Trump’s shutdown tactics borrow from the Freedom Caucus

When President Donald Trump declared last month that he was willing to risk a partial government shutdown to secure funding for a wall on the southern US border, most observers scratched their heads. Shutdowns cause significant economic and social disruptions, and those who instigate them usually lose favor among voters.

Yet Trump ignored the warnings of Senate leader Mitch McConnell and other party leaders. He refused to sign a spending bill that passed the Senate and was teed up for a vote in the GOP-led House, and even offered to take full responsibility for a shutdown. As a result, we are now in the midst of the longest government shutdown in American history.

That Trump would place such emphasis on building a border wall is not a surprise. It was a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, and he believes that failure to build it would seriously damage his standing among his core supporters who want one. But why would Trump believe that refusing to sign funding bills without money for a wall is the best strategy to get what he wants?

The answer likely lies with the House Freedom Caucus, an organized group of conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives. The caucus advocated for the shutdown — which reflects the kinds of tactics used by the group in the past — and it has developed key ties to Trump that allow its members to shape the president’s strategic decisions.

The Freedom Caucus was formed in early 2015 by several House conservatives frustrated with their lack of influence and by policy compromises between GOP leaders and President Obama. The group quickly grew to more than 30 members, and while that was not enough to pass its desired bills in the House, the caucus was sufficiently large and unified to be a pivotal bloc on highly partisan votes.

As I show in my forthcoming book on the caucus, this allowed the group to credibly threaten the defeat of legislation they disliked and force GOP leaders to allow votes on proposals they wanted. In its first two years, the Freedom Caucus had an impressive 83 percent success rate when it tried to block bills or force votes on bills, amendments, or procedural motions.

The Freedom Caucus also took credit for the early retirement of Speaker John Boehner, whose proclivity toward compromise and punishment of the group’s more rebellious members had rankled conservatives. Though caucus’s role in Boehner’s early departure was in some ways overstated, it nonetheless helped cement the image of the Freedom Caucus as a powerful group that could cause major headaches for noncompliant party leaders.

During its first two years, the Freedom Caucus developed a reputation for using threats and other hardball tactics with both Republican leaders and the Obama White House to get what it wanted. That included, in 2015, threatening to sink appropriations bills — thereby shutting down the federal government — if they contained funding for Planned Parenthood. The group moderated its approach to some degree after Trump was elected, but not entirely; for instance, in November 2017 it threatened to kill a floor rule when GOP leaders tried to alter the funding mechanism for the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The Freedom Caucus tends to employ threats and other aggressive legislative tactics on issues over which its members have strong preferences. Illegal immigration is one of them — in fact, the group’s first successful use of hardball legislating occurred over a border security bill. It is thus unsurprising that the Freedom Caucus has been among the biggest advocates of following a shutdown strategy to secure money for a border wall. And when the president was expected to sign a GOP spending bill without money for a wall, Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) and other caucus members mounted an aggressive campaign to oppose the bill with floor speeches, social media, and appearances on Fox News.

Also worth noting is that the caucus frequently endorsed assertive tactics in Congress as a means of showing voters that they are fighting hard to fulfill their campaign promises. Its members have used the same rationale to argue for the current shutdown. Former Caucus Chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) told the White House it should insist that congressional Republicans fund a border wall “because they told voters they would,” while Meadows lamented on the House floor that too many politicians “forget what they promised the American people.”

Members of the Freedom Caucus have not relied solely on pushing publicly for certain White House strategies. One of the important but underappreciated tactics of the caucus is to develop ties to sympathetic political actors in positions of power. Those ties allow the group to exercise far more influence than it would otherwise be able to, given its small size.

Trump’s election gave the caucus a unique opportunity in this regard. Trump, a nominal Republican and novice politician, lacked both political experience and a network of party professionals he could draw on to staff the White House or provide advice. The Freedom Caucus filled the vacuum. Not only have some of its members been Trump’s biggest public advocates, but several have moved into the executive branch or developed personal connections that allow them to advise the president informally.

Meadows, for instance, has routinely defended the president on national television, and he reportedly speaks with Trump on a regular basis. His relationship with the president is so close that he was briefly considered as a replacement for John Kelly as White House chief of staff.

Though Meadows wasn’t selected, another Freedom Caucus co-founder was — former Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) — placing a caucus ally in a uniquely powerful position to advise the president on political strategy. As chief of staff, Mulvaney can also be a key conduit for Freedom Caucus members seeking White House access. In fact, when he was director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, Mulvaney met with caucus members more often than with leaders of the Republican Party in Congress.

These personal and professional connections have given the Freedom Caucus an additional means of shaping presidential decision-making. When Trump was expected to sign a GOP spending bill without wall funding, Meadows called Trump directly and urged him to defy Republican leaders in Congress by letting the government close. Later, when Trump threatened to declare a state of national emergency and build the wall without Congress’s cooperation, he backed off after multiple Freedom Caucus members expressed opposition.

Trump’s embrace of government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic suggests that the influence of the House Freedom Caucus is greater than ever. And if it ultimately yields some funding for a border wall, the president’s esteem for the caucus will likely grow. But if the current record-breaking shutdown goes on for too long or ends in defeat for the president, the group may find it harder to maintain that influence.

In fact, there are already signs of disagreement between Trump and the Freedom Caucus over how to resolve the impasse. Although presidents are regularly tempted to exercise power unilaterally, the Congress-centered, limited-government Freedom Caucus has traditionally opposed giving greater power to the executive branch. Trump did agree with caucus members who urged him not to try to build the wall via a declaration of emergency, but he may find it too tempting to refrain from expanding his executive authority in order to build his long-sought-after border wall.

Another, related possibility is that Trump simply decides to fold, or is compelled to do so by other congressional Republicans, as the partial shutdown continues to damage his image and the GOP brand. Some initial surveys already suggest that the reputation of the party and the White House is being harmed by the shutdown. Should Trump subsequently blame the caucus for recommending that strategy, it could further hurt the group’s standing in the White House. (Interestingly, Mick Mulvaney is reportedly “open to anything that will bring the shutdown to a close.”)

But regardless of how this government shutdown ends, the fact that we have one is a testament to the outsize West Wing influence of the House Freedom Caucus.