‘it Will Be The Republican Shutdown’: One Senior Dem On How To Take On Trump And Musk

As Donald Trump and Republican allies continue to take a chainsaw to federal agencies and spending programs, congressional Democrats face mounting pressure to stop them any way they can — while convincing voters to rejoin them in 2026 and 2028.

It’s a big task that requires both good politics and good policy, and one emerging leader in the Democratic Party thinks he knows how to do both: Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania congressman and ranking member of the House Budget Committee.

In an interview for the Playbook Deep Dive podcast, Boyle was firm that delivering on policy goals, such as preventing steep Medicaid cuts and driving down prices, is also good politics. But he also said that the party needs to do more to convince voters that they are in the “cultural mainstream” on issues such as trans athletes’ participation in girls’ and women’s sports, “but at the same time not go down the route of beating up and bullying kids who are trans, just so we can get a few votes out of it.” We also discussed where voters will place the blame if Democrats pursue a shutdown over DOGE cuts next week.

Whether or not his solutions are the right ones, he’s optimistic about Democrats’ chances in the coming months and years. “I will do everything possible to make sure [Republicans’] bad ideas don't become law,” he said, “but I think either way, next November, they’ll be held responsible.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity by Deep Dive Producer Kara Tabor and Senior Producer Alex Keeney. You can listen to the full Playbook Deep Dive podcast interview here:

Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

So we're going to go through obviously shutdown politics, Dem positioning during Trump 2.0 and what you call the “DOGE bags.”

But first, I want to get your take on something big that happened Thursday morning. And that is California Gov. Gavin Newsom saying on his new podcast that Democrats have been wrong when it comes to allowing transgender individuals, namely people who were assigned male at birth, to play in women’s sports. What do you make of this? 

Are you sure we haven’t run out of time?

Are you uncomfortable yet? 

First things first: The new-found Republican commitment to high school girls’ sports is truly admirable. I’m obviously being a little sarcastic when I’m saying that. My position has been simple. It is that ultimately, I’m very comfortable with both the NCAA, as well as high school sports associations, making these decisions. Number two, of course we agree that we want to do everything possible to keep girls playing sports safe. I think everyone’s on the same page about that. My daughter is 11. So I would feel that way, not only as a member of Congress, but also as a father. The third thing is the legislation that I have seen that Republicans have attempted to put forward would actually allow for genital checks of young girls. If my daughter is playing tennis or playing soccer, I sure as hell don’t want some high school coach or parent asking for an inspection or something grotesque like that.

You’re suggesting that Republicans want to pass legislation that does that?

The ramifications of some of the bills that they have pushed would actually allow for genital checks of minors who are female. Think about the practical application of this.

And then the fourth and final thing I would say is — this has all come up because the ad that I saw by far the most living in Philadelphia, in the biggest city of the biggest battleground state in the country, was the famous ad “Kamala’s for they/them. President Trump is for you.” It was a devastating ad. I think it was incredibly effective. Maybe the most effective ad since the Willie Horton ad in 1988. But I think the real problem there is that when you don’t respond immediately and when you don’t hit back and you don’t hit back harder, then you allow that to remain out there and it can have devastating political consequences.

For example, if there had been an ad where Harris is just watching the first few seconds of that ad, turns it off and says, “Have you seen this ad a million times? Here’s the reality: This was a Donald Trump policy that happened under his presidency. This is not something that I’m running on. The other side is obsessed with trans issues and keeps on talking about this. I actually want to talk about how we're going to reduce prices for the American people.”

So the lesson more than anything, as someone who has never been a culture warrior and primarily talks about the economic issues throughout my career … I think the main takeaway is that any time you’re hit, you have to respond. It has to be immediate and it has to be that you are hitting the other side harder than they just hit you.

But isn't an easy way for Democrats to sort of neutralize this issue to just come out and just state their position on the issue that Newsom raised?

Look, I mean, my position — anytime I’ve been asked it — is that of course we don’t want men playing on the same playing field with women; or males, you know, physically and post-puberty boys playing on the same playing field with girls. It becomes very complex when we’re talking about pre-puberty. But at the end of the day, I’m much more comfortable, given these intricacies, allowing the appropriate sports bodies to make these decisions rather than Congress legislating it, especially Congress legislating it in such a clumsy way that they would, whether intentionally or not, actually allow for genital inspections of minor girls. That’s deeply disturbing.

Just so I’m clear: It sounds like you yourself are not necessarily comfortable with trans athletes playing in women’s sports at a certain level, like collegiate level. But you don’t think entities should be verifying gender in potentially very invasive ways?

I, as a father, would be very concerned about some parent on a sports team going up to a girl who was very good on the sports field, and let’s say does not look or present traditionally feminine, and challenging whether or not she’s female.

But aren’t people pretty often open about being transgender? And if they are, should they be allowed to play on the team? 

I have to say that I’ve already talked more about this issue in this interview than I ever have before, because honestly, this is not something I generally delve into. The reality is that trans people, whom I always want to treat fairly and respectfully as fellow human beings, are well below 1 percent of the population. Those who are male-to-female are approximately half of that. And those who are playing high school college sports are a very small percentage of those. So the idea that so much time and so much energy is being spent on an absurdly small percentage of the population shows just how absurd it is to spend all this time and energy.

