Legislative Update: GOP Unity Holds Firm as Democrats Edge Closer to Forcing a Government Shutdown

GOP Unity Holds Firm as Democrats Edge Closer to Forcing a Government Shutdown

House Republicans on September 16 released their “clean” proposed continuing resolution (CR) (H.R. 5371) that would keep the government funded through November 21 to provide more time to negotiate long-term funding bills. The bill includes essential member security funding and has President Donald Trump’s full backing. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) intends to bring the CR to the Floor for a vote this week after the chamber adopted the rule for floor debate on the bill. At this time, three Republicans— including Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and Victoria Spartz (R-IN)—have said they’ll vote no on the CR. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH), who said he was a “no,” has already changed his position, and Spartz has been known to back down when pressured by party leaders. If Johnson cannot secure quick passage, Democrats will be handed unexpected negotiating power, but Johnson has also told reporters that he wouldn’t negotiate even if the government ends up in a shutdown.

For now, Democrats are signaling they are not going to support the Republican CR and instead released a counteroffer CR on September 18. This counteroffer would keep the government funded through October 31, with a focus on healthcare spending. Provisions include a permanent extension of the Obamacare enhanced premium tax credits that expire at the end of the year, roll back the Medicaid cuts passed in the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” member security funding, increase funding for nutrition assistance to low-income women and young children, and place new restrictions on President Trump’s authority to manage appropriated funds, among other provisions.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has tried to rally his caucus, arguing that Republicans would take the blame for a shutdown, but Republican leaders strongly reject Schumer’s framing. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) dismissed the Democratic counteroffer as a “non-starter.” He underscored that the GOP stopgap contains no partisan add-ons and results from ongoing bipartisan work, calling Democratic claims otherwise misleading.

Not all Democrats are convinced that inducing a possible government shutdown would be to Trump’s advantage. Behind closed doors, some Democrats are concerned that the White House may not mind a government shutdown. Furthermore, OMB will have some discretion in deciding which agencies are essential and will remain open. On Wednesday night, Schumer offered a potential path forward by suggesting Democrats are willing to negotiate and could possibly delay demands on expiring exchange subsidies until after passage of the GOP’s CR, rather than insisting on immediate changes before the September 30 deadline.

SCOTUS Agrees to Decide the Legality of Trump’s Tariff Strategy

The Supreme Court will take up a landmark case on the legality of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs, a central feature of his second-term trade and economic agenda. The case, fast-tracked for argument in November, stems from lawsuits filed by small businesses and states challenging Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs as high as 25 percent on goods from China, Mexico, and Canada, later expanding to a universal 10 percent levy on nearly all imports. Trump has argued the tariffs are necessary to combat the fentanyl crisis, rebuild American manufacturing, and protect U.S. jobs. Lower courts have delivered split rulings, with a federal appeals court finding Trump overstepped constitutional and statutory limits by unilaterally imposing import taxes, citing the Supreme Court’s “major questions doctrine” that requires explicit congressional approval for such sweeping measures.

The high court’s decision could have sweeping implications for executive power and U.S. trade policy. An adverse ruling might force the administration to refund up to $1 trillion in tariffs already collected and disrupt ongoing trade negotiations with key allies and partners. Trump officials maintain the president acted lawfully, stressing that Congress gave him the authority to act in economic emergencies, while plaintiffs argue that only Congress has constitutional authority to impose tariffs. Beyond the immediate economic stakes, the ruling is poised to test the limits of presidential emergency powers, setting a precedent for how far any future president may go in using IEEPA to reshape U.S. economic policy. Even if the court rules against him, Trump may still explore alternative trade authorities to reimpose tariffs, though doing so would take time and require additional procedural steps.

EPA Proposal on Eliminating Greenhouse Gas Reporting Faces Scrutiny

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Trump administration has proposed eliminating its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which currently tracks emissions from more than 8,000 facilities, including refineries, power plants, and steel mills. Administrator Lee Zeldin defended the plan as a cost-saving measure, arguing that the Clean Air Act does not require such reporting and that the program imposes billions in costs on American businesses and consumers. However, critics—including environmental advocates and former EPA officials warn that the move would undermine congressional intent, deprive policymakers and citizens of vital data, and shield polluters from accountability.

Senate Republicans, industry, and manufacturers are also questioning whether the move could undermine U.S. business interests and key GOP policy priorities. While Republicans have generally resisted aggressive climate action, they emphasized that without emissions data, companies may lose access to federal carbon capture and hydrogen tax credits. Senate EPW Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) noted that accurate, accessible measurements are essential for verifying eligibility for these incentives, and she is engaging with the EPA for clarity.

