Transition 2025: Another Government Shutdown Looms
from The Water's Edge
from The Water's Edge

Transition 2025: Another Government Shutdown Looms

The U.S. Capitol is pictured on day thirty-two of a partial government shutdown in 2019.
The U.S. Capitol is pictured on day thirty-two of a partial government shutdown in 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX

Each Friday, I examine what is happening with President-elect Donald Trump’s transition to the White House. This week: Donald Trump helped scuttle a deal to keep the U.S. government open but exposed the limits of his influence.

December 20, 2024 3:44 pm (EST)

The U.S. Capitol is pictured on day thirty-two of a partial government shutdown in 2019.
The U.S. Capitol is pictured on day thirty-two of a partial government shutdown in 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Barria TPX
Post
Blog posts represent the views of CFR fellows and staff and not those of CFR, which takes no institutional positions.

Unless something changes in the next few hours, the U.S. government will shut down just after midnight tonight. While the shutdown would come in the final weeks of Joe Biden’s presidency, it foreshadows how Donald Trump will operate when he takes office one month from today.

A government shutdown was not on Washington’s bingo card at the start of the week. True, everyone knew that Congress faced a funding deadline. The government has been operating under a short-term continuing resolution for three months because Congress failed to pass the required spending bills before the new fiscal year started on October 1. (Congress last met the October target in 1997.) But with their eyes firmly set on the holiday break, everyone expected Congress to pass another stop-gap funding measure to keep the government running and then head home.

More on:

United States

Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy

Transition 2025

U.S. Congress

Trump

House and Senate leaders did their part. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson unveiled the spending deal he negotiated with Democrats on Tuesday. Everyone began packing their bags and checking their flight schedules. Once the bill passed, the battle over spending priorities would be the next Congress’s problem.

But things did not go as planned. At 4:15 a.m. on Wednesday, Elon Musk sent the first of what would eventually be more than 150 tweets and retweets attacking the bill. Many of his factual claims about its provisions were exaggerated or flat-out false. It did not matter. Late Wednesday afternoon, Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance issued a statement calling the spending deal “a betrayal of the country.”

Johnson did what any leader would do when faced with a government shutdown, members eager to go home, and his Plan A dead on arrival. He put forth a Plan B. It was a scaled-back spending plan that omitted many of the provisions that Musk had attacked as well as provisions that enjoyed bipartisan support, such as restrictions on investments by U.S. firms in China.

The new bill did contain one new provision that Trump demanded: a two-year suspension of the debt ceiling. The current debt-ceiling suspension ends on January 1. Trump wants it extended, or even eliminated, before he takes office. His tax-cut proposals will explode the federal government’s deficit. If the debt ceiling is in place, he will need to spend valuable political capital trying to get it waived.

Johnson did not explain how he would get the two-thirds support needed to pass his Plan B. (It was considered on a fast-track basis, which requires a supermajority to pass.) Nor did he explain why Senate Democrats, and ultimately President Biden, would accept Johnson’s—and Trump’s—terms while getting nothing in return.

More on:

United States

Diamonstein-Spielvogel Project on the Future of Democracy

Transition 2025

U.S. Congress

Trump

As it happened, it did not matter. Johnson could not even muster a majority in support of the stripped-down bill. Thirty-eight Republican House members voted no. They did so even with Trump threatening to primary anyone who refused to support the bill.

So now the country waits to see if congressional leaders can pull a rabbit out of the hat and keep the government open. If they fail to do so today, they eventually will strike a deal. They have on the previous twenty-one times the government has been shut down. The only questions will be who gives up what, and how much government workers and those who depend on government services suffer in the interim.

This week’s events do provide a reminder about how Trump governs. He prides himself on being a disruptor. Few would dispute the claim. But he often disrupts things, as he did this week, without a strategy for achieving his goals. Yes, he forced the debt-ceiling suspension to the forefront of the political debate. But beyond hectoring fellow Republicans, he does not have a plan for getting what he wants. Expect more of that turbulence in 2025.

Trump’s actions this week also highlight the limits of his self-declared “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” While Trump will be able to take many actions as president without Congress—something that is especially true on foreign policy—much of what he hopes to achieve requires congressional consent. That could be hard to come by. In 2017, he took office with Republicans holding a forty-seven-seat majority in the House. He will become president next month with House Republicans effectively holding a two-seat majority, the smallest in modern history. Keeping Republicans united will be a tall task. They disagree among themselves on significant issues. And White House threats of primary challenges will quickly get old—and ineffective.

