In the wake of election victories for the Democratic Party, when the party appeared well-positioned to assert leverage, the decision by a faction of Senate Democrats to side with Republicans and vote in favor of a continuing resolution to end the shutdown nonetheless raises serious concerns about strategy, leadership and long-term vision.
Context: Gains at the ballot box, but a treaty of retreat
Following a strong showing on Election Day for Democrats, many observers believed the time was ripe for bold legislative action. Voters appeared to be signalling openness to change, and the Democrats seemed to have momentum. Against that backdrop, the shutdown fight looked like an opportunity to press for meaningful concessions, especially on health care, but instead, the caucus allowed themselves to be pulled into a deal that sacrifices leverage.
The deal and who broke ranks
The deal in the Senate would reopen government funding, extend funding for certain agencies until late January, reverse many of the layoffs from the shutdown and guarantee back-pay for federal workers.
However, the agreement did not include a firm extension of the enhanced premium tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that millions of Americans depend on. It merely provided for a future vote in December on the credits, without any guarantee of passage.
The Senators who broke ranks and voted to advance the deal included:
- Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire)
- Maggie Hassan (D-New Hampshire)
- Tim Kaine (D-Virginia)
- Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
- Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada)
- Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada)
- John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania)
- Angus King (I-Maine) (who caucuses with the Democrats)
Conversely, Chuck Schumer (Senate Minority Leader) opposed the agreement, arguing that it undermined the caucus’s negotiating position.
Why this is problematic
Leadership and cohesion: The fact that multiple Democratic Senators crossed the aisle indicates a failure of the party leadership to hold the caucus together behind a common strategic objective. Schumer’s inability to deliver unanimity, or even broad support, undermines perceptions of readiness and unity.
Lost leverage: The Democrats had positioned the expiration of the enhanced ACA premium tax credits as a negotiating lever. But by reopening the government without securing the extension, they essentially ceded that leverage. The loss of such leverage means they may face worse outcomes in future negotiations.
Human cost and political cost: The coalition may have believed that reopening the government was urgent—and no doubt many Americans are suffering under the shutdown—but the deal still leaves the foremost Democratic policy objective (protecting health coverage affordability) unresolved. Meanwhile, millions of Americans face steep premium increases and potential loss of coverage if the credits expire. According to recent analysis, if the enhanced tax credits expire, the average marketplace enrollee’s premium payment may be more than double next year.
The stakes: Millions priced out of health coverage
One of the most striking consequences of this deal is the risk that many Americans will see their health insurance coverage become unaffordable. The enhanced ACA premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025 unless extended by Congress.
According to the analysis:
- Without the enhancements, average marketplace enrollees would face premium payment increases of about 114% — from roughly $888 in 2024/25 to about $1,904 in 2026.
- An estimated 4.8 million people could become uninsured in 2026 if the enhanced credits expire, and roughly 7 million would lose coverage or face very steep premium hikes.
In other words: by giving up negotiating leverage, the Democratic Senators who voted for this deal may have sealed the fate of millions who now face higher premiums or no coverage at all.
What could have been and still can be
If Democrats believed the shutdown could be used as leverage to secure a one-year extension of the subsidies, the more strategic path might have been to refuse to reopen without that condition baked in. Yes, that would have meant prolonging the shutdown and the attendant pain for federal workers and program beneficiaries, but the payoff could have been a firm policy win.
Going forward, Democrats should ensure that any continuing resolution or funding measure includes meaningful policy outcomes, not merely promises of future votes. They must translate election gains into legislative gains, not immediate retreats.
Conclusion
For the Democratic Party, this was a moment with serious potential. The electorate appeared to give them a mandate for change. But in the Senate’s vote, what appeared to be a strategic lever, the shutdown fight, was largely surrendered. The deal’s passage without securing the enhanced ACA tax credits means the party may be left empty-handed and vulnerable to criticism from its base.
Leadership matters. Leverage matters. And policy matters. If Democrats are serious about fulfilling the promise their voters gave them, they’ll need to ask hard questions: Why did we concede so early? What did we give up? And how will we prevent this from happening again?
—Greg Collier
