‘Like Groundhog Day all over again’: Yet another government shutdown looms thanks to Republicans’ racist demands

As Congress climbs back onto its collective saddle after the summer break, there’s an imminent threat of a government shutdown. Yay! As the fiscal year closes on September 30, our lawmakers will face a tight three-week window to either pass a new budget or agree on a stopgap measure.

What is a government shutdown?

First, you’re asking, “What does a ‘government shutdown’ even mean?” It is when Congress fails to pass funding legislation by a set deadline, usually on fiscal cycles. Failure results in the closure or disruption of non-essential federal agencies and the furloughing of millions of government employees. For example, national parks may close, and agencies we take for granted could be temporarily suspended.

Core issues in the 2024 shutdown debate

The main topic of contention on this go-round revolves around a Republican proposal to attach the so-called SAVE Act to a continuing resolution (“CR”) that would fund the government through March 28, 2025. The action seeks to require proof of citizenship for voter registration in federal elections—which feels a little on the nose in its anti-immigrant and anti-Black dog-whistling, especially for red and purple states.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), with a swift kick in the seat from the House Freedom caucus and former President Donald Trump, is pushing for this ad-hoc mixture. But Democrats vigorously oppose tying election law changes to government funding, viewing it as an undue complication to an already challenging process.

The central problem for Johnson is that there’s little evidence non-citizens are voting in federal elections. Additionally, the action appears to be something of a lazy Trojan horse set-up for future anti-immigrant measures and other circumstances in which a person could be deemed a non-citizen. It also describes another pressing matter: a former president’s highly problematic ability to dictate terms, to an extent, within the federal government without direct participation.

The political calculus

Though participating Republicans see this as an opportunity to advance their policy goals, the plan carries substantial, perhaps unnecessary risk, especially with a presidential election on the horizon. A government shutdown, with conservatives visibly at the controls, just weeks before voters head to the polls carries the potential for backfire, causing further damage to the GOP’s already-frayed image with some moderates.

Speaker Johnson finds himself in a complicated position. On the one hand, he’s balancing pressure from his party’s increasingly far-right flank. On the other, he’s ostensibly responsible for governing responsibly, with all citizens (and their monies/tax dollars) in mind. The slim (and tenuous) Republican majority in the House complicates matters, as even a small number of defections could derail any partisan approach in future sessions.

Potential outcomes

There are a handful of potential outcomes in play, with the ideal scenario, of course, being a bipartisan compromise. Congress could agree on a clean “CR” without the policy riders and temporarily extend current funding levels—or in other words, they agree to kick it down the road a bit, as has been done previously. A last-minute deal could be struck where a short-term measure is pushed through, but this would likely work against Republicans. The final option—a full-on shutdown—is practically untenable for conservatives. They can not produce unbiased evidence supporting an authentic need for the SAVE Act, which makes the stakes too high for that sort of gambit.

Speaker Johnson and the Republicans are between a rock and a hard place as they strain to serve two masters: their internal goals and maintaining the federal government’s functionality.