Lawmakers also warned that the change could deprive U.S. companies of the ability to prove they operate more cleanly than international competitors, such as Russia and China, weakening their position against carbon border adjustment mechanisms abroad. Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) stressed the importance of data in demonstrating the comparative advantage of U.S.-manufactured goods, cautioning against unintended consequences that could harm American competitiveness.

Industry voices expressed surprise at the proposal, stating they did not request the program’s repeal and remain committed to transparent emissions reporting for investors and regulators. Additionally, the proposal could complicate U.S. LNG sales in Europe, where buyers in Germany and France increasingly demand proof of low carbon intensity in natural gas imports.

Trump Administration Backs Biden-era Mandate to Remove Lead Pipes

The Trump administration announced it will defend a Biden-era regulation requiring nearly all lead drinking water pipes in the United States to be removed within the next decade. The EPA confirmed its commitment to the rule, stating that clean and safe water remains a top priority under its “Powering the Great American Comeback” initiative. While the agency is preparing to defend the rule in court against a legal challenge from the water utilities’ trade group, it also signaled that it may introduce new implementation “flexibilities” to ease compliance for utilities. EPA officials emphasized they would soon provide further guidance to support practical implementation and regulatory clarity.

Uncertainty remains over whether such flexibilities could extend the 10-year deadline, a key concern for the water industry but a critical priority for public health advocates. Adjusting the timeline would require new rulemaking, which EPA has already said it will pursue for separate drinking water standards on toxic “forever chemicals.” The Trump administration had previously focused on lead contamination during its first term, but its rule only required the replacement of lines when elevated contamination was detected. The Biden-era rule, finalized at the end of that administration, set a more sweeping mandate for system-wide removal. Although some Republicans introduced legislation to overturn it under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), GOP leaders ultimately declined to pursue repeal.

EPA Moves to Defend Biden-Era PFAS Superfund Rule

In a Sept. 16 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA announced it would retain the Biden-era rule designating PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, allowing the agency to defend the measure against an industry challenge. The decision comes after months of delay, with EPA having sought multiple litigation extensions while it considered its stance, and follows reports that internal divisions within the agency, including a recommendation from a top waste official to repeal the rule, cast doubt on its future. By keeping the rule in place, EPA enables states and other entities to continue citing it in cost recovery claims under CERCLA, strengthening regulators’ ability to pursue PFAS cleanups. The Chamber of Commerce and industry groups argue the rule imposes heavy financial burdens given CERCLA’s strict liability framework. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has previously suggested support for the measure, paired with congressional action to protect passive receivers from liability. The filing requests that the court lift the stay in Chamber of Commerce v. EPA and set a new briefing schedule by September 30, 2025, reaffirming the administration’s commitment to advancing implementation of this first-of-its-kind designation.

Senate GOP Changes Rules to Fast-Track Trump Nominees

On September 15, Senate Republicans voted 51-44 along party lines to change chamber rules to expedite the confirmation of President Trump’s lower-level nominees by lowering the threshold from 60 votes to a simple majority for advancing groups of executive nominees. Furthermore, S. Res. 3777 allows the Senate to vote to restore “en bloc” consideration for specific lower-level nominations currently on the Executive Calendar. This will allow nominees who had advanced out of the same Senate committee to be considered and passed as a group. Traditionally, these types of nominees have been noncontroversial and often fast-tracked through floor confirmation. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Sen. James Lankford (R-OK) defended the move as a response to unprecedented obstruction, while Democrats countered that it erodes Senate traditions and hands excessive power to the executive branch. Forty-eight nominees currently backlogged on the Calendar will be expedited through en bloc consideration this week.

Permitting Hearing Discusses the Costs and Benefits of NEPA Reform

On September 10, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing to consider several permitting reform bills, including the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act (H.R. 4776), the Studying NEPA’s Impact on Projects Act (H.R. 573), and the ePermit Act (H.R. 4503). The bipartisan SPEED Act, introduced by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME), proposes to modernize the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), while the latter two measures focus on enhancing data collection and permitting processes.

Republicans, led by Chairman Westerman, argued that outdated NEPA procedures are stalling projects critical to economic growth, national security, and U.S. competitiveness with China and Russia. They emphasized that delays in permitting hinder not only energy infrastructure but also the electricity and transmission capacity needed to support AI development and the rapid expansion of data centers. Westerman described the SPEED Act as a bipartisan framework to

codify judicial and procedural reforms, including shorter litigation windows and clearer review standards. Rep. Pete Stauber (R-MN) praised the bill’s technology-neutral approach, while Rep. Golden stressed that permitting delays burden clean energy projects as much as fossil fuel development, making predictable timelines essential for scaling technologies.

