Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, will face a political test when Congress reconvenes this fall, as lawmakers consider a new funding bill to avert a government shutdown.
Why It Matters
Democratic voters across the country are increasingly frustrated by what they perceive as a weak response from congressional leaders to President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda. Congressional Democrats lack majorities in the House and Senate, limiting their ability to block his agenda, but voters have demanded stronger action from elected officials.
Schumer faced a wave of backlash from Democrats in March after refusing to block a stopgap bill proposed by Republicans to prevent a government shutdown. Schumer and eight other Democrats voted in favor of a procedural motion allowing debate on the bill but ultimately voted against its passage. However, Democratic critics say this vote allowed the bill to pass the filibuster and become law.
What To Know
Congress has until October 1 to pass a series of bills to fund the government through fiscal year 2026. Republicans hold slim majorities in both chambers—219-212 in the House and 53-47 in the Senate—meaning any vote on this bill could be close.
This presents a challenge for both parties: Republican leaders will have to appease both moderates in swing districts and conservatives who support the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.
However, Democrats like Schumer will face a difficult test: they will seek to appease their Democratic base and work with Republicans to secure concessions on these bills.
In March, Democrats across the party line expressed frustration that Schumer and other Democrats were advancing a spending bill while Republicans made no concessions to secure its support, which their critics said would cut critical programs. Democrats called on Schumer to run in a future primary or resign as party leader, which he refused to do.
Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, also a New York Democrat, sent a letter to Republican leaders, urging them to meet “to discuss the need to avoid a painful and unnecessary disruption of public funding and to address the Republican-created health care crisis in the United States.”
They wrote: “The public funding issue must be resolved in a bipartisan manner. It is the only viable path.”
In the past, Democrats have made significant concessions “on the assumption that the blame for a government shutdown might fall more on them than on Republicans,” Grant Davis Reher, a political science professor at Syracuse University, told Newsweek.
He added: “They run the same risk if they try to turn this new round of negotiations into a broader conflict over the Constitution and fundamental principles.” This will appeal to their party’s base, which is demanding more courage, but it’s still unclear what the consequences will be for the country as a whole.”
Reher said that the Senate, where a 60-vote majority is typically required to block debate on a bill, offers Democrats more room to mitigate Republican aspirations for budget cuts.
Reher added that Democrats’ strategy regarding the bill will depend largely on whether their goal is to mitigate future budget cuts or reverse existing cuts to programs like Medicaid or public broadcasting; they will need to be more assertive on the latter.
Anne Dannehy, senior associate dean and associate professor at Boston University’s School of Communication, told Newsweek that Schumer could find himself “in a difficult situation” and that how he communicates his decisions and voting process is crucial.
She added that Democrats have two opposing philosophies on how to approach this type of legislation.
Danehy said one camp of the party believes Democrats should “offer Republicans nothing” to demonstrate their opposition to “dismantling the federal government.”
She added, “Others, like Schumer, are saying, ‘We don’t really have a choice. We have to win something or lose everything, so we have to make concessions, or the American people will suffer greatly.’”
Danehy warned that growing Democratic anger over the issue would further weaken the party’s influence, which should be a concern for leaders as negotiations on budget bills begin.
Reher and Danehy wondered if a more progressive Democrat could challenge Schumer in 2028 if he chose to run again, even if he would again face the anger of part of his base.
“There’s been a lot of talk about a credible challenge in the primaries, but I don’t see that happening, or at least succeeding. Senator Schumer is not Joseph Crowley; he remains very focused on New York state and local communities,” Reher said. “He’s not going to ignore the potential threat. Taking on a credible opponent would be a significant risk.”
However, others have mentioned potential candidates, such as Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx in Congress, as a potential replacement for Schumer in 2028, if she doesn’t run for president.
Some polls suggest that Ocasio-Cortez may have an initial advantage over Schumer. A Data for Progress poll of 767 likely New York voters conducted March 26-31 showed Ocasio-Cortez leading Schumer with 54% of the vote to 36%.
But primaries won’t take place for years, and the political landscape could change after the 2026 midterm elections, when Democrats hope to regain control of the House and Senate. As a result, it’s unclear what the Democrats’ top issues will be in 2028.
What People Are Saying
Grant Davis Reeher, professor of political science at Syracuse University, also told Newsweek: “We’ve seen from polling that a lot of the Republican and Trump initiatives so far are not terribly popular, and that the public has some real concerns about some of the spending cuts, and the war on the federal workforce. Democrats should keep the focus on those things going into the midterms and not let the question of who is to blame for stalled negotiations on keeping the government running interfere with that focus. In that sense, I tend to agree with Senator Schumer.”
Senator Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told NBC News host Kristen Welker on a Meet the Press interview in March: “I knew when I cast my vote against the government shutdown that there would be a lot of controversy. And there was. But let me tell you and your audience why I did it, why I felt it was so important. The CR [continuing resolution] was certainly bad…But a shutdown would be 15 or 20 times worse. Under a shutdown, the Executive Branch has sole power to determine what is, quote, ‘essential.’ And they can determine without any court supervision.”