Tangle - The looming government shutdown.

I’m Isaac Saul, and this is Tangle: an independent, nonpartisan, subscriber-supported politics newsletter that summarizes the best arguments from across the political spectrum on the news of the day — then “my take.”

Are you new here? Get free emails to your inbox daily. Would you rather listen? You can find our podcast here.

Today's read: 14 minutes.

Tomorrow.

I’m doing something personal: I’m sharing a bit about my upbringing, and then writing about how it informs my views on class and class politics in America. I’ll give my read on how I think Democrats and Republicans are navigating class issues, and shed some light on how I view class politics in our country. 

Quick hits.

1. The Federal Reserve lowered its benchmark interest rate by 0.25 points to a range of 4.25%–4.5% while also indicating that it expects to slow down its rate cuts. (The cut)
2. A Georgia appeals court disqualified the office of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) from prosecuting the 2020 election interference case against President-elect Donald Trump, citing a “significant appearance of impropriety” from Willis’s relationship with ex-special prosecutor Nathan Wade. (The ruling)
3. The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a federal law that would require the social media app TikTok to sell its U.S. business by January 19 or be banned in the country. (The challenge)
4. A person in Louisiana was hospitalized with the first known severe illness caused by bird flu in the U.S. The person had been in contact with sick and dead birds in a backyard flock. (The case) Separately, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) declared a state of emergency related to bird flu, which is spreading among dairy herds throughout the state. (The declaration)
5. Thousands of Amazon workers went on strike amid a dispute over a new contract and the company’s refusal to recognize the Teamsters labor union as their representation. (The strike)

Today's topic.

The impending government shutdown. On Wednesday, House Republican leadership scrapped a bill to temporarily fund the government after President-elect Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and House Republicans came out against the effort. The sudden change of course comes just days before current government funding runs out on Friday night, and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has not indicated whether he will pursue a new bill to avert a shutdown.

Note: This is a developing story. The information in this section is up-to-date as of 11:30 am ET on Thursday, December 19. 

What happened: After weeks of negotiations, House and Senate leaders released the text of a 1,547-page continuing resolution (CR) on Tuesday but faced immediate pushback from House members, particularly on the Republican side. The bill would have funded the government through mid-March and contained a host of other measures, including approximately $100 billion for natural disaster relief and an additional $10 billion in economic aid to farmers. Other provisions covered a mix of Republican and Democratic priorities, such as funds to help rebuild Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, reauthorizations for public health programs, a federal flood insurance program, a national security counter-drone program, changes to regulations for pharmacy benefit managers’ business practices, and restrictions on U.S. capital investment in China.

Furthermore, the bill would have amended the language of a previous CR to allow for cost-of-living adjustments to Congressional salaries, setting the stage for the first pay raise for lawmakers since 2009. Lawmakers would also have been able to opt out of coverage under the Affordable Care Act marketplace and use the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 

Many Republicans swiftly criticized House leadership for the bill’s concessions to Democrats, as well as the rushed timeline to avoid a shutdown. Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ), one of the eight House members who voted to oust former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) last year, called the bill “a complete monstrosity.” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) suggested Johnson should have prioritized a full-fiscal-year spending bill to give the incoming Trump administration “a clean slate.” Elon Musk was also a vocal opponent, writing on X, “Any member of the House or Senate who votes for this outrageous spending bill deserves to be voted out in 2 years!”

Then, on Wednesday afternoon, Vice President-elect JD Vance posted a statement on X on behalf of President-elect Trump calling the bill “a mistake” and suggesting a new bill should include a provision to increase the debt ceiling, so it could be done “on Biden’s watch.” Shortly after Vance posted the statement, House Republicans pulled the bill. 

Johnson’s next steps are unclear. He initially had two primary routes to avoid a government shutdown: an omnibus bill extending government funding through the remainder of the fiscal year, or a “skinny” CR that would have temporarily funded the government and allowed Republicans to negotiate a longer-term spending plan when they assume full control of Congress in January. Johnson’s bill included elements of both options — funding the government into the first two months of the new Congressional term with a slew of other spending included.

A skinny CR may be the speaker’s only remaining choice, though passing anything by Friday will prove challenging. Under normal circumstances, Johnson could advance the bill through the House Rules Committee, which would allow it to pass the House with a simple majority. However, the tight timeline and Johnson’s strained relationship with some Republican members on the Rules Committee would likely require him to bring up any bill under suspension of the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. Whereas many Democrats were poised to support the original bill, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is now suggesting that his members would not support a skinny CR, calling into question whether a new bill could garner the votes to pass. 

