Shutdown Fights Energize Democrats, but Strategists Say Voters Want Economic Answers

Democrats have forced two historic shutdowns, but strategists say the strategy lacks a message on cost of living.

The U.S. Capitol during the 34th day of the government shutdown in Washington on Nov. 3, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Over the past six months, Democrats have done something strategists say their own voters had been demanding: They picked a fight and refused to back down.

The party held firm through a 43-day government shutdown last fall—the longest in U.S. history at the time—and is doing it again in the ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding standoff, which reached its 55th day on April 9 with no resolution in sight.

Democrats have framed the shutdowns as a refusal to fund agencies they say are overstepping their authority. Republicans have cast the same actions as obstruction that is preventing the government from functioning.

But strategists and political scientists across party lines say Democrats face a problem that no amount of legislative brinkmanship can solve on its own: Voters still want to know how any of it will make their lives more affordable.

The Democratic National Committee acknowledged publicly last week that the party’s approach to reaching voters needs an overhaul, releasing a campaign playbook that addressed organizing mechanics but left open the broader question of what Democrats stand for beyond opposition to President Donald Trump. The shutdown fights may represent one answer to that question.

2 Shutdowns

The September 2025 shutdown began after Senate Democrats blocked a Republican continuing resolution, demanding an extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies and protections against Medicaid cuts included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The standoff lasted 43 days before a group of eight Democrats voted to advance a funding deal that extended government operations through January.

The current standoff—which began on Feb. 14—centers on DHS funding. After the fatal shootings of two individuals in Minneapolis during immigration enforcement operations there earlier this year, Democrats refused to approve funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which operates under DHS, without reforms to the agency’s practices.

The Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent in late March to fund most of DHS, while leaving ICE and Customs and Border Protection out. The House rejected the measure in a 213–203 vote and passed its own eight-week stopgap, which Senate Democrats said would not pass their chamber. Both chambers left for Easter recess and are not scheduled to return until the week of April 13.

The standoff has had tangible effects. The Transportation Security Administration’s acting administrator told lawmakers in late March that more than 460 officers had quit during the shutdown and that some airports were seeing 40 percent to 50 percent of their workforce calling out on certain days, leading to high wait times nationwide.

Trump signed a memorandum on April 3 calling for all DHS employees to be paid. The move eased some immediate pressure but did not resolve the underlying funding dispute.

What Democrats Say

Avis Jones-DeWeever, a political scientist and principal of Nouveaux Strategies, a progressive strategic communications firm based in National Harbor, Maryland, said in an email that the approach is deliberate.

“Democrats understand that the American people—inclusive of their base, but also far beyond that—are looking for a level of fight in the Democratic Party that heretofore has been completely insufficient, if it ever existed at all,” Jones-DeWeever said.

Liam Buckley, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which oversees House races for the party, said Democrats are focused on affordability while also demanding ICE reforms.

“House Democrats’ number one priority is lowering the cost of living and making it easier for families to afford everyday essentials like health care,” Buckley said in an emailed statement.

“At the same time, Americans are outraged over the unlawful actions by ICE and are demanding basic reforms that the majority of Americans support. These messages are resonating with voters, leading Democrats to overperform massively in special elections, and it’s what will help us to flip the House this November.”

What Strategists Say

James Christopher, founder and managing director of James Christopher Communications, said in an email that Democrats are not trying to win the shutdown in the traditional sense.

“[They are] trying to send a different signal: that they are finally willing to impose a cost on executive overreach instead of simply denouncing it and moving on,” he said.

However, he said, voters are not paying close attention to procedural battles in Washington. He pointed to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted in February that found that 78 percent of Americans say inflation is a very big concern for them personally.

“The most effective version of this strategy is not ‘we shut it down and held firm,’” Christopher said. “It is ‘we were willing to fight because Republicans were making your life more expensive, less secure, or less fair.’

“Shutdown brinkmanship can be proof of seriousness. It cannot be the product Democrats are selling in November.

“It can also backfire fast if the public mostly experiences the fight as airport delays, missed paychecks, and Washington dysfunction.”

Jones-DeWeever said the party has not paired its actions with messaging that explains the fights in terms voters can relate to.

She called the strategy “a high-stakes high-wire act” in which Democrats find themselves “attempting to respond to calls to resist while understanding that this type of resistance leads to uncomfortable economic impacts on some in the short term, with the hope that this pain will lead to better outcomes for more Americans in [the long run].”

She added that the approach will likely work because shutdowns are only one of multiple factors squeezing voters’ wallets, and Democrats can “lay the blame squarely on the choices of those in the White House.”

Allen J. Wiener, an author, historian, and political scientist, said the DHS standoff is especially challenging because immigration is not an issue on which Democrats hold a natural advantage with voters.

“By standing firm on DHS funding and being vocal about it, the party can win back some of its own voters, especially if Democrats in Congress frame the funding fight around more specific issues, particularly Trump’s heavy-handed approach to immigration,” Wiener said in an email to The Epoch Times.

But he said the fights carry a shelf life.

“If there’s no agreement in the short term, it might be difficult for Democrats to sustain support through the November elections,” Wiener said. He said the party would be better positioned by pivoting toward issues voters feel more directly—such as inflation, health care, and rising gas prices tied to the war in Iran.

Dual Risks

Wiener also warned that the approach carries political risk if Republicans seize the framing. Democrats’ stand on DHS funding “could backfire if Republicans gain control of the message and frame Democratic refusal to fund DHS as a weakness on national security or a threat to emergency response,” he said.

Jeff Burton, a Republican strategist and cofounding partner at Maven Advocacy, said the fights are not producing clear winners for either party.

“For Republicans, this is a draw at best,” Burton said in an email. “In shutdown fights, the party in power usually gets blamed.

“In the end, voters will judge Republicans on whether they feel better off, and right now, on the economy, cost of living, and safety, the answer is no.”

The Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not respond to requests for comment.