Lawmakers and White House officials ended a tense meeting on Monday with no breakthrough to stave off a government shutdown as the fiscal-year deadline approaches. With Sept. 30 looming, Republican and Democratic leaders walked out acknowledging unresolved disputes over spending levels, border-security funding and policy riders that neither side was willing to yield on in advance of a stopgap funding vote.

Attendees described the session as substantive but inconclusive. “We had a frank discussion, but there was not an agreement,” said a senior Republican who participated in the meeting. A senior Democratic aide said negotiators “left with a clearer sense of differences, not a path to closure,” underscoring the continuing gap on the size of discretionary spending and the inclusion of controversial provisions favored by hard-line House members.

The immediate consequence of an impasse is procedural and familiar: Congress must pass a continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations bills to keep the government funded beyond the end of the fiscal year. In the Senate, a short-term measure faces the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a filibuster, giving the minority party leverage. The House, where a majority can pass a standalone CR, faces its own internal divisions between lawmakers pushing for steep cuts and those urging a clean funding bill to avoid economic disruption.

A standoff this close to the deadline would reverberate quickly. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees could be furloughed or required to work without pay, while essential services and benefit programs would face administrative slowdowns. Federal contractors and grant recipients have warned that contract suspensions and funding interruptions could ripple through private-sector supply chains and state and local governments. Economists note that even short shutdowns can dent consumer confidence and slow economic activity.

The political calculus is stark for both parties. White House officials pushed for concessions on border policy and reductions to discretionary spending, arguing for a bargain that would fit the administration’s priorities. Congressional Democrats signaled resistance to policy riders that they said would undermine services and protections, while centrist Republicans sought a compromise to avoid the political fallout of shuttered agencies. Each side is calculating blame and messaging for a public that historically penalizes lawmakers seen as responsible for a shutdown.

History offers a cautionary example: the 2018–2019 shutdown, which lasted 35 days, produced measurable costs for federal workers and the economy and left lasting political scars. With the calendar compressing and no procedural agreement in hand, staffers in Capitol Hill offices and federal agencies are preparing contingency plans, and markets are watching the negotiations for signs of disruption.

Leaders from both parties have signaled readiness to reconvene, but with time dwindling the question is whether a temporary deal can be stitched together in the coming days or whether the standoff will force a shutdown that would test the political and operational resilience of the federal government.