Shared Sacrifice: Why Senators Shouldn’t Get Paid While Federal Workers Go Without

Photo via WTOP

***

Government shutdowns have become a tool in American politics for minority parties to convey frustration to their base. It has also become a tactic to slow down the opposing political agendas of parties in power. 

The most recent employment of this strategy occurred in the wake of ICE’s Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis. Two American citizens, Renne Nicole Good and Alex Peretti, were shot and killed by ICE agents.

In the wake of this tragedy, Senate Democrats refused to advance key Department of Homeland Security funding bills, effectively leveraging the threat of a government shutdown to demand reforms to ICE’s conduct, including stricter warrant requirements, body cameras, and greater transparency. 

By withholding the votes necessary to pass appropriations, Democrats transformed a routine budget process into a broader confrontation over federal authority and accountability, illustrating precisely how shutdown politics can be used not only as obstruction but as a mechanism to force policy concessions in moments of national outrage.

Yet, while shutdown strategies can yield political concessions, they come at a tangible cost. The government shutdown disrupts federal services and delays public employees’ pay. This most recently manifested in the Transportation Security Administration. TSA agents deemed essential are forced to work without pay, leading to increased absenteeism, longer airport lines, and heightened concern about national security. 

Though it’s not just TSA, 260,000 Department of Homeland Security employees went 40 days without paychecks. Meanwhile, members of Congress have been receiving pay as normal. 

For many of these workers, missing even one paycheck can make it difficult to cover rent, groceries, or childcare. Unlike members of Congress, who earn six-figure salaries and enjoy financial stability. 

The result is a system in which the burdens of political conflict are disproportionately borne by those with the least power in the process.

Any fair-minded American would grant that members of Congress receiving paychecks while denying pay to millions of DHS members is not virtuous. 

Senators should not be able to use a federal employee’s paycheck as a political pawn without sacrificing their own paychecks. In America, we call that shared values, and the most sacred chamber of governance in the country ought to reflect those values. 

Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana shares this perspective. Which is why, in his second term, the senator drafted a resolution banning Senate members from receiving pay during government shutdowns until the shutdown ends. 

To be clear, no one loses their money. It’s the equivalent of the bank holding it until the government reopens.  

Unfortunately, Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii struck down the resolution on the floor, killing the motion. Upon objecting to the resolution, Senator Schatz offered no reason and simply left the chamber. 

Thankfully, Senator Kennedy has vowed to continue his fight, “I’ll be back,” he said. And he should, because what message does it send to the American people when its government denies paychecks to hundreds of thousands of hardworking Americans but insists on getting paid?

Decisions like this are why every year the Senate has the same popularity as a Monday morning alarm. Thus, the Senate has an opportunity to regain some of the trust lost during the Trump era and beyond. 

Critics of this Kennedy resolution argue that withholding congressional pay would do little to resolve or deter future shutdowns and discourage qualified individuals from entering public service. Yet, that is not what this is about, “this is about shared sacrifice,” says Senator Kennedy. 

A United States Congress member earns 170,000 dollars a year, roughly 2.5 times the average American citizen’s income. So, if federal employees are expected to endure missed paychecks in the name of political strategy, then lawmakers should be willing to endure the same burden.

Without that shared sacrifice, the message to the American people is clear: the costs of governance are not distributed equally; they are selectively imposed. That is precisely the kind of imbalance that erodes trust, fuels cynicism, and deepens the divide between the public and the institutions meant to represent them. 

In the end, government shutdowns reveal far more than mere partisan resistance. They expose a troubling era in which a vocal minority demands radical progressive governance, even when it openly defies the democratic majority’s clear will.

If the Senate insists on using this tactic, which forces federal employees to sacrifice their paychecks, then senators must bear the same burden. No exemptions. No special treatment. True leadership demands shared sacrifice, not selective suffering.

***

This article was edited by Catherine Hart Sheehy and Cameron Ma.