News: Senate Majority Leader John Thune will take the first procedural steps this afternoon on a GOP effort to steamroll Democrats’ historic slow-walking of President Donald Trump’s nominees.
Senate Republicans plan on triggering the so-called “nuclear option” to unilaterally change the chamber’s rules to allow for “en bloc” confirmation of non-Cabinet executive branch nominees, dramatically speeding up the process.
There won’t be a limit to the number of executive nominees that can be grouped together in any one package. But the new rules won’t apply to judicial nominees.
FY2026 funding outlook. It’s now 22 days until the federal government runs out of money. And it’s very clear that the Republican leaders on the Hill and the Trump White House are still strategizing about how to keep the agencies open beyond Sept. 30.
Hill Republicans wasted last week taking no action on putting together a plan to avoid a shutdown. The House is focusing on the annual defense authorization bill this week, while the Senate is changing its rules and turning back to the NDAA. Only a few appropriations bills have actually reached the floor in either chamber.
Congress is in session this week and next, but then lawmakers depart for a week for Rosh Hashanah. And then its shutdown week, with Sept. 30 falling on a Tuesday. So 22 days isn’t as long as it sounds.
Republican Hill leaders are considering two options: enact a short-term spending bill until November or December, which is the preference of congressional appropriators; or pass a funding bill into early 2026, which seems to be the White House’s favored move.
Then there’s the question of what Democrats will demand in exchange for their support. In OMB Director Russ Vought’s fever dream, Democrats can be ignored. But you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything, so Democrats are going to want to see engagement from Republicans.
What Democrats can get. Democrats have plenty of issues heading into this fight. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer weren’t only on different pages during the last government funding fight, they were on different planets. Schumer got hammered for bailing Republicans out in March. He can’t do that this time while getting nothing in return.
Republicans are beginning to come to grips with the fact that they have to consider extending Obamacare premium tax credits. Speaker Mike Johnson acknowledged the political reality during an appearance on Fly Out Day last week. House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) talked about means-testing the tax credits during an appearance on Bloomberg TV Friday.
Allowing a double-digit increase in health care premiums isn’t tenable for a Republican Party that is growing more vulnerable on cost-of-living politics. That said, Johnson will lose a lot of GOP support if he includes the Obamacare tax credit in any funding bill. House Democrats would be needed to pass that package.
A year-long increase, which would cost roughly $28 billion, is a bit risky. That means premiums could jump for millions of Obamacare enrollees right around the midterms. Republicans likely would have to stomach an 18- or 24-month extension and perhaps attempt to impose income limits on the tax credit.
What Republicans don’t seem to fully grasp is that they can’t simply give the Democrats nothing. Senate Democrats aren’t going to support a CR because Republicans say it’s the right thing to do. As we noted, Schumer tried that play before, and it didn’t work out. So this week, we’re going to be watching what Democrats say they need and what Republicans seem willing to accept.
It will be critical for all involved to have the White House — especially Trump — a bit more engaged.
The short-term option. House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) want to pass a short-term CR into November or December.
In theory, this would give appropriators more time to reach a larger spending deal. But if we know anything about congressional negotiations, it’s that they take longer than expected. Plus, any spending deal is really up to Trump and the “Big 4” leaders at this point, not appropriators.
The upside to this is that a two-to-three-month leash keeps Congress focused on getting a deal. That inevitably advantages the Senate. The House and Senate are miles apart on their topline numbers. Any extended negotiation will lay bare the reality that a Senate product that spends more money for FY2026 is what can get 60 votes.
The longer-term option. If you’re looking from the White House and the GOP leadership’s perspective, a longer-term stopgap would seem to be the better option.
Why? Like we just said, why have several tough votes instead of one? Why not give Congress as much time as possible to come up with a funding deal through Sept. 30, 2026? This is what the White House wants, but Trump isn’t completely dialed in yet. And we can’t imagine Democrats would be thrilled with the idea.
What conservatives really want. How about a year-long CR? That’s what conservatives want. We’ll also note that the government is being funded on a long-term CR right now.
Of course, Collins, Cole and other appropriators want earmarks, and that doesn’t happen with a year-long CR. Meaning they will want to keep talking, whether it’s now or into next year.
