Us Gov Shutdown Leaves It Projects Hanging, Security Defenders a Skeleton Crew
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
theregister.comOtherstory
heatednegative
Debate
85/100
Us Government ShutdownIt SecurityPolitical Gridlock
Key topics
Us Government Shutdown
It Security
Political Gridlock
The US government shutdown is causing IT projects to stall and security teams to operate with reduced capacity, sparking concerns about national security and the consequences of political dysfunction.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
16m
Peak period
95
0-12h
Avg / period
20.6
Comment distribution103 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 103 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 1, 2025 at 5:40 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 1, 2025 at 5:56 PM EDT
16m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
95 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 8, 2025 at 1:23 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45443881Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 5:30:06 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
But considering the counterparties can be countries like South Korea, Italy, the Philippines, Argentina, and Brazil, it's not like disruption isn't already baked in.
The last two terms (and this one assuming the law is actually followed) will all be 4 years.
Going back to the beginning, only 34% of the terms have been 8 years or more.
So of the last eight Presidents, 4 were one term. That’s still 50%
If you frequent conservative forums you'll notice people are more committed to the fascist project than they are to Trump. He may in the end be disposable to them.
The government seems to fear that it would.
It’s all linked together though.
Which does make it challenging for them, since Trump's an elderly man who doesn't look to be in particularly good health.
In other words, I think Trump was able to succeed politically because he was "the guy from TV".
I don't think the current media environment is making more "guys from TV" (at least not with anywhere close to the status they had ~25 years ago).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_Un...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TulTH6psCsw
I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was he was going to performantly proclaim "Let's stop protecting the pedophiles" realized mid-thought that that would effectively equate to saying "Release the Epstein files" putting him at odds with Dear Leader and at that point rafael_ed_cruz_brain.exe crashed and dumped core containing the shocking statement he ended up saying.
I don't know what else would make sense given that he didn't immediately correct himself, which is what one would expect if it were just a traditional brain fart.
>I mean, yeah he probably flubbed his words, but let's also be honest in that most likely what happened was [...]
So not explicit? The whole point of something being "explicit" is that the point can be conveyed through straightforward reading of what was said, not vague implications through "dogwhistling" or "what he must have meant was...".
Why are we still giving the benefit of the doubt at this stage?
No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub, given that he's clearly reading from a script and has a prepared billboard behind him that says "sex abuse -40%". If flubbing a line and not correcting it counts as "explicit", then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles? Super-duper explicit? "He flubbed a line and didn't correct it" falls right in the same alley as "dogwhistling" accusations, which also often accompanied with insistence that "he knew what he was trying to say" and "if he wasn't dogwhistling he would have worded it differently".
>Why are we still giving the benefit of the doubt at this stage?
I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt, I'm just pointing out that it's not "explicit".
If we're doing semantics:
">(of a person) stating something in a clear and detailed way.
It is indeed" explicit ".
>No, it's pretty obvious that it's a flub
"binders full of women" was a flub. It was still a PR disaster. We've now moved beyond "grab them by the pussy" and we can't muster any rage now?
The charts don't really mean much given how much the admins have already contradicted this and talk about how crime is rampant in [insert city to be invaded].
>then what do we call it if someone straight up says that he supports pedophiles?
Explicit. Still meets the definition. I don't think we need to argue about spectrum of explicit. We can bring "literal" back or "with genuine intent" if we want.
Guess we'll see how long they keep the hand on an increasingly hot stove.
Republicans would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes, they only have 53 seats. If they changed the rules, it would have passed without the Democrats who voted yes to it yesterday.
Yesterday's vote was 55-45, with 60 needed. Two Democrats and one independent voted for it, with one Republican voting against. Without those three, it was still 52-48. A change to a simple majority vote would have averted the shutdown.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...
That's not quite correct. Senate rules are set by simple majority, but the the proposed rule change itself can be filibustered mid-term, except for when someone can exploit procedural rules of cloture to squash it.