Today, we’ll share perspectives from the right and left on the spending bill, followed by my take.

What the right is saying.

• The right is mostly opposed to the original bill, arguing that a clean CR is a better way to temporarily fund the government.
• Some criticize Johnson for his approach to this bill and past funding negotiations.
• Others suggest Johnson will keep his job as speaker but faces a difficult year ahead.

National Review’s editors said “the year-end spending bill deserved to die.”

“This everyone-gets-pork spending bill at year’s end is the sort of thing Johnson had promised not to do as speaker. He insists that the bill is not a Christmas tree, but it’s hard to see why that isn’t a fair description for a must-pass spending bill in the second half of December ornamented with just about every spare piece of legislation sitting around the Capitol,” the editors wrote. “Donald Trump and JD Vance have announced their opposition to the bill, but they threw in the desire to also raise the debt limit now. Congress will likely have until June to raise the debt limit. The pressing deadline is to avoid a government shutdown on Friday.”

“A ‘clean’ CR that keeps the government funded in the short term should be the way to go for the House right now. If Trump and Elon Musk want things to look different in the future, they should prioritize a complete reworking of the congressional budget process by rewriting the laws that govern it,” the editors said. “The congressional tradition of enormous must-pass bills at the end of the calendar year with no time to even read the legislation, let alone debate it, is the kind of thing Republicans should be striving to end.”

In The Federalist, Shawn Fleetwood wrote “Mike Johnson’s latest spending scheme proves he’s Democrats’ useful idiot.”

“Following days of backdoor scheming, congressional leaders released the text of their 1,547-page spending measure to fund the federal government through March 2025. Deceptively marketed as a ‘continuing resolution’ or CR, the bill bears all the hallmarks of the bloated omnibus packages Johnson recently promised voters wouldn’t happen under his watch,” Fleetwood said. “Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, perfectly summed up Congress’s latest spending scam following a closed-door Tuesday meeting among the Republican conference, telling reporters: ‘[Congress] is fundamentally unserious about spending. As long as you have a blank check you can’t shrink government. If you can’t shrink government, you can’t live free.’”

“Johnson’s promises are about as meaningful as the gum stuck to the bottom of a shoe. As he’s demonstrated time and again, the Louisiana representative will fold like a cheap house of cards on any given policy fight at the first sign of confrontation, leaving Republican voters hanging in the wind,” Fleetwood wrote. “And that right there has been the story of Johnson’s entire speakership. His willingness to further the status quo — even if it means empowering Democrats — has made him the left’s useful idiot. He’s a weak, impotent speaker going along to get along, and as per usual, it’s conservative voters who pay the price.”

In Blaze Media, Christopher Bedford explored what Republicans’ “end-of-year fights mean for 2025.”

“Johnson promised an open process led by committee chairs that shunned the traditional Christmas omnibus spending package and gave members at least 72 hours to read a bill before a vote. The process has been opaque; committee chairmen have been excluded; the package taking shape looks a lot like a little omnibus; and given the Friday midnight deadline, it’s barely skating in under those 72 hours of reading time — and then the Senate gets to take a stab. It'll likely be a long weekend on Capitol Hill.”

“Conservatives like Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) are mad about the process, the spending, the ethanol subsidies, and the handouts to Democrats. More mainline Republicans like Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) are angry that neither they nor their priorities seem to be included in negotiations,” Bedford wrote. “Johnson can expect to give a pound of flesh for all his letdowns. Don’t expect him to lose his job, though. Neither Trump’s nor Johnson’s colleagues have the stomach for a drawn-out leadership fight with the margins the House still has.”

What the left is saying.

• The left is critical of House Republicans’ handling of the bill, noting that Johnson has consistently appeared inept in these spending fights. 
• Some worry that Elon Musk’s involvement in the episode portends his outsized influence in the government.
• Others say Trump is doing exactly what his campaign promised he would. 

In MSNBC, Hayes Brown called the funding showdown “Congress' worst Christmas tradition.”

“Outside a few Grinches, nobody in Washington wants to see [a shutdown] happen at Christmas. And yet it’s only the threat of ruining the holidays that ever seems to prompt any sort of urgency from lawmakers,” Brown said. “On one hand, Republicans have little reason to pass the kind of massive omnibus bills we’ve seen in Decembers past to fully fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. The GOP leadership knows that Republicans will control the White House and the Senate next month… But on the other hand, the core dynamics at play in the Capitol are the same we’ve seen for the last two years, meaning getting through the holidays is still easier said than done.”