But the good news in the short term for Trump, members of Congress, and the public at large, is that a government shutdown will not disrupt their flight plans. Air traffic controllers and Transportation Security Administration agents are required to report for work even if they will technically be working without pay.

What Trump Is Saying

Trump held a lengthy press conference on Monday at Mar-a-Lago. It was his first since Election Day.

Trump press conference December 16

His opening remarks focused largely on the economy and how other countries, most notably Canada and Mexico, had taken advantage of the United States. But he said that “since the election, I’ve been working every day to put the world at ease a little bit to get rid of the wars. We had no wars when I left office, and now the whole world is blowing up.”

During the question-and-answer session, Trump repeated his demand that Hamas release all the hostages it is holding by January 20, otherwise “all hell is going to break out.” He also said he was confident that Venezuela would take back any Venezuelan migrants his administration deported: “They’re all taking them back, yep. And if they don’t, they’ll be met very harshly economically. Okay? They’ll all take them back.” And he said that reciprocity would be at the core of trade policy:

But the word reciprocal is important because if somebody charges us – India – we don’t have to talk about own. If India charges us 100 percent, then we charge them nothing for the same. You know, they send in a bicycle, and we send them a bicycle. They charge us 100 and 200. India charges a lot. Brazil charges a lot. If they want to charge us, that’s fine, but we’re going to charge them the same thing.

Perhaps most notably, Trump took exception at Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use U.S.-made long-range missiles to strike targets deep inside Russia:

I don’t think they should have allowed missiles to be shot 200 miles into Russia. I think that was a bad thing. And that brought the Koreans in, North Korea, another man I get along with very well. I’m the only one that does. But that did a lot of bad things. I don’t think that should have been allowed, not when there’s a possibility and certainly not just weeks before I take over. Why would they do that without asking me what I thought? I wouldn’t have had them do that. I think that was a big mistake there.

Trump was off on the timing of North Korea’s decision to send combat troops to Russia. That came before the Biden administration’s decision to allow long-range strikes. But his underlying concern points to an irritation many presidents-elects have felt about being saddled with policies they did not like by an administration headed out the door.

What the Biden Administration Is Doing

The Biden administration shared a two-page proposal last week at the World Trade Organization (WTO) on how to deal with the precedent set by the Trump administration in 2018 of justifying tariff increases on tenuous national security grounds. That move expanded a loophole in the WTO’s rules, and numerous countries have emulated it to impose tariffs on goods that have little to with national security. Whatever the merits of the Biden administration’s proposal, it comes so late in the day as to be a nonstarter. The incoming Trump administration has little interest in the WTO or in the idea that that any international body should have a say in how the United States uses tariffs to advance its interests.

The United States continued to conduct airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria. The most recent attacks came against targets in areas that the Bashar al-Assad regime and Russian forces previously controlled. The Biden administration justified the strikes on the grounds that the United States “will not allow ISIS to reconstitute and take advantage of the current situation in Syria.”

Trump’s Appointments

Trump added two more names to his foreign-policy team over the weekend. He named Ric Grenell to be “Presidential Envoy for Special Missions.” The fifty-eight-year-old Grenell, who served as ambassador to Germany and then acting director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration, had been rumored to be a candidate for secretary of state. Trump said he expected Grenell to work on “some of the hottest spots around the World, including Venezuela and North Korea.” Trump did not say, however, how Grenell’s portfolio will mesh with that of Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio.

Trump named Devin Nunes, the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee, to chair the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. It is part of the Executive Office of the President, and it advises the president on intelligence matters. Nunes will remain CEO of Trump Media and Technology Group, which owns the Truth Social media platform. 

The incoming Trump administration began sending so-called landing teams to the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security among other federal agencies this week. Landing teams are composed of individuals who represent the incoming administration. They are tasked with facilitating the transition from one administration to another. The Trump team is beginning the process about a month later than is typical. The delay largely reflects the fact that the Trump team did not sign a transition agreement with the General Services Administration until late November. Late transition starts are not unknown; the 2000 and 2020 transition both got a late start. However, the delay increases the chances of a rough start for the new administration.

