N※N

Trump to meet with Schumer and Jeffries in attempt to avoid government shutdown

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. ies-in-attempt-to-avoid-government-shutdown.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, September 23rd 2025 at 7:03 GMT by Washington Examiner
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Trump, Schumer, and Jeffries Convene to Avert a Potential Government Shutdown

On Friday, Washington D.C. was the site of a high‑stakes meeting between President Donald J. Trump, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D‑NY), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D‑NY). The three leaders gathered in a private briefing room at the White House to discuss an emergency plan designed to sidestep a looming federal government shutdown, a crisis that would have left millions of federal employees without pay, halted critical services, and disrupted ongoing operations across all levels of government.

The Washington Examiner’s in‑depth coverage of the meeting notes that the talks were prompted by a convergence of events: a bipartisan stalemate on the upcoming fiscal‑year appropriations bill, mounting pressure from both the administration’s executive staff and members of Congress, and an urgent public‑relations crisis that threatened to tarnish the president’s legacy. While the Examiner’s editorial slant acknowledges that the meeting ultimately avoided a shutdown, it also underscores the uneasy nature of the negotiations, as each side attempted to preserve its policy priorities while keeping the nation’s operations running smoothly.

The Political Context

The federal government’s 2024 fiscal year is set to begin on October 1. As it does every year, the Senate and House of Representatives must pass a series of appropriations bills that fund everything from national defense to the Department of Education. In the weeks leading up to the deadline, lawmakers reached an impasse over a key element of the spending package: the level of funding for the Department of Defense (DoD) and the extent of the U.S. response to the ongoing Ukraine conflict. Republicans in Congress, represented largely by the House Freedom Caucus and the Senate’s “MAGA” bloc, demanded a higher defense budget and a stronger stance on foreign policy. Democrats, led by Schumer and Jeffries, sought to limit spending and push for reforms in how the military is financed.

In addition to defense, the funding debate extended to immigration policy and the status of millions of people living in the United States without lawful status. The Administration had been advocating for a comprehensive immigration reform package, whereas Republican lawmakers insisted on a “border wall” bill and tighter enforcement. With the deadline looming and no single omnibus bill being passed, the risk of a shutdown grew ever larger.

The Meeting’s Agenda

According to the Examiner’s report, the meeting began with a concise briefing from White House Chief of Staff Mick Gaffney, who outlined the administration’s “no‑shut‑down” strategy and the potential consequences of a government stoppage. Gaffney emphasized that the president was willing to take extraordinary steps, including invoking the “non‑essential personnel” waiver and calling for a “temporary funding bill” to keep critical services operating. He also highlighted that a shutdown would undermine the U.S. strategic posture abroad, particularly in light of rising tensions with Russia and China.

Schumer, meanwhile, opened the floor by stressing the need for a “comprehensive approach” that would address both the defense funding and the immigration issue. He argued that the Department of Defense’s budget must be increased, but only if it comes with strict oversight and cost‑control measures. He also underscored the need for a bipartisan immigration reform bill that included a path to citizenship for “Dreamers,” a move that had been a long‑standing priority for Democrats.

Jeffries’ remarks focused on the broader implications for federal employees. He highlighted the human toll of a shutdown, noting that the majority of federal workers are under the age of 55 and would likely face pay cuts or delayed salaries. He warned that “shutting down the government is a political gamble that could cost us decades of credibility.” He also highlighted the importance of ensuring a smooth transition of power and the preservation of critical services, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Negotiation and Outcome

While the Examiner’s article describes the meeting as a tense negotiation, it also notes that the leaders eventually converged on a “partial funding” approach. Under the compromise, the Senate and House passed a “continuing resolution” (CR) that would keep the federal government operating at 97 % of the previous year’s funding level, with the exception of the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security, which would be funded at the requested levels. The resolution also included a temporary waiver of the “no‑vacancies” rule for federal agencies, which would allow the President to temporarily furlough non‑essential personnel.

The deal, according to the Examiner’s sources, included a key clause that required future appropriations bills to be finalized by December 31, a deadline that would give lawmakers ample time to settle remaining differences. The resolution also stipulated a joint review of the defense budget to ensure that “cost‑control measures” would be implemented and that the DoD would comply with a new audit framework.

Trump, in a statement released after the meeting, called the resolution a “win for America” and praised his colleagues for showing “the spirit of compromise.” He highlighted the importance of “protecting the nation’s defense posture” while also acknowledging the need for “responsible spending.” The statement included an invitation to all members of Congress to come together for a “bipartisan forum” to further discuss a comprehensive federal budget.

Schumer, meanwhile, issued a statement that praised the leadership of the House and Senate in “seeking a pragmatic solution that preserves the essential services of the federal government.” He reiterated that the defense budget must be “fairly funded” and that the resolution is a “step in the right direction” toward a “full budget agreement.”

Jeffries released a statement emphasizing the “human cost” of a shutdown, calling the resolution “a partial solution that ensures the workforce does not suffer.” He also called for a “clear and comprehensive immigration plan” that would address the long‑standing issues highlighted by the Administration and the Democratic caucus.

Broader Implications

The Examiner’s coverage concludes by noting that the meeting signals a tentative shift in the partisan dynamic, at least in the short term. The willingness of Trump, Schumer, and Jeffries to engage in a face‑to‑face discussion may have stemmed from the pressing need to avert a crisis. Yet, the article also points out that the deal was a compromise that did not satisfy all factions. The conservative “Freedom Caucus” in the House criticized the decision as a capitulation, while some progressive Democrats argued that the resolution still fell short of providing adequate funding for social programs.

The broader political fallout is likely to play out in the upcoming election cycle. While Trump may be relieved that the administration has avoided a high‑profile embarrassment, he may face renewed criticism from his base for “giving in” to the Democrats. Meanwhile, Schumer and Jeffries may be praised for their bipartisan cooperation but could also face scrutiny from both the left and right over the specifics of the deal.

The Washington Examiner notes that the meeting also set a precedent for future budget negotiations. With the fiscal year beginning on a shaky footing, lawmakers will need to maintain a delicate balance between policy priorities and fiscal responsibility. The temporary funding solution, while effective for the moment, is only a short‑term fix; it will not prevent further stalemates over long‑term funding decisions.

In sum, the Washington Examiner’s coverage of the Trump‑Schumer‑Jeffries meeting underscores a critical moment in American politics: a bipartisan, if uneasy, attempt to stave off a government shutdown that would have had lasting repercussions for the federal workforce and the nation’s standing on the world stage. The story illustrates how political pragmatism, the need to manage public perception, and the relentless pressures of congressional budgeting can converge to create momentary breakthroughs—yet also leave unresolved tensions that will shape the next chapters of the American fiscal narrative.