Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., unloaded on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Wednesday, suggesting the New York Democrat's opposition to the government funding deal stems not from principle but from wounded pride. Jeffries wasn't in the room when President Trump called Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to broker the agreement—and according to Marshall, that snub is driving the House Democrats' resistance.

The charge landed with the subtlety of a sledgehammer.

He's butt hurt that President Trump didn't call him, too. But I think that's on Schumer.

Marshall's assessment cuts to something deeper than parliamentary procedure. It exposes the fractures within Democratic leadership as the partial government shutdown drags into its fourth day—fractures that have nothing to do with policy and everything to do with status.

The Deal That Left Jeffries Behind

According to Fox News, the scene Marshall described from the Oval Office last week tells the story. As the funding deadline approached, top-ranking Senate Republicans met with President Trump. The conversation turned to breaking the impasse. As Marshall noted:

The president says, 'Get Schumer on the phone.' They get Schumer on the phone. They broker a deal.

That's it. No elaborate negotiations. No weeks of posturing. Trump identified the person who could actually deliver votes, picked up the phone, and made it happen. The five-bill funding package that emerged funds eleven out of twelve agencies under Congress's purview, with a two-week extension for the Department of Homeland Security.

The House passed it on Tuesday. Most House Democrats voted against it. Only 21 broke ranks to support the measure.

Jeffries was nowhere in the process.

The Real Source of Democratic Division

Marshall didn't stop at diagnosing Jeffries's wounded feelings. He pointed the finger directly at Schumer for cutting his House counterpart out of the loop.

So really, it's on Schumer that he agreed to this deal, really, before bringing Hakeem in. And really it comes down to that Hakeem's feelings are butt hurt, and to him, he's fighting for his political life and really struggling.

This is the part Democrats don't want to discuss. Schumer made a calculation. When the President of the United States calls to make a deal, you take the call. You don't put him on hold while you conference in the House minority leader. You don't run it up the flagpole. You negotiate.

Schumer understood something Jeffries apparently hasn't grasped: in a shutdown standoff with a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican White House, the minority party's leverage comes from the Senate's procedural rules—not from the House minority's press conferences. Schumer has the filibuster. Jeffries has a microphone and a grievance.

Who Actually Matters in This Fight

Senate Majority Leader John Thune made the dynamic explicit when discussing the path forward on DHS funding. Asked about negotiations, he didn't mention Jeffries at all.

Ultimately, that's going to be a conversation between the President of the United States and the Democrats here in the Senate.

Thune indicated that Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala., who chairs the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, would carry out negotiations with Senate Democrats. The House minority? Irrelevant to the conversation.

Even Schumer's own statement about the negotiations ahead focused entirely on the Senate dynamic.

If Leader Thune negotiates in good faith, we can get it done. We expect to present to the Republicans a very serious, detailed proposal very shortly.

Notice who's absent from Schumer's framing: Hakeem Jeffries. The Senate minority leader is preparing proposals for Senate Republicans. The House minority leader can read about it in the papers.

The DHS Sticking Point

Senate Democrats have demanded that the bipartisan bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security be sidelined. Their stated reason: they want to impose additional restrictions and reforms on Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Let that sink in.

With a partial government shutdown affecting federal workers and services and the administration carrying out its enforcement priorities, Senate Democrats want to use the funding process to hamstring ICE. They're not fighting to keep the government open. They're fighting to keep the border open.

The two-week DHS extension in the House-passed package was designed to give negotiators time to work through this impasse. But Senate Democrats see an opportunity—the shutdown gives them leverage they wouldn't otherwise have to extract concessions on immigration enforcement.

This is the context for Jeffries's opposition. It's not about fiscal responsibility. It's not about government efficiency. It's about using whatever leverage exists to protect illegal immigrants from enforcement actions.

A Leader Without a Room

Jeffries's predicament illustrates a fundamental truth about political power: it flows to those who can deliver results, not those who hold titles. Schumer can gum up Senate proceedings. He can force votes. He can delay. That's real power in a closely divided chamber with procedural hurdles.

What can Jeffries do? Hold press conferences. Issue statements. Whip votes against bills that will pass anyway with Republican majorities. His 21 defectors on the funding bill show he can't even hold his own caucus together when the politics get difficult.

The House minority leader in a unified Republican government is, functionally, a spokesperson. He can shape messaging. He can fundraise. He can prepare for the next election. What he cannot do is legislate.

Trump recognized this instantly. When the moment came to cut a deal, he called the Democrat who could actually make things happen. Schumer said yes. The deal got done. Jeffries found out later.

Fighting for His Political Life

Marshall's observation that Jeffries is "fighting for his political life and really struggling" points to the House Democrat's deeper problem. After the 2024 election losses, after failing to win back the majority, after watching his party's agenda stall completely, Jeffries needs wins. He needs relevance. He needs to show his caucus that following his leadership produces results.

Being bypassed on a major funding deal—by a president from the opposing party and by his own Senate counterpart—is the opposite of a win. It's a public demonstration of powerlessness.

So Jeffries opposes the deal. He rallies his caucus against it. He frames it as a matter of principle. But the principle is murky at best. The bill funds the government. It keeps agencies running. It provides a path forward on DHS. The opposition isn't about what's in the bill—it's about who wasn't in the room when the bill was negotiated.

What Comes Next

The shutdown continues into its fourth day while Senate Democrats and Republicans negotiate over DHS funding. Britt will lead the Republican side. Schumer will lead the Democratic side. Trump will be the decisive voice when the moment comes.

Jeffries will watch from the sidelines.

The twenty-one House Democrats who voted for the funding package made a practical choice: keep the government running, work out the DHS details later, and move on. Their leader demanded loyalty to a losing position. They chose governing over grievance.

That's the real story here. Not Marshall's colorful language about hurt feelings—though the Kansas senator's bluntness clarified the dynamic beautifully. The real story is a Democratic Party with two leaders pulling in different directions, one of whom actually has power and the other has a title.

Schumer took the call. Jeffries got left behind. The shutdown drags on because Senate Democrats want to relitigate immigration enforcement rather than fund the government.

And somewhere in the Capitol, Hakeem Jeffries is trying to figure out how to matter again.