Those rules were exploited in 2013 to remove the judicial filibuster and again in 2019 for the Supreme Court. It's called the "nuclear option" for a reason, but the road is already paved.
That said, I don't see how "would have to change the Senate rules which currently require 60 votes" is ambiguous. The "which" is clearly referring to "change the Senate rules". You just misspoke and I can't be expected to read entirely out of tree replies that you make six minutes before my second comment (which was well after my first deleted comment).
Also probably because Republicans never negotiate in good faith. What is there to negotiate with when you're being called "the enemy from within"?
The same thing happened in 2018 when the previous shutdown happened, also with Trump in the White House and a Republican majority in both houses. The Senate Republicans lacked a supermajority and did not change the rules, and the government shutdown for 35 days.
Remember, changing the rules means all future rulers can play by those rules. The extensions of these types of powers is exactly the type of thing that leads to Turnkey Tyranny.
The US is the only democracy in the world that has this feature or anything like it.
It'd require, now, raising taxes beyond what even the most high-tax friendly Democrat would want, or substantially cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense spending. The Democrats will never reduce the first three enough, and Republicans will never reduce the first two and Defense enough.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
Everything below those four is basically a rounding error, you could cut bits and pieces but nowhere near enough to balance the budget. And you can't cut interest payments without defaulting on the debt itself, which would create so many more problems. We need to raise our revenue by something like 50% or lower our spending by about 33%, or something in between on both.
If we had proper plans to move in the right direction I wouldn't mind that at all. Instead we're blowing it up further.
Personally I'm fine with proper aggressively progressive taxes and that alone would be a huge help. But we do need to cut defense spending and yes, Social security. Because at this rate Millenials aren't getting Social Security anyway.
> this is squarely on them [the Republicans]
They have the opportunity right now to end the shutdown without requiring any Democratic or independent votes.
They could have offered a compromise budget. They only needed five more Democratic or independent (one available, the other already voted yea) votes.
They did not choose either of those options, instead presenting an option that they knew the Democrats would vote against. That was their choice, they could ignore the Democrats and pass it anyways, or they could work with the Democrats and both can get what they don't want.
They can also do extensions, provisional budgets, they can better carve out ensuring more workers actually get paid?
And yes, they knew the Dems would vote against and they had months to reach that compromise. The same is true in the other direction too. The problem relates to a dysfunctional government where we've created such division lines that compromise cannot be reached. Playing into the belief that it is either side (on this specific issue) just furthers that problem. Watch the rhetoric: Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans.
Funding the government is not a partisan issue. What to fund is, but you can't always get what you want and that's a feature, not a bug.
Playing into your game of "They're both at fault!" removes the fact that one has consistently reneged on their promises to the other party and acts in bad faith consistently. Or like Trump refusing to release money that COngress had already appropriated. Centrism isn't enlightened, but foolish.
There's a time and place for partisan politics but funding the government is not one of those.
And how has this philosophy worked out? For someone who seems to hate Trump so much you really seem to like increasing this support base.There's a whole country of people with varying needs and issues. You can't put everything under one clean umbrella. So why don't you start listening to what people are saying instead of responding to what you heard?
Okay. But we don't live in a vacuum. It's no shocker that the party lines can't compromise. That didn't come out of nowhere yesterday, at the beginning of 2025, nor even at the beginning of 2016. You create a culture of tribal lines and it seeps into every aspect of your political navigation.
The last straws of all the refusals to allocate congress funds, breaking court orders, and tanking the economy in trade wars definitely means some that Dems are playing hardball too.
>And how has this philosophy worked out?
It passed the big beautiful bill and kicked the can down the road 6 months when we almost shut down in March but "compromised". The ball isn't just in the GOP's court, they own the entire stadium. So, not too well.
Remember, they still get paid. WE are the ones that face the repercussions.
Every day Americans go without paychecks, basic services, etc.
