The Brief

President Donald Trump has signed a bill to fund the government, bringing a close to the longest government shutdown in history, one that saw millions of Americans affected and ended with little political gain.

The bill passed Wednesday night despite Republicans' narrow margin in the House. Six Democrats joined their Republican colleagues to get the bill over the finish line 43 days after the shutdown began: Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Adam Gray of California, Jared Golden of Maine, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Tom Suozzi of New York.

Two Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Greg Steube of Florida — voted no. The final vote was 222 to 209.

Trump signed the bill shortly after the House vote. He blamed Democrats for the shutdown at the signing event in the Oval Office.

"This was an easy extension but they didn't want to do it the easy way," Trump said. "They wanted to do it the hard way."

In addition to extending last year's spending levels through the end of January for most of the government, the bill provides funding for some agencies through the end of next September, including payments for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The program, which provides food aid to nearly 1 in 8 Americans, has been mired in a court battle because of the shutdown.

The bill includes a measure to reverse layoffs the Trump administration imposed during the shutdown, provides backpay for federal employees, and institutes protections against further layoffs.

But the central issue underlying the entire shutdown — extensions on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire at the end of the year — is not addressed in the bill.

Instead, as part of the deal reached with a bipartisan contingent of senators , Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed to hold a vote in mid-December on Democrat-drafted legislation aimed at extending those subsidies.

That doesn't sit well with many Senate Democrats, who remain wary of the pledge.

"A handshake deal with my Republican colleagues to reopen the government and no guarantee to actually lower costs is simply not good enough," said Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., who voted against the measure.

Even if a December bill addressing the expiring subsidies passes the Senate, it would need to go to the House. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has not made a guarantee to bring such a bill to the floor for a vote.

A lot of pain, not a lot of gain

Government shutdowns historically have not been effective tools for advancing a party's policy goals. The last six weeks proved that to be the rule, not an exception.

The decision by Senate Democrats not to fund the government before Oct. 1 was fueled, at least in part, by demands from the Democrats' political base to be a strong opposition party. The party homed in on a promise that they would not fund the government unless Republicans agreed to extend subsidies for people who buy health care through the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

The decision came after key Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, voted alongside Republicans to avoid a shutdown in March. The result was a furious Democratic base, who demanded the minority party exert what little leverage it has to force a negotiation with Republicans in exchange for their votes to fund the government.

With an eye toward the expiring subsidies and resulting skyrocketing premiums, Senate Democrats stood firm during the October shutdown, hoping their resolve, paired with the devastating impacts of the shutdown on millions of Americans, would bring Republicans to the negotiating table.

But the strategy ultimately didn't work. Republicans didn't budge and continued to hold regular votes to fund the government.

In the meantime, 42 million Americans who participate with SNAP didn't receive the food aid they rely on. Air traffic controllers and most Transportation Security Administration employees had to remain on the job without pay, leading to the Federal Aviation Administration's order to scale back flights . Millions of federal workers went without pay.

The group of seven Democrats and one independent senator who voted to end the shutdown acknowledged that waiting longer wouldn't bring about a different result.

"There was no guarantee that waiting would get us a better result, but there was a guarantee that waiting would impose suffering on more everyday people," Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., told NPR.

The result is an end to a shutdown that does not address the core demand from Democrats on the subsidies. Instead they are left to defend the kind of handshake agreement that they once said was insufficient.

Thune's ultimate deal with Democrats aligns with his repeated statements throughout the shutdown that Republicans would be open to negotiating on the expiring subsidies only after the government was funded, not before.

Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, one of the six Democrats who voted for the bill in the House, said there is still an opportunity to address health care.

"Congress still has a window to pass bipartisan legislation to extend the ACA premium tax credits," Golden said in a statement. "In September, I joined a bipartisan coalition in the House to put forth legislation to extend the credits for one year and now, with the shutdown now over, I urge members of both parties who care about affordable health care to come back to the table so we can get the job done."

