For many families that headed out for spring break last month, the first sign of a problem wasn’t in Washington, it was at the airport. Longer lines, slower security, and fewer TSA agents on the job were all symptoms of something bigger: a government shutdown. Government shutdowns occur when negotiations reach an impasse, leaving the government, or a subunit of government, unfunded. Sometimes the budget itself is the source of disagreement, but in other instances a shutdown results from officials choosing to hold the budget “hostage” as leverage to achieve a policy or political victory. At the federal level, government shutdowns and the looming threats of them are becoming more common.
The latest shutdown grabbing headlines involves the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which has been without funding since February 14. At the time of this writing, an agreement had reportedly been reached between Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), though no official action had yet been taken, and details remain subject to change. The proposed measure would fund most of DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the U.S. Coast Guard, while funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol would be excluded from the current deal, with their funding instead pursued through the budget reconciliation process.
Reconciliation is a legislative process (originating from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974) that allows a spending or budget bill to avoid being held up by a Senate filibuster. It requires only 51 votes to pass in the Senate. This means that if the Republican-controlled Congress can unify its majority, it could bring an end to yet another government shutdown.
Since 1981, the federal government as a whole has shut down five times. The longest was last fall’s shutdown, which lasted 43 days from October 1, 2025, to November 12, 2025. The DHS shutdown has surpassed that duration, but it affects only one department of the federal government.
However, this is further evidence of how broken the federal budget process has become. Government shutdowns not only reflect an inability to govern, but they also have direct implications for taxpayers.
The DHS shutdown provides a clear example. As a result of not being paid, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners at airports began calling in “sick,” while others sought different employment. The result was not only longer lines and wait times at security checkpoints—an inconvenience—but, more importantly, an increased risk of a security breach.
The underlying cause of the DHS shutdown is a disagreement over immigration policy, specifically regarding ICE’s tactics. As a result of these policy disputes, a major federal department has been shut down, putting the security of the American people at risk.
This is the consequence of government shutdowns: while politicians battle over policy, it is taxpayers, and the government employees who are not being paid, who bear the burden.
The question must be asked: is it sound policy to use the budget as a negotiating tactic over policy disputes? And even when disagreements extend beyond specific policies, as in broader conflicts between the executive and legislative branches over the budget, is it appropriate for the government to be fully or partially shut down?
The answer to both questions is a resounding “no”. Taxpayers deserve better from their government. Political brinkmanship that brings the threat of a shutdown, real or perceived, should not enter negotiations.
Unfortunately, it’s not just the federal government that faces funding disruptions. These battles are also playing out in the states, with North Carolina and Michigan serving as two recent examples of prolonged budget standoffs. In the Tar Heel State, where lawmakers have gone more than eight months without a current budget in place, citizens have benefited from a budget continuation measure.
A budget continuation law allows the government to keep operating, even when a new budget has not been enacted. It does not resolve the underlying political gridlock, but it ensures that government—especially essential services—continues to be funded. The rationale behind this policy is straightforward: it removes the threat of a shutdown as a point of leverage, ensuring that essential services are not used as bargaining chips while policymakers work through their differences.
A number of Iowa lawmakers are interested in bringing a similar measure to our state. This proposal is neither radical nor unprecedented. If enacted, Iowa would join sixteen other states that already have budget continuation laws on the books. In contrast to the routine dysfunction in Washington, D.C., Iowa has an opportunity to demonstrate a better way. The lesson from the DHS shutdown is clear: there are no winners when policy makers can’t find a compromise, it is the taxpayers and government employees who suffer the consequences. Having disagreements over policy is a part of politics and that will never change, but during intense disagreement, the budget should not become leverage just to score political victories.
Print a PDF