U.S. Government Shutdown Difficult, as Both Parties Have Already Calculated the Costs

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2026-01-29Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-29

Анотація

The U.S. government faces a shutdown risk by January 30 if a funding bill isn't passed, but prediction markets show the probability dropping to 42%, down from 80%. The deadlock stems from partisan disputes over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly ICE enforcement actions. Democrats seek restrictions after a fatal incident in Minnesota, while Republicans defend ICE's role. Both parties are maneuvering ahead of midterm elections, where control of Congress is at stake. A shutdown could harm the ruling party’s image, making compromise likely. A temporary funding extension is expected to avoid a full shutdown, with negotiations focusing on separating DHS funding from other bills. Reports indicate ongoing talks between Trump and Democratic leaders to prevent a disruption.

Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)

Author | Golem (@web 3_golem)

A major macroeconomic event this month is whether the U.S. government will shut down by the end of January. Last October, the U.S. government shut down for 43 days, and it only resumed operations after the passage of a temporary funding bill. January 30 is the expiration date of the temporary funding bill. If Congress fails to pass a formal funding bill or if there is no new temporary bill to extend it, the U.S. government will shut down again.

This time, the dispute between the two U.S. parties mainly revolves around the funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Democrats believe that ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has issues with its enforcement actions in Minnesota, resulting in two deaths, and they want to strictly restrict funding and related operations. However, Republicans disagree, arguing that ICE is a key force in combating illegal immigration and welfare fraud. As a result, the two sides are at a stalemate. (For details on the dispute between the U.S. parties, please read: Will the U.S. Government Shutdown Storm Strike Again, and Will the Crypto Circle Repeat the Crash Script?)

It is this confrontational state and the approaching expiration date of the temporary funding bill that have sharply increased the probability of a U.S. government shutdown at the end of January in prediction markets. However, this morning, Polymarket data showed that the probability of the U.S. government shutting down at the end of January has continued to decline and currently stands at 42%, down from a previous high of 80%.

Price changes in prediction markets reflect the results of collective wisdom and博弈. The rising probability that the U.S. government will not shut down at the end of January indicates that people believe the high certainty of a government shutdown, as suggested by the prediction market probabilities, no longer exists under the current U.S. political situation.

Midterm Elections Are the Key Focus of Both U.S. Parties

On January 28, regarding the risk of another possible U.S. government shutdown, U.S. Treasury Secretary Besant stated that the situation is still unclear but emphasized that President Trump has urged the Democratic side to avoid this outcome.

This government shutdown crisis is essentially because the Democrats have caught the Republicans in a political counterattack. The shooting death of a U.S. citizen by ICE officers in Minnesota on January 24 was essentially a result of the Trump administration's increased immigration enforcement efforts, which also led to large-scale public protests expressing dissatisfaction with the Trump administration. The Democrats seized this opportunity and used it as an excuse to block the passage of the funding bill in the Senate. Since it reflects the demands of voters, the Democrats have taken the political initiative in this counterattack.

The Republicans have thus been put in a passive position. If the U.S. government does shut down as a result, the Democrats could blame the Republican government for any subsequent economic and民生 issues (such as delayed economic data releases and large-scale flight delays at airports).

This series of potential chain reactions will also affect the issue that both U.S. parties truly care about this year: the midterm elections.

The U.S. "midterm elections" are held in the second year of a presidential term. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for election, and approximately one-third of the seats in the Senate are typically up for election. Currently, the Republicans hold a majority in both the House (218 seats) and the Senate (53 seats). For the Republicans to maintain their seat advantage after the midterm elections at the end of the year and reduce governance difficulties, they cannot accumulate too many "stains" politically this year.

Additionally, although the midterm elections do not involve the presidential election, they are also seen as a "midterm referendum" on the incumbent president, affecting the president's policy orientation in the latter two years and reshaping the党内权力结构 and the candidate landscape for the next presidential election. Therefore, it is extremely important for Trump as well.

From the above analysis, it can be seen that this government shutdown is no longer simply a funding issue but a political battlefield set up in advance by both U.S. parties for the midterm elections at the end of the year. The Republicans, in a passive position, are highly likely to compromise to resolve the crisis and矛盾.

For the Democrats, if the Republicans compromise, it would also be a political victory.

Compromise Is Already Underway

This U.S. government shutdown crisis will not be a "full shutdown" like last October (when all 12 funding bills expired). The scale of the shutdown may be much smaller. Funding for the Commerce Department (responsible for releasing GDP data) and the Agriculture Department (responsible for food benefits) has already been secured, but about 78% of federal government functions—involving the remaining six funding bills—may face funding cuts.

The Democrats have already given the Republicans a way out. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on January 28 that Senate Democrats are "prepared to quickly advance five funding bills by the January 30 deadline, separate from the Department of Homeland Security funding bill," which could be a way to avoid a large-scale government shutdown. However, Senate Republicans have not yet agreed to separate the DHS bill from the overall funding package.

On the other hand, it is unrealistic to demand changes to the DHS funding before January 30, as any changes to the remaining six funding bills must be approved by the House of Representatives, which will not reconvene until February 2.

For the Democrats, forcing the U.S. government into a shutdown state by being too rigid about amending the funding bill would not be of much benefit, and the "offensive and defensive positions" with the Republicans could even reverse. Therefore, the current consensus between the two U.S. parties may be to pass a temporary funding bill to first address the potential government shutdown and postpone the矛盾 between the two parties.

Just as Odaily was writing this article speculating that the two parties might compromise to avoid a government shutdown, The New York Times also reported that Trump is reaching a possible agreement with Chuck Schumer to avoid a U.S. government shutdown.

According to two informed officials, under the plan being developed, the Senate would separate one of the six spending bills, which aims to fund the Department of Homeland Security, to maintain funding for the military, medical programs, and other federal agencies for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Senate will pass these bills by the Friday midnight deadline, and Congress will also consider a short-term extension of homeland security operations to prevent service disruptions at the TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA.

It is still unclear how this potential agreement will affect this week's funding bill vote, but it at least shows that the White House and the Senate are working toward resolving the crisis.

Пов'язані питання

QWhat is the main reason for the potential U.S. government shutdown at the end of January?

AThe main reason is the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), particularly related to the enforcement actions of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) in Minnesota.

QAccording to the article, why did the probability of a government shutdown drop from 80% to 42% on Polymarket?

AThe probability dropped because the prediction market reflected a shift in collective opinion, indicating that people believe the high certainty of a shutdown has diminished due to ongoing political negotiations and potential compromises between the two parties.

QHow does the potential government shutdown relate to the U.S. midterm elections?

AThe shutdown is seen as a political battleground for the midterm elections, where both parties are positioning themselves to avoid blame for economic and民生 issues that could affect their electoral prospects and the balance of power in Congress.

QWhat compromise did Democrats propose to avoid a large-scale government shutdown?

ADemocrats proposed separating the Homeland Security funding bill from the other five remaining appropriations bills, allowing the non-DHS bills to pass quickly while delaying the contentious DHS funding debate.

QWhat temporary solution is being considered to prevent a shutdown before the January 30 deadline?

AA short-term extension for Homeland Security operations is being considered to prevent disruptions to agencies like TSA, Coast Guard, and FEMA, while passing the other appropriations bills to keep most government functions funded.

Пов'язані матеріали

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手6 год тому

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手6 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbit9 год тому

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbit9 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手10 год тому

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手10 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbit11 год тому

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbit11 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片