So I would rather focus on issues that are relevant to the 99.99 percent of the American people and the 99.99 percent of people who I represent in my district.

And yet Republicans are able to weaponize this over and over again. I can already see them doing it with this Congress. 

Trump mentioned at his joint address to Congress that he wants them to criminalize some kinds of gender-affirming care for minors. Polling has shown a lack of support for some kinds of this care for children.

So, even though it’s only a small percentage of people, it seems like Republicans do bring it up and it has been very successful. So it feels like you guys have to have some sort of strategy for dealing with this. 

I remember 20 years ago, George W. Bush and Karl Rove got a lot of mileage off pushing their constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality.

Do you think this is sort of the same thing? 

It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that Republicans have effectively used a cultural issue.

Ultimately, as Democrats, we have to do a better job of showing that we are in the cultural mainstream of this country. And I do believe there’s a way to talk about this issue that shows we’re not going to bully anyone, and we’re not going to stand for bullying anyone, especially when you consider that something like one half of trans teens consider suicide — I mean, a deeply dark and depressing statistic. I think there’s a way that we can reflect basic fairness on a sports field, but at the same time not go down the route of beating up and bullying kids who are trans, just so we can get a few votes out of it.

There is a big debate happening in the Democratic Party right now, which is, how do you stand up to Trump? What is the best way to do it? 

At Trump’s joint address to Congress on Tuesday, there were some House progressives who wanted to show the nation that they were making a stand, but then you have a bunch of other members who feel like that distracted from some of the really controversial policies Trump himself was leaning into. 

What do you think about this split strategy, when it comes to going after Trump and trying to flip the House? 

You have a very astute observation, but I wouldn’t use the word “strategy.”

Here's the dynamic: For about 85 percent of members of Congress, their real race is in the primary. It’s about 85 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans. For the other 15 percent, they’re in a district that will ultimately be determined in a general election and not a primary.

And for those of us who are getting a little more senior and are ranking members and want to be chairs and all of us who want to be in the majority, we recognize that the districts that will determine control of Congress don’t look like the 85 percent of districts where the race is determined in the primary. So that is the tough balancing act: to show that we are sincerely appalled by what Trump and Elon Musk and his DOGE team are doing, yet at the same time, make sure that we are doing everything constructively we can to ensure that we are victorious next November.

Was the way some of those Democrats protested this week constructive? 

As you can tell already, I use every opportunity I can to make the focus on these Medicaid cuts. According to a Navigator survey out this week, 81 percent of the American people oppose cutting Medicaid in order to deliver tax cuts for the rich. That is literally what every single House Republican but one voted for last week. We got confirmation yesterday evening that I want to get the word out about: The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office verified what we have been saying: that there have to be hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cuts to Medicaid to accomplish their savings goals. They are deeply unpopular.

I’m going to come back to Medicaid, but I want to go to appropriations for a bit. 

I was listening to you on a recent podcast where one of the hosts was pushing you to fight Trump harder. And you brought up this upcoming government funding deadline and said, “This is our point of leverage.” You said, “If you want our votes, it's got to be to end the illegal activity that has been going on over the last six weeks.”

To translate to listeners: Democrats in the House are saying they won’t be voting for a clean continuing resolution to fund the government unless Republicans agree to effectively tie Elon Musk’s hands. 

Now, Musk obviously has dismissed tens of thousands of employees —

Illegally.

… And I know Democrats and a lot of Republicans, frankly, disagree with some of the stuff Musk is doing. But my question to you is: Are you and Democrats really going to be OK with more than 2 million people being furloughed without pay in order to try to stop Musk in a possible shutdown fight? 

So first, I never unsolicitedly give advice to other members. I’m responsible for my own vote. If anyone privately comes up to me and asks me for my advice, I’m happy to give it. I respect my colleagues’ ability to make their own decisions. That’s number one.

Number two, I just want to challenge a couple of the terms you used. There were two things you said that I think are a little misleading. First, you talk about a hypothetical government shutdown to commence next Friday. We are already in a partial government shutdown illegally. What Republicans are pushing right now is not a continuing resolution. A clean continuing resolution would be what we voted for last December, which was actually all of the appropriations that we voted for being carried out since they have the force of law.

Ever since Jan. 20, that is not happening. And I don’t think enough people have made the connection first that we are already in a partial government shutdown, but number two, that it can't possibly be a clean continuing resolution when what we’re talking about then is essentially sanctifying the illegal closings, like at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, USAID or possibly the Education Department next. That is not a clean continuation of what I voted for when I voted on those appropriation bills or even what I voted for most recently in December.

Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here because typically we see folks more on the fringes who are talking about a “shutdown showdown.” But now a lot of Democrats are very comfortable with pursuing this option. What’s different? 

