The House of Representatives on Wednesday evening approved a spending package to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, despite opposition from Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and most House Democrats.
Lawmakers voted 222 to 209 to reopen the government, with six Democrats breaking ranks to support the measure. The White House said President Donald Trump will promptly sign the bill into law.
The Democrats who voted in favor were Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Adam Gray of California, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, Don Davis of North Carolina, and Tom Suozzi of New York,
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a fiscal conservative, voted against the government funding package. He was joined by Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.), who opposed the bill due to a provision allowing senators to sue the federal government if their phone records are seized without prior notice.“I’m not gonna send [Republican South Carolina Sen.] Lindsey Graham half a million dollars,” Steube told reporters before he voted.
The 43-day government shutdown left hundreds of thousands of federal employees without pay while still requiring them to cover their bills, disrupted access to federal food assistance for low-income Americans, and caused widespread travel delays across the country.
The Senate passed the spending package Monday night, ending weeks of gridlock after Democrats delayed action on funding the government for nearly seven weeks.
The funding agreement notably excludes Democrats’ top demand — a guaranteed extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits — which Republicans had rejected as a nonstarter.
Both Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer opposed the measure, which ultimately passed both chambers after several Democrats broke ranks to support it.
While Jeffries has largely avoided criticism over the party’s handling of the shutdown, Schumer has faced sharp backlash from progressives for failing to maintain unity within his caucus and for allowing the government to reopen without securing key Democratic priorities.
The deal will keep the government funded through the end of January and includes tens of millions of dollars in new security assistance for all three branches of government. It also requires the Trump administration to rehire roughly 4,000 federal employees laid off during the shutdown and prohibits additional reductions-in-force (RIFs) until Jan. 30, the outlet reported.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended that aspect of the deal when she was asked about it on Wednesday.
“If you look at that [the recent layoffs] in comparison to the reduction in the federal workforce that this administration has done since January … to reduce the size of our federal bureaucracy, we’ve done a lot of great work on that front. And we will continue to,” she told the Daily Caller.
“The president’s main priority was to reopen the federal government and get people back to work,” Leavitt added.
Jeffries and nearly all members of his caucus voted against a stopgap spending bill on Sept. 19 that would have averted the government shutdown. House Speaker Mike Johnson kept the chamber in recess throughout the funding lapse until the Senate approved a similar measure Monday night.
“The long national nightmare is almost coming to an end now,” Johnson told CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday. “The irony is it really was a shutdown about nothing…what we’re voting on is effectively exactly what we offered them several weeks back.”
“I don’t think Chuck Schumer got anything out of this other than a political show,” Johnson continued. “And sadly, I think that’s what he was after the whole time.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
The corruption investigation that has ensnared Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price represents one of the most complex and financially significant cases of municipal fraud in recent California history. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office filed two additional charges against the Democratic councilman this week, bringing the total scope of alleged criminal activity to over $800,000 in misappropriated public funds and questionable financial arrangements.
Price, who has served as the Los Angeles City Councilmember for the Ninth District since 2013, now faces an expanded criminal case that prosecutors describe as a systematic abuse of public office for personal financial gain spanning multiple years and involving numerous city agencies and contractors.
“Embezzling public funds and awarding contracts for your own financial gain is the antithesis of public service,” Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman declared in announcing the additional charges. “Our communities expect and deserve better from their public officials.”
The district attorney’s strong language reflects the severity of the allegations and the broader implications for public trust in municipal government. Hochman continued: “I thank our investigative team and prosecutors in the Public Integrity Division for diligently pursuing every lead and holding elected officials accountable. Self-dealing and pay-to-play politics will not be tolerated in Los Angeles County.”
This commitment to accountability comes as prosecutors have uncovered what they describe as a sophisticated scheme involving multiple agencies, fake relationships, and systematic conflicts of interest that allegedly enriched Price and his associates at taxpayer expense.
The most financially significant aspect of the corruption case involves allegations that Price orchestrated a complex scheme whereby city agencies paid his wife’s company more than $800,000 while he simultaneously voted to award those same agencies multimillion-dollar contracts—a clear violation of conflict-of-interest laws and ethical standards.
According to prosecutors, the Los Angeles County Housing Authority and LA Metro paid Price’s wife, Delbra Pettice Richardson, through her company Del Richardson & Associates, more than $800,000 total at the same time Price was voting to approve massive funding allocations for these agencies.
The Housing Authority component of the scheme was particularly brazen. Between October 22, 2019, and June 30, 2020, the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles allegedly paid Del Richardson & Associates approximately $609,600. During that exact same period, Curren Price voted to approve a $35 million federal grant and supported a $252 million state grant application for the agency.
The timing and amounts involved suggest a coordinated effort to extract maximum financial benefit from Price’s official position while he was simultaneously making decisions that would benefit the agencies providing payments to his wife’s company. The fact that his staff had flagged the potential conflict of interest beforehand indicates that Price was aware of the ethical violations but chose to proceed anyway.
The LA Metro component of the scheme followed a similar pattern. From October 27, 2020, to October 20, 2021, LA Metro reportedly paid Del Richardson & Associates approximately $219,500. During that same timeframe, Price introduced and voted in favor of a motion to allocate $30 million to LA Metro, despite his staff having again flagged the conflict prior to the votes.
These allegations reveal a systematic pattern where Price’s official votes and advocacy directly benefited agencies that were simultaneously paying substantial sums to his wife’s business, creating what prosecutors characterize as a clear pay-to-play arrangement that enriched the councilman’s household while violating his fiduciary duties to taxpayers.
Beyond the contract steering allegations, Price faces charges related to an even more personally damaging scheme involving healthcare fraud based on a fake marriage claim that allowed him to embezzle city funds for personal medical benefits.
Price is accused of embezzling approximately $33,800 in city funds from 2013-2017 to pay for medical benefits for Richardson, whom he falsely claimed was his wife while still being legally married to Lynn Suzette Price. This deception allowed him to obtain spousal healthcare benefits for Richardson at taxpayer expense while maintaining his actual marriage to another woman.
This aspect of the case reveals not only financial fraud but personal dishonesty that undermines Price’s credibility and demonstrates a willingness to lie about fundamental personal relationships to obtain financial benefits. The multi-year duration of this fraud suggests systematic planning and ongoing deception rather than a momentary lapse in judgment.