Democrats generally supported expanding nuclear and clean energy capacity being pushed by the Administration, but voiced concerns that the SPEED Act’s reforms could weaken safeguards and reduce community input. Democratic members were also concerned about the proposal’s 150-day litigation window, which they said would restrict judicial review and disadvantage under-resourced groups. Westerman and Stauber defended the 150-day provision, citing evidence that most NEPA lawsuits are filed within that timeframe. Rep. Golden emphasized that litigation would still be permitted in cases of “egregious errors,” while Westerman stressed that the bill preserves full public comment rights but addresses uncertainty and abuse created by the current six-year litigation window. Still, Westerman emphasized the importance of the bill remaining bipartisan and showed willingness to adjust provisions, particularly around judicial review and timelines, as long as the bill’s core objective of permitting certainty is maintained.

The SPEED Act has garnered support from powerhouse groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Council on Renewable Energy, and the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have not yet introduced Senate permitting legislation. However, their committee held a February hearing where nearly 150 groups proposed improvements to the federal permitting process.

Problem Solvers Caucus Advances Broad Bipartisan Permitting Reform Frameworks

The bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus unveiled a comprehensive permitting reform framework aimed at accelerating reviews for large-scale infrastructure projects such as pipelines and transmission lines. Led by Reps. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) and Gabe Evans (R-CO), the proposal aims to establish deadlines, limit litigation, and streamline environmental reviews, incorporating lessons from past legislative efforts and input from industry stakeholders. The caucus, which consists of nearly 90 centrist members, framed the initiative as a significant step toward bipartisan consensus. Evans underscored the urgency by warning that bureaucratic delays risk ceding global competitiveness to China, which he argued builds with higher emissions and less regard for labor rights.

The framework draws from previous proposals such as the BIG WIRES Act, the Energy Permitting Reform Act, and the Fix Our Forest Act. Key provisions include narrowing the scope of Clean Water Act reviews, reducing duplicative National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, expanding designated energy corridors, having strict timelines, and limiting lawsuits to a one-year statute of limitations. Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY) has indicated openness to bipartisan cooperation, emphasizing the importance of depoliticizing the permitting debate and linking reform to broader national priorities, including competing with China on artificial intelligence. Still, many Democrats remain cautious, citing lingering opposition to the Trump administration’s energy policies, though Peters maintains the caucus’s framework marks a significant advance toward legislation by year’s end.

The Problem Solvers Caucus’ engagement significantly broadens the scope of the permitting debate, bringing nearly 90 centrist members into the fold. With its reputation for fostering cross-party compromise, the caucus’s involvement is likely to add meaningful bipartisan momentum and increase the prospects for advancing a comprehensive reform package.

Senators Press Army Corps Over Delays in Water Infrastructure Studies

On September 18, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee convened an oversight hearing to examine the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Civil Works program. The hearing highlighted the Corps’ essential role in managing navigation, flood risk reduction, and aquatic ecosystem projects that underpin U.S. commerce and safeguard communities. Members pressed senior Army Corps of Engineers officials over persistent delays in water infrastructure studies, citing missed deadlines on key projects authorized in last year’s Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).

For Republican members, the hearing underscored opportunities to streamline permitting, reduce regulatory burdens, and prioritize efficient infrastructure investment to strengthen local economies, protect property, and enhance America’s competitive standing. Chair Shelley Moore Capito questioned Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle about when the Corps would deliver a national plan to address flood risk reduction, ecosystem restoration, and navigation improvements. Telle acknowledged the directive but declined to give a timeline, pointing to interagency complexities. His lack of specifics frustrated senators, who emphasized the need for greater accountability and clarity in the agency’s work.

Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse echoed these concerns, and pressed for reduced red tape, stronger prioritization of energy and commerce-related projects. They showed particular concern for the lack of accountability for overdue studies and reports. Senators warned that such delays undermine congressional oversight and diminish trust in the Corps’ responsiveness. Graham committed to requiring more mature project plans before requesting construction authority. While Democrats raised concerns that this could stall large-scale projects.

Whitehouse focused heavily on concerns that inland projects receive disproportionate funding relative to coastal risk management. He criticized partisan shifts in project allocations and alleged underfunding of storm protection.

Telle also addressed staffing and permitting issues. He acknowledged that the Trump administration’s deferred resignation program and hiring freeze had depleted some district offices by up to 20 percent, forcing reliance on contractors that may be more costly. However,

he emphasized that nearly 100 new hires had recently been brought on at Corps recreational facilities, which were exempt from the freeze. Telle defended some workforce reductions as necessary, asserting that modern technology and efficiency improvements would allow the agency to maintain service levels comparable to pre-pandemic staffing.

On permitting, Telle reported that nearly 800 Clean Water Act permits for energy and resource-related projects had been fast-tracked under the Trump administration’s energy emergency declaration. He announced reforms to the Corps’ environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), aimed at reducing permitting delays and lowering costs for businesses. He also reaffirmed alignment with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, which limits the definition of “waters of the United States” and reduces federal permitting burdens.