Another factor that didn't go Democrats' way is the president himself. President Trump has been known at times to upend Congressional Republicans' game plan. But he took a step back during the shutdown and let Thune drive the GOP strategy. He didn't take the bait from Democrats who repeatedly asked where Trump "the great negotiator" was in the discussions.

What happens now? 

Both parties have significant choices ahead that could lay the groundwork for their political successes and headaches through next year.

Senate Democrats have about a month to craft a bill that addresses the expiring ACA subsidies in a way that brings enough Republicans on board for passage.

If they're successful at getting an extension, Democrats will be able to start 2026 with a policy victory in hand that will shape their messaging going into the midterm elections. If Republicans don't support it, Democrats still have what they see as a winning issue — health care — to run on next year.

Some Republicans have shown interest in addressing the subsidies, but want to institute reforms like fraud prevention and income caps.

And both parties have to contend with the fact that the government is only funded for a few months. Congress will still have to pass nine other appropriations bills before the continuing resolution ends.

Copyright 2025 NPR

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s former chief of staff, Dana Williamson, and four co-conspirators were indicted Wednesday on 23 counts of bank and wire fraud, allegedly committed from 2022 to 2024, during her time working for the governor.

The indictment alleges that Williamson, a longtime Democratic strategist, worked with Greg Campbell, a prominent Sacramento lobbyist, and Sean McCluskie, the former chief of staff to former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, as well as two other unnamed co-conspirators to steal $225,000 from an unnamed former official’s dormant campaign account for McCluskie’s personal use.

“Collectively, they funneled the money through various business entities and disguised it as pay for what was, in reality, a no-show job,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said in a news release.

Prosecutors allege that Williamson and one of the unnamed co-conspirators, described only as a former California public official who owned a political consulting firm, used their political strategy firms to funnel money out of a campaign account, believed to be Becerra’s, into an account controlled by McCluskie. They allegedly disguised the funds as payments for McCluskie’s spouse, who was described in the indictment as a stay-at-home parent.

Williamson is also accused of falsely claiming more than $1.7 million in business expenses on her taxes. She used the funds to purchase luxury handbags, chartered jets and a nearly $170,000 birthday trip to Mexico, the indictment alleges.

Williamson, who previously held a high-level position in Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, was well known for her negotiating ability. When she left his office, Newsom said in a statement that he would miss her "insight, tenacity and big heart.”

The indictment indicated that Becerra had no knowledge of the scheme, and he confirmed as much Wednesday afternoon in a written statement via his spokesperson, Owen Kilmer.

“The news today of formal accusations of impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” said Becerra, a prominent candidate to succeed Newsom in next year’s gubernatorial election. He added that he had fully cooperated with the U.S. Justice Department and would continue to do so.

“As California’s former Attorney General, I fully comprehend the importance of allowing this investigation and legal process to run its course through our justice system.”

Williamson was scheduled to appear in federal court Wednesday afternoon.

A spokesperson for Newsom distanced the governor from his former top aide.

“While we are still learning details of the allegations, the governor expects all public servants to uphold the highest standards of integrity,” said Izzy Gardon, Newsom’s spokesperson, in a written statement.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his Attorney General to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” the statement said.

Patel, the special agent in charge, said in a news release that the charges were “the result of three years of relentless investigative work.”

“The FBI will remain vigilant in its efforts to uncover fraud and corruption, ensuring our government systems are held to the highest standards.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

After more than two years of discussion and debate, the Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to significantly lower annual rent increases in most of the city’s apartments.

L.A.’s current rent control rules guarantee landlords the right to raise rents at least 3% every year. Increases can be as high as 10% in some apartments during periods of high inflation.

But under the reforms passed by 12 of the council’s 15 members, rent increases would be capped at 4% annually, and an additional 2% increase for landlords who cover utilities would be eliminated. The exact rate each year would be equal to 90% of the change in the region’s consumer price index, a government measure of economic inflation.

