House Speaker Mike Johnson addressed the ongoing government shutdown during a Fox Business interview, criticizing Senate Democrats for rejecting a GOP-backed short-term funding bill. Johnson emphasized that House Republicans passed a clean continuing resolution (CR) weeks ago to keep the government operating through November 21, yet Senate Democrats have repeatedly blocked it.
The House-passed bill garnered 50 votes in the Senate, with Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Angus King (I-ME) breaking ranks to support it. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) did not vote. Johnson blamed the extended shutdown on what he described as partisan tactics by Democratic leadership, asserting they are more focused on appeasing their political base than solving the funding crisis.
Johnson claimed that the Republican CR is a nonpartisan, 24-page proposal aimed solely at keeping the government open while long-term appropriations are negotiated. He argued Democrats are pushing an alternative CR with unrelated spending measures, which Republicans oppose. He cited funding for public broadcasting and healthcare benefits for undocumented immigrants as examples of what he termed “wasteful spending.”
He further accused Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of bowing to pressure from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, stating their resistance is driven by fear of political backlash from within their base. Johnson described the Democrats’ CR as “not a serious proposal.”
In response to questions about negotiations, Johnson said Republicans have already offered a straightforward solution and there’s nothing left to compromise on. He insisted that previous shutdowns typically stemmed from partisan additions to CRs—something he claims Republicans avoided this time.
Johnson concluded by reiterating that Democrats previously supported similar measures, referencing Schumer’s March vote for a comparable CR. He attributed the shift to political concerns in Schumer’s home state of New York, rather than substantive policy differences.
