Government Shutdowns: When and Why They Happen

Last updated 2 weeks ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

A government shutdown is one of the most disruptive features of modern American politics. It happens when Congress fails to pass the funding laws needed to keep federal agencies running for the upcoming fiscal year.

The U.S. government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. If Congress hasn’t passed and the President hasn’t signed the necessary funding laws by midnight on September 30, federal agencies face a “funding gap” and must begin shutting down operations.

This suspends all “nonessential” government functions, forces hundreds of thousands of federal employees out of work without pay, and creates disruptions to public services and the national economy.

The shutdown phenomenon has become increasingly common and severe over the past several decades. What once were brief, technical delays have evolved into prolonged political standoffs that can paralyze government operations for weeks or even months.

The longest shutdown in American history lasted 35 days, from December 2018 to January 2019, affecting roughly 800,000 federal workers and costing the economy billions of dollars.

In This Article

• What it is: A shutdown occurs when a “funding gap” halts federal operations.
• How it started: 1980s legal rulings under the Antideficiency Act turned budget delays into full closures.
• Why it happens: Budget breakdowns and partisan standoffs trigger recurring shutdowns.
• Who it hits: Federal workers, contractors, and the broader economy bear the costs.
• Why it persists: Polarization and political incentives make brinkmanship routine.

So What?

Shutdowns are less about budgets than power. They endure because the system rewards confrontation over compromise. Fixing the rules – not just the politics – may be the only real solution.

What is a Government Shutdown?

The Core Problem

A government shutdown happens when the legislative and executive branches can’t agree on a budget for federal operations. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse,” meaning no money can be spent from the U.S. Treasury without congressional approval.

This constitutional provision reflects the founders’ intention to give the legislature control over government spending as a check on executive power. However, they likely never envisioned that this power would be weaponized to shut down entire government operations over policy disputes.

The annual budget process allocates these funds. When this process breaks down and the fiscal year deadline passes without new funding laws in place, a shutdown begins.

A shutdown doesn’t halt the entire government. The conflict almost always centers on discretionary spending, which accounts for roughly one-third of the federal budget and funds most federal agencies, from the National Park Service to the Department of Defense.

The other two-thirds of the budget is mandatory spending, dictated by long-term laws rather than annual appropriations. This includes major entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, as well as interest on the national debt. Because these programs are funded separately, they continue operating during a shutdown, though administrative services may be disrupted.

This explains why someone can still receive their Social Security check while their local national park is padlocked. It also explains why shutdowns, while disruptive, don’t completely paralyze all government functions. The most critical safety net programs continue, but the day-to-day operations that many Americans interact with can come to a complete halt.

The Legal Foundation

Government shutdowns as we know them today aren’t a feature designed by the Constitution’s framers. They’re a modern political phenomenon born from a specific interpretation of a 19th-century law: the Antideficiency Act.

First enacted in 1870 and updated since, this law makes it a crime for federal officials to spend money or enter into contracts without congressional approval. The original purpose was to prevent federal agencies from overspending their budgets and then asking Congress to cover the deficit after the fact.

For the first century of the Act’s existence, funding gaps didn’t lead to widespread shutdowns. Federal agencies generally continued operating on a minimal basis, believing Congress didn’t intend for them to cease all functions while lawmakers finalized the budget. This approach made practical sense – after all, the military couldn’t simply stop defending the country because of a temporary funding delay.

This changed dramatically in 1980 and 1981. In two separate legal opinions, President Jimmy Carter’s Attorney General, Benjamin Civiletti, argued that the Antideficiency Act must be interpreted strictly. He stated that when funding lapses, an agency must terminate all operations unless there’s a clear legal exception. The only permissible activities are those with an “articulable connection between the function to be performed and the safety of human life or the protection of property.”

These Civiletti opinions fundamentally transformed budget disputes. A procedural delay was now a trigger for a full-scale operational crisis. While not consistently followed throughout the 1980s, since 1990, this strict interpretation has been standard operating procedure for every administration.