“We need to make a change to this formula,” said Nithya Raman, chair of the council’s Housing and Homelessness Committee ahead of the vote. “Extraordinary rent increases are driving people out of the city.”

The rules passed by the majority of councilmembers would set a new floor of 1% in years of low inflation. Councilmembers Bob Blumenfield and John Lee voted against the changes, and Councilmember Curren Price recused himself from the vote because he is a landlord.

This is the first overhaul of the city’s rent increase formula since 1985. Tenant groups have long argued that the current rules increase costs faster than incomes for many renters, pushing some toward eviction and potential homelessness.

Landlord groups decried the changes, saying the city is further clamping down on their ability to keep up with skyrocketing insurance premiums and steep maintenance costs.

Before the new rules take effect, they still need to be drafted by the City Attorney’s Office and returned to the council for a final vote.

‘We would end up homeless’

The changes represent a step toward but not a full adoption of the demands for a 3% cap at 60% of inflation from tenant groups. Humberto Altamira, an unemployed cook living with his wife in L.A.’s downtown Fashion District, said his family’s rent went up about $50 per month earlier this year, and they would struggle to afford another increase of 3% or more.

“We would end up homeless and living on the street,” Altamira said, speaking in Spanish.

Humberto Altamira and his wife stand in front of L.A. City Hall ahead of a City Council vote on rent control.

(

David Wagner/LAist

)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the city banned increases for nearly four years . The new cap, while comparable to caps in many other Southern California cities, does not reflect the rising costs property owners face, said California Apartment Association spokesperson Fred Sutton.

“Reject arbitrary magic numbers,” Sutton said. “These changes will not create a single new home, but they’ll make it even harder to build, making the housing crisis worse for everyone.”

Where LA rent control applies

The city’s rent control rules generally cover apartments built before October 1978, as well as new units that replace demolished rent-controlled units or are attached to older buildings.

Nearly two-thirds of L.A.’s residents live in rental housing. And because most of them live in older properties, the city’s rent control rules affect about 42% of all L.A. households.

Some councilmembers, including John Lee, said stricter rules would run counter to other local policies to spur housing development, such as Mayor Karen Bass’ executive directive to speed up the approval of affordable housing projects.

“Just as we are gaining momentum, we are considering a change,” Lee said. “This sends the message, ‘Do not build here. Do not invest in Los Angeles.’”

Other councilmembers said getting rental costs under control is key to addressing homelessness. At last count , about 43,500 people lack housing in the city.

“We have an eviction-to-homelessness pipeline,” Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez said. “We get calls constantly from property owners about people experiencing homelessness around their buildings.

“We are struggling to deal with that crisis,” Hernandez continued. “We can’t house the number of people every year that are falling into homelessness. And a majority of that is because they can’t afford it.”

To build or not to build?

Renters and landlords crowded into City Council chambers to give public comment ahead of Wednesday’s vote.

Megan Briceño, who owns eight rent-controlled apartments, told LAist she has building permits to construct an accessory dwelling unit on her four-unit property in Mid-City L.A. Because the unit will be rent-controlled, she said the city’s changes could halt her building plans.

“I don't know how much longer I can continue to do business in a city that constantly feels like I'm fighting for my basic property rights, for a basic fair return,” Briceño said.

The process of reforming L.A.’s rent control ordinance was kickstarted in October 2023, when councilmembers Hugo Soto-Martinez and Bob Blumenfield asked for an in-depth review of the city’s rules.

LAist obtained the city-commissioned report produced in that process and was the first to publish it in September 2024.

Among other observations and recommendations, the report argued for eliminating an additional 2% annual increase landlords can impose if they pay for a tenant’s electricity and gas service. The report found that over time those increases can eclipse the entire cost of providing those utilities.

The reforms passed Wednesday include the elimination of this utility bump.