Virginia Democrat on possible shutdown: ‘It's time to stand up for the American people'
'I say it's time to stand up for the American people,' Subramanyam said in an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' when asked what he thinks about a potential shutdown.
'It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican. I mean, I'm hearing from both sides. They're fed up with this administration, and they want to see some changes, not just in this administration, but even in the Democratic Party,' he continued.
'And, so, yes, absolutely, the time to fight was yesterday,' he added.
Republicans are ramping up efforts to pass a rescissions package that President Trump requested last month, which includes more than $9 billion in funding cuts for foreign aid and public broadcasting programs.
However, the push faces staunch opposition from Democrats, who argue that the executive branch's efforts to undermine previous funding decisions made on a bipartisan basis by Congress could further erode trust between the two sides in current talks.
And they are warning that the efforts threaten bipartisan negotiations to fund the government ahead of a September shutdown deadline.
Subramanyam said he thinks it's important Democrats use the leverage they have now.
'We need to continue to make sure that when we do have leverage — the few times we do have leverage — we have to use it,' he said. 'And we have to strike a hard bargain and not just fold in the last minute.'
'And so, I do think that we should fight,' he added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Senate makes progress in averting a gov't shutdown much earlier than usual
The Senate took a significant step towards averting an impending partial government shutdown by passing a tranche of funding bills much earlier than usual. Senators approved three of the 12 appropriations bills Friday needed to forestall a partial shutdown, including ones to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture, new military facilities, and Congress itself. 'We are on the verge of an accomplishment that we have not done since 2018, and that is, pass appropriations bills across the Senate floor prior to the August recess,' Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R–Maine) cheered before the upper chamber reached the feat. 'That is exercising our constitutional responsibility for the power of the purse.' The three appropriations bills that clear the Senate are typically viewed as the less controversial ones to get across the finish line. Still, it comes amid significant hurdles toward preventing the looming autumn shutdown. 4 Sen. Susan Collins helped broker the deal to get the three appropriations bills passed through the Senate. REUTERS 4 Senate Majority Leader John Thune has eaten into the August recess to clear up the upper chamber's lengthy to-do list. Democrats widely see the shutdown fight as a rare instance in which they have leverage in Congress and have been vexed by President Trump's use of impoundment and rescissions to make spending cuts without their approval. Moreover, Congress hasn't actually passed the 12 appropriations bills to properly fund the government on time since 1997. Each fiscal year, which starts on Oct. 1, Congress is tasked with funding the government to prevent a partial shutdown. Congress has typically relied on a mechanism known as continuing resolutions, or CRs, to put government spending on autopilot for stretches of time. CRs and appropriations bills are subject to the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster in the Senate and must be bipartisan, which is why Congress typically struggles with the process. 4 Sen. Patty Murray said the deal will help prevent some of the cuts Democrats opposed. The current fiscal year is running on what turned into a yearlong CR, and there have been some murmurs in the House about doing so again for Fiscal Year 2026. Senators voted 87-9 on Friday for a two-bill minibus to fund the VA and Department of Agriculture. They then voted 81–15 on the third appropriations bill to fund Congress. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democratic appropriator, argued the small-scale deal 'rejects damaging cuts from Trump and House Republicans,' despite progressive complaints. The Senate still has nine more appropriations bills to take up: Commerce, Defense, Energy, Financial Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, State and Transportation. The Senate Appropriations Committee has already approved about half of those, inching them closer to a full chamber vote. 4 Oftentimes, government shutdown fights come down to the wire. REUTERS Those appropriations bills will need to be green-lit by the House of Representatives, which is on August recess, and signed into law by President Trump. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has eaten into the August recess while seeking to wrangle through key Trump nominations and chip away at the backlog. He is currently negotiating with Democrats on a deal to expedite that process.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas House committee advances GOP-friendly map
A Texas state House panel on Saturday advanced proposed congressional maps that aim to make the Lone Star State's district lines even friendlier to Republicans. The Texas House Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting voted to advance a set of maps that would give Republicans five more pick-up opportunities ahead of 2026 and would impact lawmakers in the Dallas-Forth, Austin, Houston and Rio Grande Valley areas. The move tees up a floor vote in the House, where the map will be considered by all members. With an 88-62 GOP majority in the state House, the maps are expected to pass the lower chamber easily. President Trump is looking to pick up five seats in Texas as Republicans brace for an unfavorable political environment in the midterms next year. Republicans are considering pick-up opportunities in Missouri, Indiana and Florida as well. Texas Democrats have limited options to respond, given Republicans enjoy a decisive majority in the state legislature and in the governor's office, though the map is expected to draw litigation. Democrats could try to break quorum — the number of lawmakers needed in order to conduct business — as they did in 2003 when Texas Republicans engaged in mid-cycle redistricting, yet it would do little to thwart eventually passing a new map. Democrats are also weighing their options for mid-cycle redistricting in blue states as a response. California is seriously considering several options – either through a ballot initiative or through the state legislature – to redraw its maps. Democratic governors in New York, New Jersey and Illinois are leaving the door open to considering redrawing their maps. The redistricting tit-for-tat is paving the way for a tumultuous election year that could upend multiple maps, setting off a scramble over which districts candidates run in and potentially impacting when primaries happen depending on whether those issues can be resolved quickly.
CNN
6 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Donald Trump FacebookTweetLink Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