The problem here is that they've had months to figure this shit out. It's not like a budget comes out of nowhere. You have a whole year (arguably more) to figure out what things you'll compromise on or not.
Look, I'll disclose that I vote left. I'm actually glad the dems are playing hard ball and I don't think their demands are unreasonable while I think the Repubs are silly spending decades talking about slashing the budget while adding more to it.
But that also doesn't mean that both sides can't be royally fucking it up. I'll eat a moldy sandwich over a turd pretending to be a chicken nugget but aren't we tired of having to choose between two shitty things? One being significantly worse than the other doesn't make it any less bad. We can't begin to change the situation while we can't acknowledge this basic fact.
I'm complaining about people not listening because anytime someone mentions they're fed up with having only shitty options someone complains about "enlightened centrism" or some other idiotic label that isn't actually an accurate description of the person complaining. It just enables more of this tribalism.
I'll continue the rant to add that this whole Trump situation was the Dems fault. They keep falling for the Repubs bait. We'll spend all day talking about issues that affect very few people while ignoring those that affect many more. I don't like that Repubs attack trans people, but it is also bait. I mean come on, there's less than 3 million of them in the US. It's less than 1% of the population by the highest counts. Meanwhile there's 14 million US children who aren't getting enough food. So why is there such a disproportionate amount of time given to one issue over the other, especially given how much easier it is to agree on one? We can talk about both. But seriously, is talking about trans athletes or gender affirming care for less than 3 million people more of an important issue than 14 million starving children? Don't let them control the conversations. They bait because they know we care and because of it they can turn it to talk about whatever they want. So stop this fucking tribalism and feed the god damn children
I guess I will too?
>You create a culture of tribal lines and it seeps into every aspect of your political navigation.
I don't know what else to say here.
>But you recognize that the budget is kinda a big deal, right?
My single mother raised me through 3 shutdowns as a government worker. So yes. There were times we had to stretch meals pretty thin because the delayed paycheck meant no groceries for a while. She wasn't exactly paid the minute the government opened up. Those IOU's take a bit to process.
> It's not the kind of thing we the constituents should let be partisan...But that also doesn't mean that both sides can't be royally fucking it up. I'll eat a moldy sandwich over a turd pretending to be a chicken nugget but aren't we tired of having to choose between two shitty things?
I as a constituent have never in my millennial voter life felt like I had any true representation in government. Maybe one year under Obama, but still not really. My feelings here are clearly irrelevant.
You're right on what "should" be true, but the reality is that the president has been completely reckless with what few fundings congress does agree on and the congress in power does not correct it. Congress themselves continue to balloon the budget despite GOP promising otherwise (regardless of what I think of how its allocated). There's already been two huge budget compromsises that ended horribly alongside the other 8 months of chaos.
That's why I push so hard on this "vacuum" statement. We can assign blame and talk theory when the building's fires are put out. No point blaming Jim for shorting the microwave when you can be using that oxygen to breathe.
>I'll continue the rant to add that this whole Trump situation was the Dems fault. They keep falling for the Repubs bait. We'll spend all day talking about issues that affect very few people while ignoring those that affect many more.
I guess it's my turn to be overly cynical.
There's no bait. We don't have progressive democrats, we have neoliberal establishment getting a kickback from the thieves ransacking the country in real time. It's no coincidence that better labor reform is handwaved whenever it comes up. It's one of the few bipartisan issues in this congress.
Anything to distract and give fake progress will work out for them. These days, they don't really need to distract anyway. 2025's given plenty of fires to put out and unify the dems on in the way 9/11 did for America for a short time.
>I don't like that Repubs attack trans people, but it is also bait.
1. You just said we can talk about both, to be fair.
2. Calling it "bait" is a bit short-sighted. Clearly this point is preying on the same sentiments as Abortion. Another "who cares" point but states instantly went in to ban it the second they could and now impacts half the population in states that acted on this. That's how they sap away freedoms: slowly, then all at once.