What the Pundits Are Writing

The Atlantic’s Mark Bowden explored the crumbling foundations of America’s defense industrial base. He writes: “The obstacles the U.S. has faced in trying to supply Ukraine during the past two years have revealed a systemic, gaping national-security weakness. It is a weakness that afflicts the U.S. military at all levels, and about which the public is largely unaware. The vaunted American war machine is in disarray and disrepair.”

The New York Times editorial board issued a new multimedia opinion piece, The President’s Arsenal. It is the latest installment in a series on nuclear warfare, At the Brink. The new piece notes that “Mr. Trump commented on the peril posed by the rest of the world’s growing nuclear arsenals. His return to the White House offers new opportunities for him to steer America clear of those threats.” Among other things, the Times editorial board urges him to pursue arms control talks, maintain the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, and scale back the U.S. nuclear modernization effort.

Daniel Rosen, Reva Goujon, and Logan Wright argued in Foreign Affairs that China’s economic troubles gives the United States new economic leverage over Beijing. In their view, the “Washington can leverage the influence of U.S. consumer and capital markets, offering its allies and partners a better alternative to being crowded out by Chinese exports. Given rising concerns about China’s dominance of global manufacturing supply chains, U.S. allies and partners may now be more likely than they were a few years ago to align their own policies, including tariffs and technology-related controls, with Washington’s as part of a broader ‘de-risking’ strategy—an effort to reduce the exposure of Western economies to China.”

Peter Harrell wrote in Foreign Affairs that the goal of Trump’s trade policy remains unclear. What is clear is that he intends to disrupt the status quo. In Harrell’s view, “Trump’s willingness to be a disrupter gives him the potential to bring about the most significant changes to the international trading order since the current liberal global system arose in the early 1990s. He could reshape trade flows in ways that advance the United States’ geopolitical position and strengthen its industrial base. But Trump’s disruptive nature is also a great source of risk. If he overplays his hand, he may blunder into tariff wars that do little more than hike costs for Americans.” 

Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell penned a piece for Foreign Affairs urging Trump to avoid the isolationism of the political right and the internationalism of the left. In McConnell’s view, “Trump would be wise to build his foreign policy on the enduring cornerstone of U.S. leadership: hard power,” while rejecting calls “to give up on American primacy …. To pretend that the United States can focus on just one threat at a time, that its credibility is divisible, or that it can afford to shrug off faraway chaos as irrelevant is to ignore its global interests and its adversaries’ global designs. America will not be made great again by those who simply want to manage its decline.”

What the Polls Show

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll asked Americans about tariffs. Just 45 percent of those surveyed knew that the importer pays the tariff on imported goods. Nearly one in four respondents did not know the definition of a tariff and nearly one in five thought that the government in the exporting country pays the tariff. Even if many Americans remain fuzzy on what a tariff is, they seem to grasp that it will affect them. A Monmouth University poll released on Tuesday found that 72 percent of those surveyed expect Trump’s proposed tariff to have “a direct impact on their family.” Those who anticipated tariffs having an impact said by a two-to-one margin that such tariffs will hurt them.

A Gallup poll released today found that for the first time since Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, more Americans favor a quick end to the war than favor helping Ukraine regain territory that it has lost.  

U.S. Ukraine Policy Poll

The partisan difference on the question, like on many foreign policy topics, is sharp. Republicans overwhelmingly favor ending the war quickly, while Democrats favor supporting Ukraine’s efforts to regain lost territory. 

U.S. Ukraine Partisan Policy Poll

The poll did not define what constitutes a “quick end” to the war. It also did not ask respondents how the war should be ended quickly or whether they would favor any war settlement. But those, of course, are the most important, and informative, questions to ask.  

Podcasts

I sat down with my colleague Zoe Liu to discuss how China is responding to Trump’s election. She noted that China was neither surprised nor happy with Trump’s return to the White House. Zoe and I discussed a range of issues in U.S.-Chinese relations, including Trump’s unpredictability, the divisions within his foreign policy team over China policy, the role that Elon Musk might play, and the potential for a grand diplomatic bargain. Zoe noted that Trump’s threat to increase tariffs might force China to abandon its unsustainable effort to solve its domestic economic slowdown by exporting more to the rest of the world.  

The Election Certification Schedule

The 119th U.S. Congress will be sworn into office in two weeks (January 3, 2025)

The U.S. Congress certifies the results of the 2024 presidential election in seventeen days (January 6, 2025).

Inauguration Day is in thirty-one days (January 20, 2025)

Oscar Berry assisted in the preparation of this post. 
 

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close