With the United States government facing a critical funding deadline on September 30, 2025, the debate over whether to keep the government open has reached a fever pitch. The conversation, once dominated by routine negotiations and last-minute deals, has taken a sharp turn as prominent voices on the left urge Senate Democrats to refuse to fund the government under President Donald Trump’s administration. They argue that continuing to fund the government, as it stands, would mean enabling what they describe as an unprecedented misuse of power for personal gain and political repression.
According to a September 9, 2025, article in Common Dreams, the stakes this time are far higher than in previous funding showdowns. The article paints a dire picture: President Trump, it claims, has transformed the federal government into "a neofascist regime run by a sociopath," using its vast machinery to punish enemies, enrich himself and his family, and force the leaders of major American institutions into submission. "He’s using the government to disappear people from our streets without due process... to impose arbitrary and capricious import taxes—tariffs—on American consumers... to worsen climate change... to reject our traditional global allies and strengthen some of the worst monsters around the globe," the article asserts.
The urgency is not just rhetorical. The article notes that the government will run out of money at the end of September, and under current rules, Senate Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes to pass any funding bill. In March 2025, when a similar crisis loomed, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer joined Republicans to pass a funding bill, a move that drew criticism for failing to extract any meaningful concessions or guarantees in return. As Common Dreams recalls, "Schumer successfully got enough of his Democratic colleagues to follow him that the funding bill passed." But this time, many on the left argue, the circumstances are so extraordinary that Democrats must take a stand, even if it means a government shutdown.
This sentiment is echoed by New York Times opinion columnist Ezra Klein, whose recent column has become a rallying point for those demanding a harder line. Writing on September 7, 2025, Klein calls on Senate Democrats to refuse to fund the government when the current funding expires, arguing that the situation has fundamentally changed since the March vote. "Donald Trump is corrupting the government—he is using it to hound his enemies, to line his pockets and to entrench his own power. He is corrupting it the way the Mafia would corrupt the industries it controlled," Klein writes. He draws a vivid analogy: under Mafia rule, basic services might still function, but their true purpose becomes the enrichment and empowerment of the criminal enterprise. In Klein’s view, this is what the federal government has become under Trump.
But why now? What’s different about this moment? Klein identifies several key shifts. First, he points to the Supreme Court, which he says "has repeatedly shown it will overturn lower courts to give Trump whatever he asks for." Second, he notes that Trump’s appointees are now firmly in control of federal agencies, and "‘normal’ operations are destroying them from within." Third, he argues that the markets have become numb to the chaos of tariffs and threats, removing a key pressure point that might otherwise force compromise.
Perhaps most importantly, Klein and others see a government shutdown as a necessary "attentional event"—a dramatic gesture to force the media, and the public, to confront the scale of the crisis. "A shutdown is an attentional event. It’s an effort to turn the diffuse crisis of Trump’s corrupting of the government into an acute crisis that the media, that the public, will actually pay attention to," Klein writes. The hope is that by refusing to fund the government, Democrats can finally make their case to the American people and demand real concessions in exchange for their votes.
Yet, as several commentators point out, this strategy is not without risks. Daily Kos notes that the last time Democrats faced this choice, Schumer argued that a shutdown would only give Trump more freedom to divert whatever money remained, that ongoing court cases might still rein in the administration, and that Democrats risked being blamed for the resulting chaos. Moreover, Democrats were not prepared—they lacked a clear message, a strategy, or a set of demands. "They had no strategy. They had no message. The demand I was hearing them make was that the spending bill needed more bipartisan negotiation. It was unbearably lame," the article laments.
Now, six months later, critics argue that Democratic leadership still has not articulated a clear plan. Klein, for his part, expresses frustration: "Democratic leaders have had six months to come up with a plan. If there’s a better plan than a shutdown, great. But if the plan is still nothing, then Democrats need new leaders." The underlying message is that Democrats must not only refuse to fund the government but also present a compelling alternative—one that dramatizes the stakes and places the blame squarely on the administration’s alleged abuses.
The debate is not just about tactics but about the moral responsibilities of those in power. As Common Dreams puts it, "Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem." The article argues that by refusing to fund the government, Democrats can become "conscientious objectors to a government that is no longer functioning for the people of the United States but for one man." In doing so, they would force a reckoning, using their leverage to demand that the government, if restarted, must be responsible and accountable.
Of course, the challenge is formidable. Republicans, who control the Senate, have repeatedly shut down the government in the past without suffering lasting political consequences. As Daily Kos points out, "They always come back demanding more, to the point of refusing to take yes for an answer at times—and it has worked for them." The question now is whether Democrats, by taking a stand, can shift the narrative and rally public opinion to their side.
Underlying this debate is a profound sense of frustration with both parties and the media. Critics argue that mainstream outlets have failed to hold Trump accountable, while Democratic leaders have been too timid or disorganized to mount an effective resistance. The call for a shutdown is, in many ways, a call for a new kind of politics—one that is willing to take risks, make demands, and fight for fundamental principles, even at the cost of short-term pain.
As the September 30 deadline approaches, the country faces a stark choice. Will Democrats join Republicans in funding a government they believe is fundamentally compromised? Or will they seize what many see as their last, best chance to force a reckoning with what they describe as the "atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times"? The answer, and the consequences, will shape American politics for years to come.
For now, all eyes are on the Senate, where the next move could redefine the boundaries of political protest—and the fate of the government itself.
