Since the federal government shut down on October 1 after Congress failed to pass legislation to keep it open, politicians from both parties have sought to blame their political opponents for the current state of affairs.
On October 15, House Speaker Mike Johnson posted on X the claim that “To end the shutdown, Democrats are DEMANDING $1.5 TRILLION in new partisan spending. This is an unserious proposal made by unserious people.” The post includes a graphic that details various “demands” by Democrats to reopen the government, including $200 billion in health care benefits for illegal immigrants, $500 million for “liberal news outlets,” repeal of $50 billion in rural hospital funds, and more funding for “LGBTQI+ “ grants and programs.
While it might be a stretch to say that Democrats are demanding every item on Johnson’s list, his claims are in reference to a continuing resolution submitted by Democrats to counter the Republicans’ continuing resolution in the days leading up to the shutdown. The Republican CR would have funded the government through November 21 by extending current funding levels, while the Democrats’ proposal would have kept the government through October 31. The Republican legislation passed the House but failed in the Senate, prompting the shutdown. The Democrats have attempted to bring their resolution to the floor five times since the government shut down, most recently on October 9.
As for Johnson’s claims, some are true, some are misleading, and all benefit from greater context.
Democrats demand $1.5 trillion for opening the government.
According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Democrats’ plan to keep the government open would add roughly $1.5 trillion to the nation’s debt over the next decade. This increase is largely driven by the complete repeal of measures intended to reduce health care spending included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), as well as a permanent extension of temporary Affordable Care Act subsidies enacted during the pandemic.
$200 billion in health care benefits for illegal aliens.
Athina Lawson, Mike Johnson’s press secretary, told the Dispatch Fact Check that Johnson’s claim here referenced the Democrats’ counterproposal and the repeal of the health care savings measures in the OBBBA. While Johnson suggests in his post that the Democrats want to provide health care benefits for “illegal aliens,” the Democratic counterproposal sought to restore benefits eligibility to certain categories of “lawfully present” noncitizens who had been deemed ineligible in the OBBBA.
The list of categories previously eligible includes, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, “lawful permanent residents (LPRs or “green card” holders); refugees; individuals granted parole for at least one year; individuals granted asylum or related relief and certain abused spouses and their children or parents; certain victims of trafficking” and those entering from Cuba, Haiti, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. States could also offer Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits to children and pregnant women who are here legally.
The OBBBA narrowed the list of eligible categories to green card holders, citizens of Cuba, Haiti, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, and to children and pregnant women in states that offer coverage. All other categories were excluded. It is misleading to suggest that the Democrats wanted $200 billion for “illegal aliens.”
$500 million for ‘liberal news outlets.’
Johnson’s comment is missing considerable context. The Democratic counterproposal sought to restore some funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that was cut by the Trump administration in July. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has long provided funding to PBS, NPR, and local public TV and radio stations. President Donald Trump cut more than $1 billion in federal funding for the CPB, and the Democratic proposal would restore nearly $500 million of that funding. While conservatives have long criticized NPR and PBS for liberal leanings, Johnson’s comment about “$500 million for liberal news outlets” is vague and misleading.
Repeal of $50 billion rural hospital funds.
Johnson’s claim that the Democrats’ proposal would repeal a $50 billion rural hospital fund is true but requires context. As mentioned above, the Democratic counterproposal seeks to undo the health care measures included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Republicans included $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals in the legislation to help offset cuts to Medicaid estimated at $911 billion. Repealing the health care section would roll back both the Medicaid cuts and the $50 billion in support that had been allocated to rural hospitals.
Permanent COVID subsidies without reforms.
This claim is largely true but needs context. The “COVID subsidies” Johnson refers to are not related to the COVID pandemic specifically but to Affordable Care Act subsidies that Congress passed in 2021, during the pandemic. The Democratic proposal calls for the permanent extension of enhanced premium tax credits for health care policies purchased through Affordable Care Act marketplaces. The enhanced credits were created in 2021 under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and were extended under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. These tax credits are set to expire on December 31, 2025, and Democrats are proposing to make them permanent.
$4 million for global LGBTIQ+ awareness campaigns.
Lawson told the Dispatch Fact Check that this claim referred to a measure in the Democratic counterproposal to reverse a rescission in foreign aid funding made by Trump in August. Citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Trump had delivered a “recission proposal” to Congress asking to cancel $5 billion in foreign aid and international organization funding. One of the items included in the rescission request was “$4 million for the New Alliance for Global Equality to advance global LGBTQI+ awareness.” Section 118 of the Democrats’ bill would reverse the recission by extending the period of availability of those funds through Fiscal Year 2026 and prevent the de facto rescissions.
$4 million for LGBTIQ+ democracy grants in the Balkans.
House Speaker Mike Johnson’s claim that the Democrats’ proposal would fund LGBTQI+ democracy grants in the Balkans stems from the proposal’s plan to increase U.S. capital contributions to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as its request to extend the availability of funds that had expired and were slated for rescission under Trump. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is an international financial institution founded in 1991 to help former communist countries in Europe transition to market-based economies. The funds that were slated for rescission under Trump were $550,000 for holistic monitoring, evaluation, and learning in North Macedonia and $12,000 for Telling the USAID story in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite the White House website’s statement that Trump’s proposal would rescind “$3.9 million to promote democracy for LGBTQI+ populations in the Western Balkans,” the official rescission document contains no reference to such a provision.
$2 million for feminist democratic principles in Africa.
Johnson’s claim that the Democrats’ proposal would advocate for feminist democratic principles in Africa is partly true. The proposal advocates for the continuation of the U.S International Development Finance Corporation, whose mandate expires on October 6. DFC focuses on development projects in lower and middle-income countries, many of which are in Africa. The DFC has an initiative called the 2X Women’s Initiative, which invests in businesses that promote gender equity in emerging markets and supports the economic empowerment of more than 15 million women and girls.
