Texas – Texas Sen. Ted Cruz tried to frame it as a rare moment of Washington fairness, a “massive bipartisan” step in a city better known for standoffs than shared sacrifice.
But within hours, his celebration was met with a sharp reality check from ordinary Americans who argued that delaying lawmakers’ pay during shutdowns does not come close to solving the deeper anger over how Congress protects itself while federal workers absorb the pain.
Read also: “Complete and total embarrassment” Chuck Schumer’s deranged meltdown over Trump-Xi Summit backfires
“No paycheck for Members of Congress while working men and women across the federal government go without theirs. That’s basic fairness. Grateful to @SenJohnKennedy for leading this effort and to my Senate colleagues for passing it unanimously,” Cruz wrote on X.
No paycheck for Members of Congress while working men and women across the federal government go without theirs. That’s basic fairness.
Grateful to @SenJohnKennedy for leading this effort and to my Senate colleagues for passing it unanimously. https://t.co/4MDOsF2EWA
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) May 15, 2026
His message came after the Senate adopted Sen. John Kennedy’s resolution directing that senators’ salaries be withheld during future government shutdowns and released only after funding is restored.
The measure passed by unanimous consent on May 14, following an earlier 99-0 vote to advance it, and applies only to the Senate. It is also not immediate, taking effect after the November 2026 elections.
Kennedy, a Louisiana Republican, described the resolution as an effort to put senators under the same pressure felt by federal employees when Washington fails to keep the government open.
“This is about shared sacrifice. If senators are going to vote to shut down the government and prevent millions of federal workers from getting paid, they ought to have the same skin in the game. My resolution will ensure that senators aren’t the only people receiving their paychecks during a government shutdown,” Kennedy said in announcing the measure.
Read also: “Dems must confront their own problem”: Sen. Fetterman rages on Dems as top PA judge dumps Democrats
The proposal arrived after an unusually bruising period of shutdown politics.
In late 2025, the federal government went through a 43-day full shutdown, which became the longest in U.S. history at the time. Federal workers were furloughed or ordered to work without pay, while disruptions rippled through airports, public benefits, food safety work, national parks and other services.
Then, in early 2026, a separate Department of Homeland Security funding lapse stretched for about 76 days, again forcing frontline workers into financial stress while members of Congress continued receiving their salaries.
On paper, the idea was simple: if federal employees miss paychecks during a funding lapse, senators should not be insulated from the consequences. In a divided Senate, unanimous support gave the resolution the look of a clean political win.
Cruz and Kennedy both presented it as common-sense accountability, especially after repeated budget fights left workers caught in the middle.
But the comments under Cruz’s post quickly showed that many Americans were not impressed. The main complaint was not that senators should continue being paid during shutdowns.
It was that a delayed paycheck is a minor inconvenience for lawmakers who are far wealthier than the people they represent. Critics argued that the measure sounded tough but left untouched the bigger issues that fuel public distrust: congressional wealth, stock trading, weak accountability and a political class that rarely feels the full cost of its own gridlock.
One X user dismissed the resolution bluntly.
“Did jack s*it. Everyone knows the vast majority of you senators don’t need that check. We need real accountability such as a shutdown triggering special elections for all seats and anyone in office can not run,” @tielborlis2 wrote.
Another user argued that missing a paycheck would not hurt members of Congress the way it hurts federal workers.
“Oh please. Not getting paid is not a hardship for the US Congress. It’s literally the only profession you can start poor then become stinky rich in no time.”
Others used the moment to criticize the Senate for priorities they believe remain unfinished.
One reply said, “You know what else is common sense? The Save Act you hypocritical fu*k. People that are millionaires from insider trading don’t give one lick of spit about a ‘paycheck’. What a joke.”
The difference between withholding pay and actually losing it became another flashpoint.
“That is really just a show. If the senate shuts down the government they should forfeit their pay for as long as the government is shut down. Not deferred, forfeit. They probably get interest on their deferred payments.”
A fifth user tied the frustration directly to congressional stock trading.
“What a joke!!! Gaslighting us as if this means anything. We all know that most don’t need the money, as they enrich themselves with insider trading. Do something real and prevent that. Should only be able to invest in index funds.”
The reaction captured a larger divide between how Washington describes reform and how the public measures it. For senators, the resolution was a bipartisan answer to a visible unfairness. For many voters, it was a symbolic fix for a system they believe has become too comfortable with symbolic fixes.
The measure may still matter, especially for federal workers who have watched lawmakers debate shutdowns from a position of financial safety.
But the backlash to Cruz’s post showed that delayed pay alone is unlikely to satisfy Americans who want deeper consequences for political failure. For them, the problem is not only whether senators receive a paycheck during a shutdown. It is whether Congress ever truly feels the same pressure it places on everyone else.
