BOMBSHELL: Ted Cruz Says Democrats “Want America to Fail” Amid Schumer Shutdown
Senator Ted Cruz launched a blistering attack against Democratic leadership, blaming them squarely for a government shutdown that has lingered into its 29th day.
According to Cruz, the shutdown is not about genuine policy negotiation but about protecting Chuck Schumer and appeasing the radical left‑wing of his party.
Cruz argued that Democrats, under Schumer’s guidance, intentionally allowed the funding for the federal government to lapse.
He said their demands—among them taxpayer‑funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants and the reversal of work requirements for able‑bodied adults—are so extreme they have effectively triggered this standoff.
In Cruz’s view, this is not a simple budget dispute but a political maneuver. “This is all about political saving Chuck Schumer’s rear end,” Cruz declared, accusing Schumer of throwing American taxpayers under the bus in order to placate his party’s base.
He said: “We’re on day 29 of the stupidest shutdown. This is the SCHUMER Shutdown.”
Cruz’s words reflect deep frustration over the failure of the Senate to approve even a clean funding measure, even though the House passed one.
He painted the situation starkly: “The reason the government is shut down is that Chuck Schumer has a political problem. And he has a political problem from right where you’re sitting right now, from New York.” Cruz went on to assert that progressives in the Democratic Party almost removed Schumer from his leadership post after an earlier decision to allow funding to continue—yet now Schumer is playing to that same base by refusing to open the government.
Cruz accused Democrats of hypocrisy, pointing out that when shutdowns happened under Democratic leadership in the past, they condemned the tactic. Now, he says, they are using it as a weapon for pure politics rather than public service.
He warned that at some point “seven or eight Democrats are going to have some sense come into them.” According to Cruz, it’s likely that these will be retiring Democrats—those no longer worried about a primary challenge—who are free to break ranks because they don’t face the same pressure from the radical left‑wing base. In his telling, those in danger of primaries must pander to extreme positions, thus forcing the shutdown.
Cruz emphasized that while the shutdown continues, essential services are still functioning, but many federal workers are going without pay. The underlying damage, he said, goes beyond the immediate. He argued the shutdown erodes public trust in government, hurts working families and veterans, and punishes taxpayers who did nothing to create the mess.
He urged Americans to see the shutdown for what it is: not a noble policy stand, but a power move. “We’re NOT watching public policy, or elected officials who give a D‑MN about the people they represent!” Cruz exclaimed, shifting into a more emotional tone to emphasize his point that ordinary citizens are suffering while political games play out.
Cruz pointed specifically to the issue of illegal immigration and healthcare. He argued that Democrats’ refusal to reopen the government without addressing their demands for undocumented immigrants is proof that this is about something other than funding normal government operations.
“Their demands include taxpayer‑funded healthcare for illegal aliens and a reversal of the Republican reforms blocking handouts to able‑bodied adults who refuse to work.”
He also suggested the Democrats are exploiting the shutdown to demonstrate to their base that they are willing to “stand up” against Donald Trump and Republicans—even if that means harming the country in the process.
“They almost threw [Schumer] out of the job as minority leader… This shutdown exists for one purpose, and it’s for him to tell the crazy left‑wing base… I hate Donald Trump as much as you do,” he said.
Cruz urged Republicans and the American public to hold their ground: not to allow the Democrats to continue using the shutdown as leverage.
He called for clean funding measures—free from what he described as extraneous partisan policy riders—to be approved immediately.
According to him, the first priority should be reopening the government, then negotiating policy reforms rather than forcing them through the appropriation process.
He stressed that constituents should issue pressure: “If your senator tells you this is just about principles and policy, ask them whose principles and whose policy.”
Cruz asserted that the agenda being pushed is not aligned with the values of most Americans or taxpayers, but rather with a specific faction within the left‑wing of the Democratic Party.
Cruz also addressed the optics: he said the public looks at this and sees dysfunction. He warned that the longer the shutdown drags on, the greater the risk of long‑term damage—not only to federal operations but to faith in governance itself.
“You do not build trust in government by shutting it down. You build it by opening it, doing work, and delivering for the people,” he said.
SENATE EXPLODES: John Kennedy UNLEASHES a BOMB Exposing HIDDEN SECRETS and MORAL BLIND SPOTS—The SHOCKING TRUTHS That Made Washington Fall SILENT!
The Capitol Fire Ignites
Washington D.C. rarely witnesses a Senate hearing that feels like a cultural earthquake, yet this week, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) ignited the room with a level of intensity and moral outrage that left both lawmakers and witnesses stunned.
The topic was the surge of anti-Semitism on college campuses across America, but Kennedy quickly made it clear that this was not just a discussion about policy — it was a confrontation with ideology, morality, and accountability.
As cameras rolled, Kennedy’s piercing gaze scanned the room, noting the presence of witnesses, staffers, and lawmakers, each awaiting the performance of political theater that he was about to dismantle with surgical precision.
A Moral Reckoning
The hearing opened with Kennedy’s sharp, uncompromising line of questioning aimed at uncovering the root causes of anti-Semitism on campuses. Unlike other senators who might have relied on gentle probes or bureaucratic phrasing, Kennedy spoke with an unflinching directness.
He questioned witnesses about their connections between federal policy, institutional oversight, and the rise in campus hostility toward Jewish students. “Did I understand you to testify that anti-Semitism is worse under the Trump administration?” he asked, his voice calm yet edged with disbelief.
The witness confirmed, and Kennedy immediately pressed further: Was the previous administration truly responsible for the rise of hatred, or were elite institutions failing in their moral responsibilities? His tone made it clear: this was about principles, not politics.
The DEI Dilemma
Kennedy did not merely investigate policy; he confronted an entire framework of thought pervasive in American academia.
Citing protests at Columbia, Berkeley, and UCLA, he criticized universities for confusing “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) with “the right to hurt Jews.” The senator argued that progressive ideology had, in some cases, been weaponized to shield anti-Semitic behavior under the guise of social justice.
Witnesses attempted to retreat into bureaucratic explanations about funding or investigative protocols, but Kennedy was relentless. He demanded that the moral core of these institutions be addressed: When ideology eclipses accountability, students pay the price, and campuses become breeding grounds for hate.
Direct Confrontation with the Witnesses
As the hearing progressed, Kennedy’s focus sharpened, zeroing in on testimony that connected anti-Semitism to political rhetoric. He questioned whether compassion for the Palestinian people could coexist with hatred toward Jews, cutting through political noise to expose what he described as moral relativism.
His questions were calculated, designed to leave no room for evasion. Witnesses struggled to answer, trapped between defending institutional actions and acknowledging the visible patterns of prejudice.
Kennedy’s piercing interrogations highlighted the dangerous gray area where activism can unintentionally—or intentionally—foster discrimination.
