Shut down the $#@&ing government already

Senator Schumer is a $#@&ing asshole (and then some)

Right now, the vote is underway to pass Donald Trump’s budget, and—as always—the Democrats are about to $#%% the bed.

My kids love making fun of the French, especially when we were in France. Their argument? The French are nothing but “surrender monkeys.” When I pointed out, “What did you expect Gamelin to do? Get annihilated?” they weren’t having it. Instead, they pivoted to the hypocrisy of French policy after their surrender, especially under Vichy France. (If this sounds like an odd thing to fight about as a family, well… welcome to our dinner table.)

The reality? The French, aside from their collapse in the face of the Nazis, weren’t exactly the spineless caricature they’re made out to be. Before they folded, they were considered the most feared army in history.

Oops.

So maybe the Democrats and the French do have something in common. They were once formidable, too. But unlike the French, who at least waited for the first shot before surrendering, the Democrats fold before the fight even starts.

If the French are “surrender monkeys,” the Democrats are super surrender monkeys.

And the justification they’re offering? Ridiculous.

This is exactly why I wrote The Erasure of America—because when it mattered, Democrats did nothing. It’s why I keep saying that politics in America has become pure performance art.

I know how this sounds. Like I need a padded room and a bucket of Xanax.

Maybe I do.

But today, I want to talk about the sheer idiocy of this maneuver. They’re calling it the “smart play.”

If that’s true, I’m struggling to see it.

Let’s dig in.

If we shut down the government, Trump does whatever he wants

First, en arguendo, if true—so what? He’s already doing that. (I’ll come back to that premise in a moment.)

But, second, let’s talk about what the President’s powers are during a budget impasse.

Shutdown Showdown: What a President Can (and Can’t) Do When the Government Runs Out of Money

A government shutdown isn’t just political theater—it’s a logistical nightmare for the executive branch. The President, the supposed head of the government, suddenly finds their hands tied by a simple but unyielding reality: they cannot spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress.

In the event of a shutdown, the government doesn’t grind to a complete halt, but it does seize up in uncomfortable ways. The President, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is forced to triage the federal bureaucracy, deciding which operations continue and which go dark. Military operations? They keep running. Social Security checks? Still issued. TSA workers at the airport? They’re still there—but without pay. National parks? Likely closed. Scientists at the NIH researching cancer treatments? Sent home. The government is still working, but it’s limping.

The Powers of a President in a Shutdown

The President can declare certain government functions "essential" or "excepted," keeping agencies like the military, law enforcement, and air traffic control operational. But there’s a catch—essential employees must work without pay until Congress fixes the problem. Federal workers have been through this before: the shutdown ends, they get their back pay, and Washington pats itself on the back for solving a crisis of its own making.

The President can also use emergency authorities, but this is a legal minefield. If there’s a direct national security threat—an attack, a war, a cyber event—the President has some latitude to redirect funds. But using emergency powers to sidestep Congress and keep the entire government running? That’s where the law draws a hard line. The Antideficiency Act (ADA), a relic of the 19th century, explicitly prohibits government agencies from spending money that hasn’t been appropriated. Violating it isn’t just a bureaucratic no-no—it’s a crime.

The Treasury Department, under the President’s direction, can engage in some financial gymnastics to keep the lights on a little longer. This means shifting money around, deferring payments, or taking "extraordinary measures" (such as pausing investments in government retirement funds) to avoid hitting the debt ceiling. But these moves are stall tactics, not solutions—they don’t create new money, they just buy time.

What the President Cannot Do

What the President cannot do is just as important as what they can. The Constitution is clear: Congress holds the power of the purse. The President cannot unilaterally appropriate money, shift funds at will, or create new revenue streams to sidestep a shutdown. They also can’t mandate work without pay—except for those deemed “essential.” That’s why hundreds of thousands of federal workers get furloughed, while others (Border Patrol agents, military personnel, air traffic controllers) show up to work with no guarantee of a paycheck until the crisis is resolved.

And if the shutdown coincides with a debt ceiling crisis? The President cannot issue new debt without congressional approval. This is where things get dangerous—if Congress refuses to act, the U.S. could default on its obligations, triggering an economic meltdown.

So this is how it’s supposed to work. Right? It’s not working that way, but ok, this is how it was supposed to work.

Schumer’s biggest argument is that “Oh noes! Courts!’

Ok, let’s talk about courts.

Selective Lawlessness: The Systematic Approach to Doing Whatever They Want

Court orders are supposed to be final and binding upon the other branches of government. They aren’t polite suggestions, and they don’t come with an optional compliance checkbox. In a functioning democracy, the executive branch enforces the law—even when it doesn’t like the ruling.

That’s not happening.

By and large, Trump’s administration isn’t complying with judicial orders. It’s not just occasional defiance; it’s a systematic approach to ignoring legal constraints and pushing their agenda regardless of what the courts say. The message is clear: rulings may be issued, but enforcement is optional.

Take the recent ruling against Trump’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) ban. A judge blocked his executive order that shut down DEI programs in federal contracting. That should have been the end of it. But reports show that agencies are still enforcing the ban, either under Trump’s direct orders or because they’ve been given implicit permission to pretend the ruling doesn’t exist.

