Senate Majority Leader John Thune warned on Nov. 3, 2025, that a short-term funding bill passed earlier by the House would no longer provide sufficient breathing room to finish full-year appropriations. The House measure would have pushed the next funding deadline to Nov. 21, but because that bill was passed 34 days earlier, the potential runway has narrowed to roughly two-and-a-half weeks. Thune told reporters the Senate must change the date in any measure it advances, and he said he is open to options that could extend funding into early 2026. If the Senate modifies the date, the House would have to reconvene to vote on the revised measure before it could reach the president’s desk.
Key Takeaways
- The Senate has failed 13 separate times in recent weeks to advance the short-term funding bill that would reopen the government; those attempts have repeatedly stalled on procedural or support issues.
- The House-passed short-term bill originally would have extended funding for seven weeks to Nov. 21, 2025; as of Nov. 3, the effective runway from that measure is about 2.5 weeks.
- Thune said the Nov. 21 date is “lost” and that the Senate is considering changing the expiration date, including proposals to keep funding into early 2026.
- Options include approving the House bill and amending the date in the Senate or writing a new continuing resolution with a different deadline.
- If the Senate alters a funding measure, Speaker Mike Johnson would likely need to bring the House back to Washington for a new vote, marking the first return in weeks.
- Democrats continue to insist Republicans negotiate on health care as part of any path to reopen the government, a demand that remains unresolved.
Background
The current federal shutdown has produced repeated procedural battles in the Senate, where multiple short-term measures have been introduced but none secured the votes needed to advance. The House passed a short-term funding bill early in the shutdown that set a Nov. 21 funding deadline, intending to give appropriators roughly seven weeks to complete work on full-year spending bills. That timeline has eroded as days passed without bipartisan agreement in the Senate, compressing the available negotiation window.
Continuing resolutions (CRs) are commonly used to avoid funding gaps while Congress finishes appropriations; they typically extend existing funding levels and set a new expiration date. In this case, the House CR was tailored to give appropriators a finite runway, but the political dynamics in the Senate — including demands from Democrats for health care negotiations and procedural constraints in a narrowly divided chamber — have prevented that bill from advancing.
Main Event
On Nov. 3, Thune told reporters the specific Nov. 21 date in the House bill “is lost,” and the Senate must pick a new target if it wants a viable short-term fix. He said he is open to proposals that would extend funding further, even into early 2026, and flagged a range of procedural paths: amending the House bill in the Senate or drafting a fresh short-term funding measure.
Thune framed the decision as practical: a short extension that arrives too close to the next deadline would simply create another cliff for appropriators. He emphasized the need for a realistic window for full-year negotiations, arguing that a longer deadline would reduce repeated shutdown risk and give appropriators time to finish bills rather than repeatedly reauthorizing temporary funding.
Any Senate action that changes the expiration date would not be final until the House votes on the revised text. That raises a logistical and political hurdle: Speaker Mike Johnson would have to summon the House back to Washington to take up the Senate-amended bill, a step he has so far avoided during this shutdown standoff.
Analysis & Implications
Shifting the expiration date on a short-term funding bill changes the political arithmetic for both parties. For Republicans, a longer CR reduces the frequency of shutdown brinkmanship but requires securing enough Democratic votes in the Senate to pass an amended measure. For Democrats, extending the deadline without substantive concessions on issues such as health care may be unacceptable, maintaining leverage to press policy demands.
A longer, single extension into early 2026 would lower the probability of repeated shutdown cycles in the near term but could also delay resolution on contested policy items that typically get attached to end-of-year negotiations. Appropriators gain time to negotiate, but the longer the temporary fix lasts, the more pressure builds for omnibus compromises later, potentially concentrating conflict into a single, larger package.
Markets, federal contractors and government employees watch these deadlines closely. Repeated stopgap measures increase uncertainty for agencies and recipients of federal grants, and prolonged shutdowns can have measurable economic costs. A clear, longer runway would provide short-term stability but not eliminate the need for substantive agreement on disputed policy areas.
Comparison & Data
| Action | Original House Timeline | Status as of Nov. 3, 2025 |
|---|---|---|
| House-passed short-term bill | Would extend funding to Nov. 21 (seven-week runway) | Passed 34 days earlier; effective remaining runway ~2.5 weeks |
| Senate options | Amend House date or draft new CR | Thune open to moving date, including into early 2026 |
The table puts the choice in clear terms: a deadline that once offered seven weeks of appropriations work is now much shorter, intensifying pressure for the Senate to pick a new target. The numeric squeeze reflects calendar time lost since the House vote and explains Thune’s insistence on changing the date if the Senate is to act.
Reactions & Quotes
The date in the House bill is lost; it’s a question now of what the next date is.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (paraphrase)
Thune framed the shift as unavoidable given elapsed time, telling reporters the Senate must craft a date that actually gives appropriators time to finish work rather than dialing up the shutdown timer again.
Republicans need to enter health care talks if they want Democratic votes to reopen the government.
Democratic leadership (paraphrase)
Democrats have consistently said they will not supply the votes to reopen the government without engagement on health care issues, a stance that has blocked some Republican-led proposals in the Senate.
Weekend rank-and-file conversations suggest movement, but offers to date remain focused on procedural concessions rather than policy.
Rank-and-file senators (paraphrase)
After informal weekend discussions among backbench members, Thune expressed cautious optimism about finding an “off-ramp,” while emphasizing uncertainty about whether current offers will secure the votes needed.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the Senate can assemble the Democratic support needed to pass an amended date is not yet confirmed and remains contingent on negotiations.
- Any specific alternative date — including an extension into early 2026 — is a proposal under consideration but has not been formally drafted or voted on.
- It is not yet certain whether Speaker Johnson will call the House back; such plans would depend on what, if any, measure the Senate ultimately approves.
Bottom Line
Thune’s announcement crystallizes a simple calendar reality: time lost since the House vote has shortened the practical value of the Nov. 21 deadline. The Senate faces a choice between adopting a new, longer temporary funding date or risking a rapid return to brinkmanship and another funding cliff.
Any Senate action that changes the date will require the House to act, creating a final political gate that could reshape negotiations. Watch for whether Republicans can secure Democratic votes by pairing calendar changes with substantive concessions, and for whether leadership in both chambers will accept a longer CR as the pragmatic path to stabilize funding and buy time for full-year appropriations.
Sources
- ABC News — U.S. national news outlet reporting on Thune’s remarks and the Senate’s options (news)