On Saturday, President Donald Trump signed a six-month continuing resolution to prevent a government shutdown. The bill passed the Senate on Friday, but not without controversy that involved Hawaiʻi’s senior senator.

Nine Senate Democrats crossed party lines to support the measure, giving Republicans the votes they needed to overcome a filibuster and pass the bill. One of those Democrats was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Another was Hawaiʻi Sen. Brian Schatz.

The legislation mostly preserves Biden-era funding levels but includes a $13 billion cut to non-defense spending and a $6 billion increase in defense spending. More alarming, however, is that the bill removes detailed funding directives, giving the Trump administration broader discretion to shift spending priorities.

Given that Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have already shown an eagerness to dismantle the federal government, this seems downright dangerous. The last thing they need is additional cover from Congress to expand their authority.

This is why most Democratic members opposed the Republican-drafted resolution. Democratic activists and officials across the political spectrum slammed the bill for giving Trump too much power and accused Schumer of surrendering to the administration. Washington Sen. Patty Murray, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, warned that the bill could enable Trump to defund health care and redirect resources toward mass deportation efforts.

U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono, who voted against the resolution, pointed out that by forcing a choice between the problematic legislation and a shutdown, “Republicans have made clear that they are more concerned with pleasing Donald Trump than protecting the American people.”

All these criticisms are true. Congress has the constitutional power to appropriate funds, and it should be wielding that power — not handing it over to an administration that seems hell-bent on tearing down federal institutions. But, while the continuing resolution does abrogate some of that power, a shutdown would have at least temporarily ceded most of it.

Defending His Decision

Schatz, the only member of Hawaiʻi’s congressional delegation to vote in favor of the legislation, defended his vote with similar reasoning.

“A shutdown would enable Donald Trump and Elon Musk to unilaterally determine that the vast majority of federal workers are not essential,” Schatz said in a statement. “And given the number of federal workers in Hawai‘i, mass furloughs would be deeply painful for people across the state.”

Schatz acknowledged that the choice was between a bad outcome and a worse one.

I have to agree. Even if I don’t really want to.

I’m more than a little frustrated that a president and a party who are actively undermining the federal government needed Democratic votes to pass a budget. This was predictable. Republicans have been flirting with shutdowns and struggling to pass budgets for years. Trump is already credited with the longest shutdown in history. Yet people still voted for him again and said they trusted him with the economy.

The spiteful part of me wants to say Republicans should have been forced to deal with the consequences. But that’s not in the best interest of the American people.

We’ve seen what government shutdowns can do. The short-term cost of that shutdown during Trump’s first term was an estimated $11 billion, with $3 billion permanently lost. With talk of a recession on the horizon, we don’t need any more economic uncertainty.

Even more importantly, blocking the bill would have played right into Trump’s hands. As Schumer argued, “If government were to shut down, DOGE has a plan in place to exploit the crisis for maximum destruction.”

Jessica Riedl, Manhattan Institute senior fellow, pointed out that Trump would have had “almost full flexibility to shut down discretionary spending.”

Professor David Super of Georgetown University warned that Trump could “dictate the sequence of restarting the government” to favor his political agenda. The administration could redirect funds, eliminate programs, and consolidate power faster than Congress could react.

Unchecked Power for DOGE

That’s especially alarming considering how much unchecked control DOGE already has over federal agencies, coupled with the fact that Project 2025 architect Russell Vought would have the power to determine what government services are necessary and essential as head of the Office of Management and Budget.

Giving Trump, Musk and Vought more power over government spending through the continuing resolution is dangerous — but shutting down the government and handing them a crisis to exploit would have been worse. The reality is that the damage from a shutdown — mass furloughs, unpaid federal workers and economic disruption — would have hurt ordinary Americans more than it would have hurt Trump’s agenda or political standing.

Leadership is rarely about choosing between good and bad options. More often, it’s about recognizing when the least bad option is the one you have to take.

Schatz knew this vote would cost him politically. He knew he’d be criticized and questioned by his own party. But he also knew that a government shutdown would have given the Trump administration the opportunity to seize even more power.

That’s the kind of leadership we need more of. Schatz recognized that a flawed solution was better than none at all. He chose to minimize the damage, even though it meant swallowing a bitter pill. And for that, he deserves credit.