Then there’s the mass firing of federal employees. Two judges ruled that Trump’s purge of thousands of civil servants was illegal and ordered their reinstatement. The administration’s response? Ignore it and file an appeal. No rush to comply, no steps taken to return those workers to their jobs—just more delays and legal maneuvering while people’s livelihoods hang in the balance. The White House even went so far as to call the ruling “unconstitutional,” which should tell you everything about their approach to legal checks on their power.

And then there’s the USAID document destruction scandal—where employees were reportedly instructed to shred government records despite laws requiring their preservation. That’s not just ignoring a court ruling—that’s actively erasing evidence, treating federal record-keeping laws as if they don’t apply to this administration.

If this were one or two isolated incidents, it might be chalked up to bureaucratic inertia. But it’s not. It’s a pattern. A strategy. A blueprint for how to sidestep judicial authority while pretending the system is still intact. Trump’s team has figured out the game:

1. If a court blocks something, just keep doing it. Maybe the ruling will get overturned on appeal. Maybe it won’t. But in the meantime, the policy keeps moving forward.

2. If a judge orders compliance, slow-walk it. Delay, appeal, refuse to implement it until forced—and even then, find a way around it.

3. If legal challenges keep coming, change tactics. When one executive order gets blocked, draft another with slightly different wording. When an injunction halts enforcement, find a new way to get the same result.

This isn’t just about stretching executive power—it’s about outright ignoring the rule of law. Trump’s team knows that courts don’t have their own enforcement mechanisms. Judges can rule, but they don’t have federal agents at their disposal to ensure compliance. And if the executive branch itself refuses to enforce judicial decisions against it, what happens next?

We’re finding out in real time.

So the argument is, “No courts, no control, no budget, no control” - problem is, that’s already the status quo condition

Budgets are supposed to be Congress’s job. The executive branch doesn’t get to unilaterally decide where money goes or which agencies live and die. But that’s exactly what Trump is doing—ignoring appropriations, redirecting funds, and gutting programs as if the budget is just a vague suggestion.

The most blatant example? The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—yes, it’s actually called that. Trump took the United States Digital Service and, with the stroke of a pen, turned it into a cost-cutting demolition crew under Elon Musk’s control. DOGE has been canceling federal contracts, slashing jobs, and even seizing agency data, all under the guise of “reducing government waste.” The problem? None of this was authorized by Congress. The budget doesn’t give DOGE this power, and yet, the firings and restructuring keep rolling forward. Judges have started stepping in, but as we’ve seen, Trump’s team isn’t exactly big on compliance.

Then there’s the federal funding freeze, which the administration announced under the pretense of stopping “wasteful spending.” Trump went as far as claiming he was preventing taxpayer dollars from being used on “condoms for Hamas.” Sounds dramatic, except that the actual program in question was an HIV and tuberculosis prevention fund for Mozambique. When pressed on this blatant misrepresentation, the White House shrugged. Meanwhile, billions in humanitarian and foreign aid were quietly delayed or redirected, all without legislative approval.

And then there’s the “deferred resignation” scam—a program that offered federal employees paid leave until September 30 if they agreed to resign by February 6. The goal was obvious: shrink the government without outright firing people. The problem? It’s illegal. The Antideficiency Act prohibits the government from committing funds without congressional appropriations, and this program was little more than a backdoor way to bypass Congress’s control over federal employment. A judge blocked it, but like everything else, compliance remains an open question.

Meanwhile, USAID has been gutted. Over 83% of its programs have been slashed, and the administration fired its Inspector General after he raised concerns about $8.2 billion in unspent humanitarian funds being left to rot. This wasn’t just about budget cuts—it was about dismantling oversight. Without an IG watching the books, no one knows where that money is going, and that’s exactly the point.

This isn’t mismanagement. It’s not accidental. This is a deliberate strategy—gut agencies, ignore Congress, and bulldoze past the courts. The Trump administration is testing just how much executive power they can seize before someone forces them to stop. And so far? No one has.

So what is the $#@& what is this all about?

It’s about control.

The Democrats, despite holding power, are acting like a battered opposition party, playing defense against an administration that no longer bothers with pretense. They’re operating under the outdated assumption that rules still apply—that the government functions as a checks-and-balances system rather than a raw contest of will.

But here’s the problem: rules only matter when both sides agree to follow them. If one side ignores the rules, refuses to enforce court orders, disregards budgetary constraints, and overrides legal precedent, then playing by the old rulebook is self-delusion. You’re bringing a spoon to a gunfight.

That’s what’s happening right now. Democrats think they’re “protecting institutions” by refusing to use hardball tactics, by preemptively surrendering in the hope that they’ll be treated fairly. But that’s not how this works. The other side isn’t playing a fair game. They’re playing a game of acceleration—pushing the boundaries of executive power to see how far they can go before someone stops them. And guess what? No one is stopping them.

So what does Schumer do? He folds. Again. He rationalizes it by saying, “If we fight back, we’ll lose even more ground.” But history has proven otherwise. The only thing you get from appeasement is more demands, more abuses, more erosion of the very institutions you claim to be protecting.

The real choice isn’t between compliance and resistance. The real choice is whether the Democratic Party wants to exist as an actual opposition force or if it’s just going to shuffle along, issuing strongly worded press releases while Trump’s team does whatever it wants.

I don’t get it. If anyone wants to make a cogent argument supporting the “Vichy Democrats,” now is that time.