A Shutdown Threat Looming in Late 2016
A Divided Political Landscape
Washington is a deeply fractured place after the 2016 election. Republicans maintained majorities in both the House and Senate, and Democrats sought to defend Obama’s legacy as he approached the end of his term. Trump’s surprise win brought a new degree of turbulence, as his policy priorities — repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and increases in military spending, for example — were at odds with demands from Democrats.
Federal agencies were working under a measure to temporarily fund them passed in September 2016, which lapsed on Dec. 9. A lapse in funding in the absence of a new budget or a continuing resolution (CR) would shut down non-essential government functions, impacting everything from national parks to defense contracts.
Key Sticking Points
Several of these divisive issues threatened to disrupt negotiations:
Obamacare funding: Republicans tried to eliminate subsidies under the A.C.A., and Democrats said they wouldn’t accept cuts to health care protections.
Military Spending: G.O.P. leaders sought to increase the defense budget, but Democrats insisted on equal treatment for domestic programs.
Policy Riders: Add-ons of a partisan flavor — like environmental regulations and funding for Planned Parenthood — threatened to turn the CR into a political war zone.
Things got even more complicated with Trump’s transition team. Although not yet in power, Trump’s public comments — like his cries to “drain the swamp” — inspired conservatives to push for concessions, making bipartisan negotiations more difficult.
The Role of the Lame-Duck Congress
With Obama in office, Republicans who controlled Congress had an incentive to pass a clean CR that postponed any major skirmishes until 2017. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) prioritized stability, showing an awareness of how a government shutdown would reflect poorly on their party just before Trump’s inauguration. And as McConnell put it, “Our focus is making sure that we have an orderly transition—not picking fights that we can have next year.”
A Temporary Fix and Bipartisan Talks
The Continuing Resolution: Deals, Terms and Compromise
Just over a month later, on Dec. 8, 2016, Congress enacted a CR extending government funding until April 28, 2017. The bill Obama signed contained several key provisions:
Military Funding: An increase of $5.8 billion for the defense budget, reflecting the G.O.P.’s priorities.
Disaster Relief: $4.1 billion for places hit by floods and hurricanes.
Health care: Stopgap funding for the ACA’s subsidies, putting GOP efforts to repeal the law on hold.
No Poison Pills: Both sides steered clear of contentious policy riders, rallying behind a “clean” CR.
The resolution passed with wide bipartisan support (326–96 in the House; 63–36 in the Senate), indicative of a rare moment of comity.
Stakeholders and Strategies
Democrats: Used their minority status in the Senate to improve partisan amendments. “We put a line in the sand on healthcare,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said. “This CR protects working families.”
It was all under the umbrella of the agenda Trump would ultimately get to pursue. Basic: Republicans: Toweled up on punting difficult issues until 2017. “We’re going to have a Republican president soon,” Ryan said. “This gives us time to negotiate from a position of strength.”
Trump’s Team: Supported the CR behind closed doors to prevent an early warning. The adviser Kellyanne Conway described it as “a down payment on the president-elect’s vision.”
Avoiding Partisan Pitfalls
What made the CR work was delaying ideological battles. By avoiding disputes over funding for a border wall, climate initiatives and social programs, lawmakers focused on short-term calm. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) hailed the approach as “smart governance, not surrender.”
Repercussions for the Trump Administration and Future
Carving Out Trump’s Early Agenda
That gave Trump a 100-day window — on April 28, the funding deadline — to do what he wanted to do. His administration soon unveiled a budget that would have cut domestic initiatives such as the E.P.A. and State Department while increasing defense and border security. But the CR’s bipartisan vibes didn’t last long. By April 2017, the discussions were so fraught that a near-shutdown was avoided only by a weeklong extension — a familiar pattern during Trump’s presidency.
A Lesson in Bipartisanship vs. Polarization
The 2016 CR showed Congress could work together in a crunch. But it also highlighted the fragility of such agreements. Later shutdowns — the 35-day stalemate in 2018–2019 over funding for a border wall among them — revealed increasing partisan chasms. The 2016 episode became a model for Band-Aid solutions rather than permanent fixes.
Lasting Effects on Budgetary Politics
The dependence on CRs has increased. But there were nearly two decades in which Congress enacted more than 130 stopgap measures, undermining long-term planning. The former Obama budget director Shaun Donovan condemned the trend: “Governing by crisis weakens public trust and suppresses innovation.”
The CR brought a momentary lull for Trump but foreshadowed conflicts. His administration’s aggressive tactics, including threats of vetoes and the use of shutdowns as leverage, stood in stark contrast to the compromise from 2016.
Conclusion: A Temporary Truce in Washington’s Funding Wars
At a time of gridlock, avoidance of a December 2016 government shutdown was a temporary victory. By putting stability ahead of ideology, Congress guaranteed a smooth transition for Trump — but kicked the can down the road on larger fights over health care, immigration and fiscal policy. These short-term fixes have since defined U.S. budgetary politics, resulting in a system that is increasingly incapable of working through competing visions.
As Trump readied to enter office, the CR epitomized one, a window into what was possible, and two, a reminder of the conflict that was unavoidable. As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, “We kicked the can, but the can keeps coming back. For lawmakers as for presidents, the question is whether they can govern beyond the next deadline.
