After weeks of stalled negotiations and mounting harm for families across the country, Maine Sen. Angus King says Democratic lawmakers reached a crossroads: keep fighting a battle with no clear path forward or shift tactics. King, an Independent who caucuses with Democrats and was a key negotiator in the agreement, ultimately joined seven Democrats who voted to advance a deal to reopen the government.
The move triggered an intense backlash on the left, with frustration spilling over onto Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, even though he opposed the plan. California Rep. Ro Khanna was among several Democrats suggesting Schumer either step down or be pushed out of leadership.
In a conversation with Katie Couric, King explains why he believes the shutdown strategy had run its course and why securing a guaranteed vote on Affordable Care Act tax credits once the government reopens was worth the political risk. He walked through why the shutdown, in his view, “wasn’t doing it” — and what he considers genuine gains delivered by the deal.
Why King thinks the shutdown strategy failed
King argues the shutdown wasn’t a productive way to stand up to Trump — if anything, he says it handed the president more power. He points to the administration’s freeze on SNAP benefits while the government remained closed, which he says was “inflicting a lot of collateral damage” on people who were just struggling to put food on the table.
“We’re literally talking about people going hungry,” King tells Katie. “And that was the primary thing that was on my mind.”
He also says the shutdown offered no realistic path to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies — after checking in with Republicans, he concluded there was a “zero percent chance” of meaningful discussion. King argued the shutdown didn’t give Democrats any leverage — it only got in the way.
“The position [Republicans] took at the beginning is: We’re not going to negotiate about the Affordable Care Act or the healthcare issue while the shutdown goes on,” he explains. “So the question was: Was the shutdown an incentive to negotiations or an impediment? And the reality is, it was an impediment.”
Together, he argues, these two realities — deepening harm and no path forward — made ending the shutdown the only viable option.
Where he sees real gains
King pushes back on claims that Democrats “caved,” arguing the agreement secured “some pretty substantial wins” that hadn’t been on the table before negotiations began.
One major benefit, he says, was the inclusion of three bipartisan appropriations bills — including agriculture, which covers SNAP. Passing them would guarantee SNAP funding for a full year, providing stability for the 42 million Americans who rely on the program.
He also points to protections for federal workers, noting the deal requires agencies to rehire anyone furloughed or laid off after Oct. 1 and ensures all back pay is restored. For King, these provisions go beyond simply ending the standoff: They safeguard workers who have gone weeks without pay.
Perhaps most significant procedurally, he says, is a guaranteed vote on a Democratic bill to extend ACA subsidies by mid-December. Without this agreement, he argues, Republicans could have let the tax credits expire quietly, without ever taking a position. Now, the deal forces a public vote and, in King’s view, at least creates a pathway — however slim — to securing the subsidies.
“The law is that these tax credits expire at the end of December automatically — nobody has to do anything. No bill passes, no votes, no nothing,” King explains. “Now we’ve got a vote where the Republicans are going to have to stand up and either say, ‘We’re going to fix this,’ or ‘We’re going to own it.’”
For what it’s worth, when asked about this on Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson would not commit to holding a vote (or confirm that he would not hold one) on the ACA subsidies.
Why progressives are angry
Not everyone in the Democratic Party agrees with King’s approach.
Progressive lawmakers — including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren — took to X to publicly blast the deal. They believe keeping the government closed focused national attention on the urgency of extending ACA subsidies and, in their view, increased pressure on Republicans to negotiate.
King said he understands why some Democrats are upset, but he questions the strategy behind keeping the shutdown going. “We weren’t winning anything,” he says, adding that critics hadn’t laid out an “end game” for how extending the shutdown would lead to real progress while millions faced growing hardship.
He emphasizes the disagreement isn’t about what Democrats want — he supports extending the subsidies — but about how to achieve it. He believes prolonging the shutdown would have only resulted in more pain, not more progress.
“There are real people’s lives that are at stake here,” he says. “This isn’t an abstract discussion. If we don’t get this shutdown over, there’s going to be real hurt for people across the country.”
Watch Katie’s full conversation with Sen. King in the video above.
