Key facts
- Sens. Susan Collins and Patty Murray are at odds over government funding bills.
- Democrats accuse Collins of prioritizing Trump's military budget demands.
- Republicans claim Democrats are playing politics to hinder Collins' re-election.
- The impasse could delay appropriations action until after the midterm elections.
- Disagreements focus on military vs. domestic spending totals and policy votes.
- Trump is advocating for a significant increase in defense spending and cuts to domestic programs.
Senate Appropriations Committee leaders Susan Collins and Patty Murray, who have a history of bipartisan collaboration on government funding bills, are now openly feuding as the midterm elections approach and their spending priorities diverge. Democrats attribute the clash to Collins' pursuit of President Donald Trump's demands for a record military budget, which they argue eclipses domestic spending, as she seeks to retain her Senate seat. Republicans, conversely, contend that Murray is engaging in midterm politics by attempting to prevent Collins from reaching a deal before Election Day.
Collins described the situation as "very frustrating" but insisted their relationship remains on good terms, while Murray offered a terse "We're talking." This impasse could delay meaningful Senate appropriations action until after the elections, potentially shifting the power balance in future funding negotiations. The outcome of congressional races, including Collins' competitive contest, could significantly influence these discussions.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole suggested that Democrats are intentionally preventing Collins, a "reasonable legislator," from achieving a legislative victory. Collins herself acknowledged that the theory of Democrats wanting to deny her success is "pretty pathetic." She has publicly accused Murray of abandoning the appropriations process with her offers, while Murray countered that Collins was responsible for the stalemate by not responding to proposals.
The core of the disagreement lies in funding totals for military and domestic programs, alongside votes on contentious Trump policies. Senate Republicans are advocating for a military funding increase significantly larger than any boost in domestic spending, aligning with Trump's call for a $1.5 trillion defense budget. Murray stated that Republicans are "set on increasing defense in an increasingly huge way that we've never had to deal with before." Republicans also aim to avoid amendment votes that could derail appropriations bills, including those related to the Justice Department's "Anti-Weaponization Fund."
With only three months until federal dollars expire, Collins has yet to hold a committee markup on any government funding bill. Some Republican appropriators concede that the panel might not vote on any spending measures this year due to the deadlock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune asserted that Democrats have transformed the appropriations process into a "partisan game."
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a senior Democratic appropriator, described Collins as being "squeezed in every direction" and in an "unenviable position." She suggested that many Senate Republicans do not prioritize domestic funding, while acknowledging Collins' potential concern for these issues. Since Trump's re-election, Collins has sought to negotiate funding bills with greater domestic spending, resulting in flat funding for nondefense programs and a substantial increase in military spending.
West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a top Republican appropriator, indicated that Collins is focused on increasing funds for the Department of Defense, while Senator Murray is on the opposite side. Capito criticized Democrats for being "obstinate and not participating and not negotiating."
Dick Durbin, a senior Democratic appropriator, characterized Trump's proposed budget as a "massive change" from decades of negotiating matching increases for both military and nondefense funding, stating that accepting the premise would leave "terrible" funding for nondefense areas.
Collins could proceed with markups without Democratic agreement, similar to the House Republican approach. However, this could lead to votes on controversial amendments proposed by Democrats, potentially causing Republican senators to withdraw support, as occurred last summer when an amendment regarding FBI headquarters funding was adopted.