The Senate rejected a Republican proposal to guarantee pay for federal employees and troops during the 23-day government shutdown, sparking sharp partisan attacks and leaving essential workers in limbo as lawmakers spar over short-term funding and policy riders.
The measure, led by Sens. Ron Johnson and Todd Young, failed in a 54-45 roll call where 60 votes were required to overcome a filibuster. Only three Democrats crossed the aisle to back it, underscoring how entrenched the parties remain as the shutdown stretches on.
The Johnson-Young package was narrowly focused: compensate excepted federal workers and service members who must remain on duty during a lapse in appropriations. It also sought to codify that future shutdowns would not interrupt pay for those vital roles, aiming to remove a recurring political hammer from public safety and defense personnel.
“For fiscal year 2026, and any fiscal year thereafter, there are appropriated such sums as are necessary to provide standard rates of pay, allowances, pay differentials, benefits, and other payments on a regular basis to excepted employees,” the bill reads. That language was meant to make pay protections automatic rather than subject to last-minute deals.
Senator Johnson framed the bill as commonsense and nonpartisan. “I just hope, on a nonpartisan basis, we do something that makes sense around here for once,” Johnson said ahead of the bill’s consideration.
Johnson also went on the offensive about the politics of the shutdown. “With Democrats continuing the Schumer Shutdown, they should at least agree to pay all the federal employees that are forced to continue working. The 2025 Shutdown Fairness Act is a permanent fix that will ensure excepted workers and our troops are paid during a shutdown,” Johnson said.
Several Republican leaders blasted Democrats for denying a partial fix that would protect critical functions. “It means Democrats don’t care,” Sen. John Cornyn said. “We know this is going to end sometime. The question is when. I guess it will depend on how much carnage the Democrats want to create. To me, they are in a box canyon, and they can’t figure out how to get out.”
Democrats resisted on principle, arguing the proposal picked winners and losers among federal workers. Sen. Richard Blumenthal voiced the common concern on the Democratic side: “I have a concern about picking and choosing among all the federal workers,” Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal further stressed a narrow approach if Republicans wanted Democratic support. “I’m fine to support it. I think we need to pay our military, but I want to define and limit it in a way that provides pay to essential workers who serve our public safety and our national defense,” Blumenthal said.
House Democrats echoed the same objection, calling partial measures political maneuvers rather than real solutions. “It’s not legislation that I support, because it appears to be more like a political ploy to pick and choose, giving Donald Trump discretion [over] which employees should be compensated, and which employees should not be compensated. All employees should be compensated and that will happen when we reopen the government,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters on Monday.
Republicans argue that the demands being made by Democrats are unrelated to immediate funding gaps, and that linking other policy items to short-term spending only prolongs the shutdown. GOP leaders in the House said they would be prepared to act if the Senate passed the Johnson-Young language, though they warned they would only bring members back on short notice to vote.
The shutdown began Oct. 1 when lawmakers failed to pass spending bills to open the government for fiscal 2026, and key services and personnel have been operating under strained conditions. Senate Democrats also voted down other targeted efforts to reopen parts of government, including a 2026 defense spending bill that would have funded some long-term needs.
With senators departing town for a brief recess, legislative options are narrowing and the stalemate remains unresolved. Lawmakers from both sides say they want to avoid deep harm to public safety and military readiness, but they remain far apart on how to separate those priorities from broader budget fights.
