Senator Markwayne Mullin’s analysis of the government shutdown centered on two main political and fiscal points: the alleged hypocrisy and political motivation of Senator Chuck Schumer, and the detrimental constitutional effect of allowing a shutdown to occur.
1. The Fiscal & Immigration Dispute
Mullin argued that the immediate cause of the shutdown was Senator Schumer’s demand to reinstate a specific, massive spending measure that had been previously eliminated.
- The Reinstatement Cost: Schumer was demanding the inclusion of approximately $1.5 trillion in taxpayer spending as part of a Continuing Resolution (CR) designed to fund the government for only four weeks.
- Targeted Spending: Mullin claimed this funding was aimed at reinstating Medicaid and other federal benefits for “illegals” (referring to non-citizens who have entered the U.S. illegally). He stated that a prior budget bill (referred to as the “Big Beautiful Bill”) had explicitly cut this “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
- The Legal Loophole: Mullin specified that the Biden administration had paroled 98% of the estimated 20 million non-citizens who entered the country illegally. This parole status, according to Mullin, made them technically eligible for various Medicaid benefits that the Republicans sought to block through the spending bill.
2. Allegations of Political Hypocrisy
Senator Mullin accused Senator Schumer of being motivated purely by political survival rather than principle, pointing to his legislative record:
- Past Stance on Benefits: Mullin cited a 1996 comment from Schumer (when he was a Congressman) arguing that providing benefits to non-citizens “incentivized illegal entry” into the United States. Mullin contrasted this with Schumer’s current position, demanding the reinstatement of such benefits.
- Voting Record on CRs: Mullin noted that Schumer had previously voted for an identical “clean” Continuing Resolution (a bill to simply keep the government funded at existing levels without new policy riders) on 13 separate occasions. His current opposition to the same measure, Mullin argued, was a sign of fear concerning a potential primary challenge from the “far-left base” in future election cycles (2028 being the year mentioned).
3. The Constitutional Consequence of a Shutdown
Mullin highlighted the paradoxical impact of a government shutdown on the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches:
- Surrendered Power: By failing to pass a funding bill, the Legislative Branch (Congress) surrenders its constitutional control over the government’s operation.
- Unilateral Executive Authority: During a shutdown, the President gains unilateral authority to deem any government agency—and the employees within it—as “essential” or “non-essential.” This ability to selectively define and manage the workforce effectively transfers power that should belong to Congress to the Executive Branch.
- Budgetary Context: Mullin countered arguments that Republicans were attempting to severely “slash and burn” the federal workforce by noting that most federal agencies had grown by over 100% under the previous administration. He concluded that a 10% reduction was simply bringing efficiency back to a “bloated federal employee government.”
In summary, Senator Mullin characterized the event as the “Chuck Schumer Shutdown“—a politically motivated action that paradoxically increased the Executive Branch’s power while forcing taxpayers to incur immense debt to fund benefits that Schumer himself had previously opposed.
Senator Lankford’s Shutdown Analysis: Breaking the Bipartisan Precedent
Senator James Lankford delivered a critique of the ongoing government shutdown, expressing deep frustration over the failure to pass a continuing resolution and detailing what he perceives as a sudden, politically motivated shift by Democrats. His analysis focused on the abandonment of established bipartisan practices and the underlying policy demands that drove the crisis.
The Broken Status Quo
Senator Lankford highlighted an established, four-year precedent for handling budget deadlines:
- The Tradition: For the last four years, Congress has successfully passed a “clean” Continuing Resolution (CR) between September 28th and 30th every year. A clean CR temporarily funds the government at existing levels (status quo) to buy time to finalize complex appropriations bills.
- The Support: These clean CRs historically garnered wide bipartisan support because both parties recognized that a shutdown was detrimental, despite outstanding policy differences.
- The Current Change: Lankford noted the change in posture, stating that this year, Democrats decided they did not want a clean CR, effectively choosing to shut the government down.
The True Cost of the “Healthcare” Fight
Lankford challenged the Democratic narrative that the shutdown was solely about protecting “healthcare,” detailing several controversial and expensive provisions allegedly included in the Democratic short-term extension bill (which he noted was valued at $1.5 trillion).
- Permanent ACA Subsidies: The Democratic proposal aims to make a “COVID-era plus-up” tax credit for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) permanent. This subsidy was originally implemented as a temporary measure during a national health emergency. Lankford argued that the demand to make it permanent is an admission that the ACA is “not affordable” and cannot survive without enormous, ongoing government subsidies.
- Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants: The Democratic bill includes language that would explicitly give government healthcare benefits to individuals “illegally present in the United States.” This directly opposes the Republican-backed legislation (referred to by Senator Mullin as the “One Big Beautiful Bill”) that had previously eliminated such funding.
- Attack on Rural Health: In a move Lankford found contradictory to the “healthcare” narrative, the Democratic bill specifically repeals a $50 billion Rural Healthcare Fund that Republicans had established. Lankford emphasized that rural health providers are among the most vulnerable and that this repeal directly targets essential funding for these services.
Non-Healthcare Priorities
Lankford emphasized that the Democratic demands were not limited to health policy. Their proposed short-term spending extension contained several other major policy priorities that he suggested were being “crammed in” to force a Republican surrender:
- Funding for Foreign Climate initiatives.
- Special benefits and subsidies for Electric Vehicles (EV).
Conclusion: Federal Workers as Pawns
Senator Lankford concluded his remarks by lamenting the consequences of the political standoff. While acknowledging the complexities of the budget debate, he stressed the need to reopen the government immediately. He expressed deep concern for the federal workers, many of whom “love their country” and “serve because they love their country,” who were being forced to suffer the consequences of the shutdown and were being used as “pawns” in the partisan legislative battle.