3. And now I feel you are falling into the bait here. I don't know where we got this sentiment that Trans policity is a top issue for Democrats. Harris never brought up the issue in her campaign. That's the power of shaping the narrative; you even get some of the other policy to believe how much their representatives talk on an issue, because they equivocate fights on the internet with debates on stage. Granted, I don't watch sports, but I only hear about this issue when the GOP brings it up, often as a distraction from something like, say, a government shutdown (yes, Trump did bring it up today)
>So stop this fucking tribalism and feed the god damn children
Best we can do is protect pedophiles, sorry. Definitely the dem's fault.
Again, I agree the Establishment Dems are compromised, but this is why I'm so harsh on this "enlightened centrism". They have issues and definitely made mistakes that lead to this. But what do you want them to do here? They can make a "feed the children" bill and it'd be a partisan 47-53 vote. The republicans can do the same and they'd get some dem votes even if they don't need it. But we both know they won't.
That's not a "both sides are bad" scenario. They are bad, but not for reasons as simplistic as "they can't agree to feed the children". It's something insidious within each party that just so happens to be clashing with each other at the same time.
It's worth noting that the 3/5 requirement for most legislation is a recent development. Before around 2008 it was quite uncommon to require a filibuster-proof majority to pass legislation.
There's a count of the times this has come up on the senate's website: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/cloture/clotureCounts.htm
[0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/ResumesofCongressionalAct...
Check out https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
Nearly every Republican has voted on a continuing resolution which would just kick the can 30/60/90? days.
Yes you can. It is called reconciliation and it was made for passing a budget with a simple majority. Problem is when republicans used it earlier this summer they didn't actually fund the government fully so now they need 60 votes.
How did the OBBBA get passed under reconciliation then? I thought the whole point was that bills could only pass via reconciliation if it didn't change spending/revenues?
You might be thinking of how it's not allowed to create a deficit after 10 years, but that's traditionally done by just saying "everything here expires after 10 years" and then leaning on a later congress to extend it.
(It's a little more complicated, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_... covers it.)
I think the reason they can't use reconciliation for this is that the budget has to include discretionary spending, and reconciliation is only allowed to be used for mandatory spending.
See e.g. https://rollcall.com/2025/06/23/houston-we-still-have-a-prob...
Many of the other comments in the thread illustrate that you shouldn't trust proclamations on the internet, AI or otherwise. You don't ipso facto need 60 votes to pass every bill through the Senate. The reconciliation bill over the summer thus passed with solely Republican support.
https://www.npr.org/2025/09/11/nx-s1-5538448/senate-republic...
And we'll not even get into that they've built up a bit of a history ignoring all sorts of government rules. They don't care about rules.
No, Republicans want a shutdown and want to blame democrats for it. I doubt that is the full extent of their plan, so we'll see soon enough, and there has to be some reason for the whole circus, so I really doubt republican voters are going to like what's coming. Clearly, the play is to set the stage for a big unpopular decision, one big enough their political future depends on blaming it on democrats.
Trump has already hinted at things: mass-layoffs in government, and of course the elephant in the room: defunding Obamacare and just letting it fail. That last one would require at minimum 3 months of government shutdown ... but that wouldn't be the first time Trump does that.
Isn't this true for both sides?
They do not seem to be acting in good faith, not sending people to negotiate any of this. Combined with the leaking presidents comments about being able to force through things under shutdown they wouldn't be able to otherwise, I think a reasonable interpretation is this shutdown is intentional and part of someone's plan.
edit: since subtext is dead its called Project 2025 and it's supposed to be a "bloodless coup" of the federal government. And if that isn't obvious by now please wake up.
edit: Forgot about Watergate for a second there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Revolution
Requiring a two-thirds majority for crucial bills is quite doable with proportional representation. It just means having to make slight compromises to end up with something most people will be happy about.
10 more comments available on Hacker News