“Annoyance with congressional procrastination is one of the only areas in which I agree with the far-right members of the Republican caucus. The constant end-of-year fiscal crunch is truly ridiculous given the number of programs that get hung on the Christmas tree at the last minute with little time for debate. Still, I’d normally worry that Congress’ punting on most of those major spending decisions until the GOP holds a trifecta would herald a policy disaster.”

In New York Magazine, Ed Kilgore wrote “Elon Musk is trying to force a government shutdown.”

“Ever since Donald Trump rewarded Elon Musk for his massive election assistance by putting him in charge of dismantling large swaths of the federal government, no one has been quite sure what to think of it,” Kilgore said. “It was generally assumed we’d find out the answer to this key question once Congress got moving on budget legislation to implement Trump’s agenda and DOGE either sniped from the sidelines or tried to big-foot its way into decisions about spending and revenues. But Musk has jumped the gun.”

“Musk and Ramaswamy are firing off tweets blasting Johnson’s handiwork to hearty attaboys from MAGA-land and calling for a government shutdown that nobody in Washington wants or had anticipated,” Kilgore wrote. “No matter how it turns out, this is a disaster for Johnson, who will soon face a close reelection vote for Speaker. A sudden humiliation at the hands of the unelected co-director of an unfunded and unofficial entity won’t make it easier. And it’s also bad news for the incoming administration, the Congress, and the country. If Elon Musk can work this sort of destructive wonder in a matter of hours, who’s going to tell him there are limits to his power?”

In CNN, Stephen Collinson said we are witnessing “the new Washington of Donald Trump and Elon Musk.”

“The Trump-Musk blocking maneuver plunged the capital into one of its classic year-end crises, pitched Johnson’s hopes of keeping his job into extreme doubt and offered a preview of the chaos that may churn in Trump’s second term,” Collinson wrote. “The sabotaging of Johnson’s funding initiative triggered shock and confusion on Capitol Hill. But for many of Trump’s supporters and boosters in the conservative media who are anticipating massive cuts to federal programs, the mayhem is the point.

“Even if the impasse leads to a damaging government shutdown, that may represent progress for some since the government itself is viewed with disdain on the populist right. And by taking aim at the Washington status quo even before he takes the oath of office, Trump is doing exactly what he said he’d do on the campaign trail,” Collinson said. “But the sudden imbroglio also highlighted one of the key issues facing Trump in his second term: If he wants to pass his tax cuts, push through his immigration overhauls, defend the country and leave a meaningful legacy, he will have to find some way to govern – even if that draws him into conflict with base voters and MAGA ideologues who seem happy to burn government to the ground.”

My take.

Reminder: "My take" is a section where I give myself space to share my own personal opinion. If you have feedback, criticism or compliments, don't unsubscribe. Write in by replying to this email, or leave a comment.

• I appreciate the difficult situation that Johnson is in, but he bungled this one.
• I don’t know why he eschewed a skinny CR, but that path seems like it would have been the better play.
• Now, a government shutdown seems increasingly likely, and the spotlight is back on Mike Johnson.

It’s a nice try from Johnson, but good intentions aren’t good governance. And instead of writing a take about how shrewd the Speaker of the House is, we’re starting to wonder whether his time as Speaker is coming to a close.

In the end, the bill ended up including a slew of priorities from Republicans and Democrats that were to be expected, and a few that were never going to play well. Altogether, it had a little something for everyone to complain about and in retrospect, it’s not too surprising that it died. These were some of the major parts of the 1,547-page bill:

• $100 billion in disaster relief, including $31 billion for agriculture relief, $29 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and $12 billion for a “Community Development Fund” overseen by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
• $10 billion in additional aid for farmers
• An ability for members of Congress to get cost-of-living increases for the first time since 2009, from their current salary of $174,000 a year to a maximum of around $250,000
• A host of other line items, like funding for job-placement programs and workforce training and child care, that might not see the light of day again

Disaster relief and farmer aid are obviously necessary, and I expect both to be in the next bill Johnson brings forward to keep the government open. As I wrote in the wake of Hurricane Helene, when people were accusing the federal government of abandoning North Carolina, the Feds were always going to play clean-up by funding disaster relief efforts with massive bills like this one. We need more funds for disaster relief, and while there’s healthy disagreement over how those funds are managed, not many people disagree that additional support is crucial. The same is true for aid for farmers — agricultural aid is now a bipartisan effort. 

