to appear.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.