With the clock ticking toward a September 30 deadline, the United States is once again staring down the barrel of a government shutdown. But this time, the debate is not simply about budgets, spending caps, or the usual partisan brinkmanship. Instead, a chorus of Democratic voices is questioning the very legitimacy of keeping the government running under what they describe as an unprecedented abuse of executive power by President Trump.
According to Slate, Democratic leaders such as Rep. Jamie Raskin are actively weighing all available options to counter what they perceive as an authoritarian shift in the White House. The urgency comes as the current federal funding is set to expire at the end of September, raising the specter of a shutdown that could have far-reaching consequences for millions of Americans.
In a provocative piece published on September 9, 2025, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, writing for The Guardian, argued that the situation facing the nation is anything but ordinary. "Under ordinary circumstances, people like you and me—who believe that government is essential for the common good—would fight like hell to keep the government funded beyond September 30," Reich wrote. "But we are not in ordinary circumstances."
Reich's argument is rooted in a deep concern over what he characterizes as the current administration's "neofascist regime" and an alleged pattern of government misuse. He claims that President Trump is leveraging the machinery of the state to punish political enemies, enrich himself and his family, and force leaders of key institutions—ranging from media outlets to universities—to toe the line or face retribution. "He is using the government to disappear people from our streets without due process. He is using the government to occupy our cities, overriding the wishes of mayors and governors," Reich asserted.
These accusations, while incendiary, reflect a growing sense of alarm among segments of the Democratic Party. The sense of crisis is compounded by what Reich and others describe as the administration's disregard for constitutional norms, from the imposition of tariffs without congressional approval to the rejection of traditional American allies in favor of "some of the worst monsters around the globe."
Against this backdrop, the question confronting Democrats is not just how to respond, but whether they should actively withhold their support for continued government funding as a form of protest. In the Senate, Republicans currently need seven Democratic votes to pass any funding measure and keep the government open. Last March, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led Democrats in joining Republicans to avert a shutdown. But, as Reich notes, "even if you supported Schumer’s decision then, this time feels different."
The calculus has shifted, many argue, because the stakes are no longer merely financial or procedural—they are existential. "By now, Trump has become full fascist. Congressional Republicans are cowed, spineless, deferential, unwilling to make even a small effort to retain Congress’s constitutional powers," Reich wrote. For those who share this view, the Democratic Party's minority status in both chambers of Congress is no excuse for inaction. Instead, refusing to fund the government could serve as a clarion call, a way to "become conscientious objectors to a government that is no longer functioning for the people of the United States but for one man."
This is not a position taken lightly. Government shutdowns have real and immediate consequences, from delayed paychecks for federal workers to disruptions in essential services. Reich himself, who experienced the fallout firsthand as Secretary of Labor during a previous shutdown, acknowledges the gravity of such a move. "Under ordinary circumstances, I would see that as a huge problem. I was secretary of labor when the government closed down, and I vowed then that I’d do everything possible to avoid a similar calamity in the future," he recalled. But, he insists, "keeping the U.S. government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times."
Others in the Democratic caucus, like Rep. Raskin, are reportedly exploring a range of strategies to push back against what they see as the administration’s authoritarian agenda. As Slate reports, the party is considering "all of their options," with the looming shutdown deadline providing a rare moment of leverage. The prospect of a shutdown, while fraught, could force a national conversation about the direction of the country and the responsibilities of those in power.
But what would Democrats hope to accomplish by refusing to fund the government? According to Reich, the goal is not chaos for its own sake, but to use the shutdown as a bargaining chip. "They can then use their newfound leverage—the only leverage they’ve mustered in eight months—to demand, in return for their votes to restart the government, that their Republican compatriots give them reason to believe that the government they restart will be responsible," he wrote. In other words, Democrats could insist on concrete changes or concessions as a condition for reopening the government.
The risk, of course, is that such a strategy could backfire. Shutdowns are rarely popular with the public, and both parties have been blamed in the past for the resulting disruptions. Republicans, for their part, have shown little appetite for compromise, and there is no guarantee that a dramatic gesture by Democrats would lead to meaningful reforms. Indeed, the last shutdowns in American history have often ended not with sweeping changes, but with a return to the status quo after weeks of political theater.
Still, for many Democrats, the current moment feels different. The combination of what they describe as "lawlessness, corruption, cruelty, and brutality" emanating from the White House has left some convinced that extraordinary measures are justified. As Reich put it, "Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem."
As the September 30 deadline approaches, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. Will Democrats seize this opportunity to force a reckoning over the direction of the government, or will they once again join Republicans in keeping the lights on, however reluctantly? For now, all eyes are on Capitol Hill, where the next move could shape not just the fate of the current administration, but the future of American democracy itself.
With the stakes as high as they’ve ever been, the coming weeks promise to test the resolve—and the values—of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