I actually don’t want any of the shutdown. I want the law to be followed. I want to address impoundments, even though I know most people’s eyes will glaze over if you hear the term “impoundment.” But essentially that is what is happening, in violation of Article One of the Constitution, as well as in violation of the Impoundment Control Act in 1974. The executive does not have the ability to unilaterally make spending decisions. And there's a larger principle at stake here. And during that 12-hour marathon Budget Committee markup, I talked about this.

If you have an executive who essentially has the power of the purse and is able to render Congress moot and has a Supreme Court that he stacked, you no longer have a system of checks and balances. You no longer have three co-equal branches of government. You would have one completely all-powerful branch, the executive branch headed by the president of the United States. That’s not our system of government. So that principle really motivates me throughout this.

It's interesting you bring up the courts because my follow-up to this was going to be, why not just wait for the courts? Because Republicans argued that Obamacare was unconstitutional back then, and eventually the courts upheld it. Why not just let the court figure this out? It sounds like you think the courts are going to side with Trump on this and that’s why you think this has to be the last stand?

I actually don't know how the courts are going to rule.

But I think that the approach of having a multi-pronged strategy makes the most sense: a litigation strategy for sure, but also a legislative strategy. After all, the people who voted for me are expecting me to do all that I can to right these wrongs. And then finally an outside game of people mobilization.

Say Johnson puts up a clean CR next week, he can’t get the votes, all Dems vote against it and the government ultimately shuts down. I can already envision a scenario where Republicans in the House bring up votes every day over and over again to reopen agencies, and Democrats alongside Republicans vote to keep them closed. 

Do you worry that you guys are going to end up being blamed for a government shutdown?

So you’re a few hypotheticals down the line there.

Well, I could see it happening.

There are a lot of things that would have to play out in the interim before we’d reach that point, number one. But number two, I would want to talk to my colleagues. And then ultimately, I have great confidence in our leader, Hakeem Jeffries, who I predict will be the speaker this time less than two years from now. I think that I would be pretty confident that we’ll be unified, whatever the case may be.

Let’s not forget, by the way, the longest government shutdown in American history happened under a Republican president, Republican House and a Republican Senate. So I feel very comfortable saying that in my political career, but even really in my lifetime, anytime you’ve had a government shutdown, it’s because Republicans want one. So I feel very confident in saying if you have a government shutdown with a Republican president, Republican House and Republican Senate, it will be the Republican shutdown and it will happen because they want it.

Well, the difference there was that they were the ones pushing for something, right? Whether it’s against Obamacare or for the wall or something else. 

Right now they're pushing to allow what Musk is doing. They’re pushing for impoundment. They’re pushing for taking away what is vested in Congress in the Constitution. That’s what they’re ultimately attempting to do: to give as much power to Donald Trump as possible, because most of them candidly are too afraid to stand up to Donald Trump because he is incredibly powerful if he weighs in in their primaries.

But in this specific case, you guys are the ones asking for the policy rider of, “We want something on this clean CR that promises us that these appropriations are going to be carried out.”

We’re so radical for wanting the actual law to be followed.

I’m not saying you're radical. I'm just saying you guys are the ones making the ask and usually the party that makes the ask gets in trouble.

Right now you guys have a very clean political case to make about Trump and Musk being responsible for all these people losing their jobs.

In a government shutdown, don’t you worry that it’s no longer a clean case like that, that you guys might take on some of the blame?

Look, again, as someone who does not want any of this to be happening, and is opposed to the current partial government shutdown, I’m doing all that I can to make sure that we have no shutdown and we get back to normal and that we actually follow the law.

Could the best approach for Democrats just be to let Republicans — politically speaking — hang themselves, sit back like, “They're in charge, let them do what they're going to do,” and then reap the rewards when they mess up? Can you just say that to the base or your constituents?

When you consider the deep unpopularity of what they’re attempting to do, when you consider the fact the original tax cuts eight years ago actually always had a higher disapproval rating than approval rating, which is very unique for a series of tax cuts ... But think about it: In those original Trump tax cuts eight years ago, they didn’t have any Medicaid cuts. So this time, they’re blowing up the debt, for huge tax cuts for the richest 1 percent, and they’re partially paying for it with the biggest Medicaid cuts in American history, when almost one in three Americans get their health care from Medicaid.

I’m going to fight them on policy because I believe genuinely in my heart, on principle, that what they are doing is wrong and will have devastating consequences. But I also think in this case, like so many others, good policy is good politics.

So that’s my approach. I will do everything possible to make sure their bad ideas don’t become law, but I think either way, next November, they’ll be held responsible.

To wrap all this together, what advice would you give to Democrats in terms of how they should be either fighting back or not fighting back? Obviously, you are looking at next week as a leverage point and hoping that something could come out of that. But beyond next week?

Look, if any candidate or party came to me and asked for advice, I always believe that every election is about the future and not the past.…Anytime we make it about the voters and how we can improve their lives, that’s when you win.

Bill Clinton had a great line. In 1992, he was getting beaten up on his so-called character issues, and he said, “You know, voters, they care more about their future than my past.” So that’s my philosophy. And I think that if we can keep that in front and center, then we’ll do well.

Listen to this episode of Playbook Deep Dive on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.