Democrats threaten shutdown in the US; understand

While Trump grows, Democrats risk the last card in a theater that borders on collapse

The clock advances to the end of September – the date when US federal government financing needs to be renewed – and the Democratic Party faces a painful but necessary choice: giving in to authoritarianism disguised as a government or assuming the political cost of resisting, even if it means temporarily paralyzing the state machine.

This is not a staging. It is not drama. It is institutional defense.

Read too:
Trump and the economic war against quarterly transparency
Microsoft starts countdown 30 days to the end of Windows 10

Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, his conduct has not changed – he has only intensified. Systematic attacks on the press, intimidation of opponents, use of the federal force against protesters, promises of political revenge and an agenda that despises civil rights, environmental protections and the rule of law. Given this, Democrats cannot pretend to “negotiate the budget” is a neutral act. To fund this government without conditions is, yes, to become an accomplice of its authoritarian escalation.

Yes, the popularity of the party is down. Yes, many voters are frustrated. But this is not due to the “radicalization” of the left – but the failure to communicate, with clarity and courage, what is at stake: not just public policies, but the very survival of American democracy.

When it is said that “who starts a shutdown loses,” they forget to mention that in 1995 Bill Clinton was strengthened because he defended investments in health and education. In 2013, Republicans were defeated because they tried to sabotage access to health of millions. In 2018, they lost support because they insisted on a racist and ineffective wall. That is: the people do not punish who for the government on a whim – punishes who for the wrong reasons.

Today, the reason is certain: prevent a government with autocratic trends from continuing to operate without limits.

It is easy to ridicule activists who attend the assemblies asking for “resistance to prison.” But behind this emotional appeal is an uncomfortable truth: when institutions fail, when courts are captured, when the media is silenced, the people remain – and their representatives – say “no.” Even if it costs dearly. Even if it causes discomfort.

Democrats are not proposing a shutdown for revenge or stubbornness. They are proposing because there is no other institutional lever available. Congress is the latest equilibrium stronghold of powers-and refusing to use it is delivering the game before it even starts.

Of course, the party needs – and must – rethink its agenda. You need to talk to forgotten workers, the urban and rural peripheries, with indebted young people, with mothers who can’t take care of their children because there are no day care nurseries or decent wages. You need to present real migratory control proposals – yes, with humanity, but also with order. You need to hold universities that explore students, and redirect resources for technical training, vocational courses and real employment policies.

But this cannot – nor should – be done in exchange for silence in the abuse of power. Reforms and resistance are not opposite – they are complementary. A fair future is not built on top of an authoritarian gift.

Trump is not just an unpopular politician. It is a systemic risk. And expect it to self -work, or that the market disciplines it, or that “republican moderation” contains it, is dangerous illusion.

If the Democrats are shut up now, under the pretext of “avoiding Shutdown”, they are paving the way for something much worse: the normalization of authoritarianism. And then, when the next step comes – perhaps the closure of courts, perhaps censorship of the press, perhaps the arrest of opponents – there will be no more brakes. Neither shutdowns. Nor congress. Nor democracy.

Resisting is not theater. It is duty. And right now, it is perhaps the last duty left.

The turning point is not retreating. It is clearly saying, “So far, not a step further.” Even if it costs dearly. Because the price of doing nothing will be much higher.

With information from Financial Times*