Everything else from this CR might make some sense in a vacuum, but probably won’t be in the next CR. For example, you can bet that the provision allowing pay raises for lawmakers will be cut. I actually am sad to see that go; while our representatives make a healthy salary as is, both the left and right actually make good arguments that raising their pay will encourage better candidates and help prevent corruption. Still, it makes sense not to sneak that kind of thing into a giant CR. 

I don’t see the point in spending too much time dragging Johnson — plenty of the writers we’re quoting today were already eager to do so. He’s in a very difficult position, attempting to hold together a Republican conference that has a sizable wing of members willing to shut down the government over spending, that doesn’t want to make any concessions before they gain control of both chambers and the White House, and that holds only a slim majority in the House. 

Johnson has to lead that conference in an environment where any representative can call a snap vote for his removal, the opposition party controls the Senate and a lame-duck Democrat is in the White House, all while avoiding the nightmare of a government shutdown — over Christmas, no less. The broader context that Johnson is faced with is that House Republicans haven’t passed a single appropriations package into law since getting control of the House two years ago, and this is what happens when you can’t (or refuse) to govern. 

When Johnson replaced Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) as Speaker last year, I was skeptical that he’d succeed. Actually, “Johnson is about to get run over” is, word-for-word, how I opened my take. He was inexperienced with both leadership and managing the political spotlight, had a bad record as a fundraiser, and — like I said earlier — was set up to fail with the rules Republicans put in place when they ousted McCarthy. But I’ve gotta say, he’s impressed me. He’s survived attempts to oust him (winning over Democrats when he’s had to), kept the government running, oversaw a successful election cycle for Republicans, and has even gotten some hard-earned legislative wins. 

And related to today’s topic, I believe he genuinely wants to reform the way we fund our government. When he helped avert the last government shutdown, I appreciated his laddered approach to splitting up the usual omnibus funding bill into smaller bills. Our federal budget is supposed to be funded through 12 separate appropriations bills in a timely manner to allow Congress to pass a responsible budget. Instead, Congress’s standard operating procedure has been to bicker in back rooms until the last possible second, then cram everything that everybody wants into one enormous appropriations bill without giving anyone time to fully read or understand it — basically, exactly what they did here. 

I’m glad Johnson didn’t take the route of passing a gargantuan omnibus bill that nobody has time to read, but cramming everything into a slightly smaller continuing resolution without giving anyone time to fully understand it is really not much better. 

The more I consider the “middle path” he took here, the more I’m left scratching my head at why he didn’t at least attempt to pass a skinnier CR — even if just for the optics. A small CR could have gotten through the House Rules Committee without opening up the door to spending offsets that ranking members, like Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), were demanding. It would have been more responsible, allowing more time to split up the usual omnibus spending bill into smaller portions in the next term. More importantly, though, it also would have been much more politically advantageous — why dole out any appropriations now, when you have to work with a Democrat-controlled Senate and White House? 

Apparently, Republicans were asking the same question. Johnson was having trouble navigating the House Rules Committee, which includes some conservative hardliners, and decided to take this bill straight to the House floor for a vote where it would have required two-thirds of the chamber for approval. This guaranteed that he’d have to make concessions to Democrats and ballooned the size of the final bill that he brought to the floor. When Republicans saw that bill, a large enough number of them were so angered by it that they immediately killed it. 

To be frank, I don’t blame them. When Republicans decry massive government spending and giant omnibus bills filled with pork and concessions, I can’t help but nod my head in agreement. The obvious issue here is that without a spending bill, we get a shutdown. 

What would that mean? Millions of federal workers will go home for Christmas without paychecks. Air-traffic controllers and TSA agents won’t be paid. 72% of the Department of Homeland Security will be asked to work without pay. National Parks will close. SNAP distributions will face a ticking clock before they stop getting delivered. Essential services will still function and Social Security payments will still be made, but it’ll be a total mess.

Nobody wants to own that, so here is what will probably happen next: Republicans are demanding something new that includes language to raise the debt ceiling now so that Trump won’t be the one responsible for doing it later. There is no time to negotiate a new spending bill before a shutdown, and any deal that includes raising the debt ceiling is not going to pass with a two-thirds majority — unless it’s chock full of Democratic priorities. So Republicans will try to move a bill through the Rules Committee that has a shot to pass.  

I have no idea how Johnson gets that bill out in time. Members of Congress are notorious for finding a way to get home for the holidays, but Senate Democrats aren’t going to save Johnson after backing out of their deal, even though they clearly worked with him in good faith up to this point. Trump and Musk seem to have riled up enough conservatives that they have to walk away with some kind of “win,” but most of their asks will never clear a Democrat-controlled White House and Senate. So… we wait. 

