The Lobbyist Connection | Friday Update
The DHS Shutdown as a Constitutional Fight
March 27, 2026 | A focused briefing on the constitutional collision between the House, the Senate, and the President.
Friday Constitutional Watch
DHS Standoff | Day 42
Bottom line
The constitutional center of gravity remains with Article I: Congress writes the appropriations law, both chambers must pass the same text, and only then can the President sign it. Today’s fight is not just President versus Congress. It is also a live test of bicameralism—because the Senate moved one DHS funding path while the House rejected it and pushed another.
What happened
Early Friday, the Senate passed H.R. 7147, as amended, by voice vote. The package was designed to reopen most of DHS operations, including TSA, FEMA, and the Coast Guard, but it did not resolve the immigration-enforcement fight that has driven the standoff.
Later Friday, House Republicans rejected that Senate deal. Speaker Mike Johnson instead backed a 60-day continuing resolution through May 22 to fund the entire department at current levels. President Trump said he supports that House approach.
Also Friday, the White House issued a memorandum directing DHS and OMB to use funds with a “reasonable and logical nexus” to TSA operations to pay TSA employees, while expressly stating that implementation must remain consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Why this is constitutional, not just political
1) The Appropriations Clause is still king
Article I provides that no money may be drawn from the Treasury except through appropriations made by law. That means the President cannot fully “solve” a shutdown by memo alone. Executive action can relieve pressure at the margins, but it cannot substitute for enacted appropriations legislation.
2) Bicameralism is the immediate choke point
Even after the Senate acted, there is still no law because the House and Senate have not passed the same text. Constitutionally, that is the present barrier. A Senate vote alone does not reopen DHS. A House preference alone does not reopen DHS. The same bill must clear both chambers and go to the President.
3) The White House memo is powerful, but limited
The administration’s TSA-pay directive matters politically and operationally, but the memo itself is carefully drafted. It does not claim unlimited executive spending power. It ties the action to existing law and available appropriations. That is a tell: the White House is trying to ease the consequences of the shutdown without openly claiming the power to override Congress’s control of the purse.
Status tonight
The shutdown is not constitutionally over. The Senate has passed one vehicle. The House is pursuing another. The President has taken a narrower executive step aimed at TSA. But none of that replaces the need for a law enacted through both chambers and presented to the President.
So the legal and constitutional status remains the same: DHS is still trapped in an unresolved Article I appropriations fight, even if TSA payroll pressure begins to ease.
Where it goes from here
There are now only three realistic constitutional off-ramps:
Option One: The House takes the Senate bill
This is the fastest path to an enacted law. If the House accepts the Senate’s narrower funding package, the bill can move directly to the President.
Option Two: The Senate accepts the House CR
If the House passes the 60-day continuing resolution, the Senate would have to take it up and pass it in identical form. That would temporarily reopen the entire department, but it would defer the underlying fight.
Option Three: More executive stopgaps
The White House can try to stabilize more operations using already-available funds, but that road gets shakier the further it goes. The deeper the executive branch moves into shutdown management without a fresh appropriation, the more directly it tests Congress’s exclusive power over spending.
Strategic takeaway for government affairs professionals
This is now a live demonstration of how constitutional structure constrains every player in Washington. The Senate can move. The House can resist. The President can relieve operational pain. But unless the same appropriations text passes both chambers, the constitutional machinery does not produce a final answer.
Live source links