Whatever comes next, it looks like the writing is on the wall for Johnson — perhaps not right away, but sometime soon. He’s infuriated members of his caucus and there seem to be cracks in his relationship with Trump (and the newly drunk-on-power Musk). I’m not holding much hope for him to retain this position after Trump takes office. Instead, I’m just hoping the House finds a way to keep the government open without a massive, bloated spending bonanza. Then when we have to do this all over again next year, maybe the process can be slightly more sane.

Take the survey: What do you want the House of Representatives to do with the funding bill? Let us know!

Disagree? That's okay. My opinion is just one of many. Write in and let us know why, and we'll consider publishing your feedback.

Help share Tangle.

I'm a firm believer that our politics would be a little bit better if everyone were reading balanced news that allows room for debate, disagreement, and multiple perspectives. If you can take 15 seconds to share Tangle with a few friends I'd really appreciate it — just click the button below and pick some people to email it to!

• Email Tangle to a friend by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on X/Twitter by clicking here.
• Share Tangle on Facebook by clicking here.

Your questions, answered.

We're skipping the reader question today to give our main story some extra space. Want to have a question answered in the newsletter? You can reply to this email (it goes straight to our inbox) or fill out this form.

Under the radar.

A bill that would increase social security benefits for some public-sector workers appears headed to President Joe Biden’s desk after garnering bipartisan support in the Senate. If enacted, the bill, called the Social Security Fairness Act, would increase benefit payments to roughly three million retired teachers, law-enforcement officers, and other workers receiving public pensions whose payouts are currently limited under an existing law. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill would increase average monthly payouts by $460 for Social Security beneficiaries and by approximately $1,000 for some spouses of affected workers by 2033. However, some lawmakers have balked at the price tag of the effort; it is projected to cost $196 billion over 10 years and deplete the Social Security trust fund six months earlier. The Wall Street Journal has the story.

Numbers.

• 20. The number of federal funding gaps that have lasted at least one full day since 1977. 
• 10. The number of full or partial federal shutdowns resulting from a funding gap since 1977. 
• 34. The length, in days, of the longest government shutdown since 1977, from December 21, 2018 to January 25, 2019.
• $3 billion. The estimated loss in gross domestic product (in 2019 dollars) resulting from that shutdown, according to the Congressional Budget Office. 
• 3. The number of government shutdowns that have begun while one party was in control of the House, Senate, and White House — Democrats in 1980 and Republicans in 2018 (twice). 
• 60%. The percentage of U.S. adults who say the government is spending too much, according to a 2023 AP/NORC poll. 
• 34% and 88%. The percentage of Democrats and Republicans, respectively, who say the government is spending too much.
• 49%. The percentage of Americans who say they would rather have a bigger government providing more services than smaller government providing fewer services, according to a 2023 Pew Research survey.
• 57%. The percentage of Americans who say reducing the budget deficit should be a top priority for the president and Congress. 

The extras.

• One year ago today we wrote about the IDF killing 3 Israeli hostages.
• The most clicked link in yesterday’s newsletter was the link in our free-version ad to an International Intrigue article about Trump, Putin, and Zelensky.
• Nothing to do with politics: The Oscars released its shortlist in 10 different categories.
• Yesterday’s survey: 2,052 readers responded to our survey on the Trump-ABC settlement with 39% finding it not concerning at all. “Big companies settle these things after considering the cost/benefit tradeoffs of settling vs. proceeding with the case. It's likely they decided the $16M was the lesser risk,” one respondent said.

Have a nice day.

Fashion guru and social media influencer April Lockhart has a limb difference: She was born with only one hand. Lockhart doesn’t let it faze her, happily sharing her lifestyle with her over 152,000 Instagram followers and often emphasizing confidence and inclusivity in her content. Recently, she partnered with DSW to create a “Tiny Disabled Fashion Girlies” pop-up event, in which girls with limb differences were invited to pick out outfits, bedazzle shoes, and enjoy each other’s company. Watch a video from the event here.

Don't forget...

📣 Share Tangle on Twitter here, Facebook here, or LinkedIn here.

🎧 We have a podcast you can listen to here.

🎥 Follow us on Instagram here or subscribe to our YouTube channel here

💵 If you like our newsletter, drop some love in our tip jar.

🎉 Want to reach 275,000+ people? Fill out this form to advertise with us.

📫 Forward this to a friend and tell them to subscribe (hint: it's here).

🛍 Love clothes, stickers and mugs? Go to our merch store!