This history reveals a critical point: the modern government shutdown is a political choice, not a constitutional necessity. It depends on the executive branch’s interpretation of the Antideficiency Act. A future Attorney General could, in theory, issue a new opinion that reverts to the pre-1980 interpretation, which would eliminate the shutdown threat and radically alter budget negotiations.

The Civiletti opinions created what political scientists call a “nuclear option” in budget negotiations. Like nuclear weapons in international relations, the threat of a shutdown can be more powerful than its actual use. The mere possibility of shutting down the government gives political actors enormous leverage in negotiations, even when they have no intention of actually following through.

International Perspective

The United States is virtually unique among developed democracies in its use of government shutdowns as a political tool. Most other countries have constitutional or legal mechanisms that prevent funding gaps from paralyzing government operations.

In parliamentary systems like the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, the failure to pass a budget is treated as a vote of no confidence in the government, triggering new elections rather than a shutdown. This creates strong incentives for political parties to reach budget agreements, as the alternative is risking their hold on power.

Even in countries with presidential systems similar to the U.S., such as Brazil and France, constitutional provisions typically allow governments to continue operating at previous funding levels when new budgets aren’t approved on time. Some countries have automatic continuing resolutions built into their legal frameworks.

This international comparison highlights how the American shutdown phenomenon is largely a product of specific legal interpretations and political choices rather than inevitable features of democratic governance. Other democracies face similar budget disputes and political polarization but have developed institutional mechanisms to prevent those conflicts from shutting down government services.

How Congress Funds Federal Operations

To understand why shutdowns happen, you need to understand the complex process by which Congress funds the government. The federal budget process is a year-long cycle with numerous steps, each one a potential failure point that political actors can exploit to create deadlock.

The modern budget process is the result of decades of congressional reforms aimed at bringing more order and oversight to federal spending. However, these same reforms have also created multiple veto points where determined minorities can block progress, making the system more vulnerable to political gamesmanship.

The Formal Timeline

The formal budget process is laid out in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. In theory, it follows a clear timeline, though in practice, deadlines are frequently missed without penalty.

The 1974 Act was passed in response to conflicts between President Nixon and Congress over spending priorities. Nixon had been impounding (refusing to spend) funds that Congress had appropriated for programs he opposed. The Act was designed to strengthen congressional control over the budget and create a more systematic approach to federal spending decisions.

Step 1: The President’s Budget Request (First Monday in February)

The process officially begins when the President submits a comprehensive budget proposal to Congress. This document, prepared by the White House Office of Management and Budget in consultation with federal agencies, details the administration’s spending priorities and policy goals for the coming fiscal year.

The President’s budget is typically hundreds or even thousands of pages long, containing detailed justifications for every major spending request. It includes not only dollar amounts but also performance metrics, policy explanations, and legislative proposals. Agencies spend months preparing their budget requests, engaging in internal negotiations with OMB about their funding levels and priorities.

The President’s budget is merely a request. Congress isn’t obligated to adopt it and often makes significant changes. However, because the President can veto any spending bills Congress passes, their priorities can’t be entirely ignored. This creates a complex dynamic where Congress must balance its own spending preferences with the need to avoid a presidential veto.

In recent years, presidential budgets have become increasingly partisan documents that reflect ideological priorities more than realistic legislative proposals. They serve as opening bids in negotiations rather than serious blueprints for government operations.

Step 2: The Congressional Budget Resolution (Target Date: April 15)

After receiving the President’s request, the House and Senate Budget Committees each draft their own budget resolution. This document is an internal congressional blueprint that sets overall spending limits for discretionary programs and provides revenue estimates. It’s not a law and doesn’t require the President’s signature.

The budget resolution serves several critical functions. It establishes the total amount of discretionary spending for the fiscal year, which is then divided among the various appropriations subcommittees. It also sets targets for mandatory spending and revenue, though these are largely aspirational since most mandatory spending is determined by existing law rather than annual appropriations.

The budget resolution process often reveals deep philosophical differences between the parties about the role of government. Republicans typically propose lower spending levels and may include instructions for cutting mandatory programs like Medicare or Medicaid. Democrats usually propose higher spending levels and may include provisions for new or expanded programs.

If the House and Senate pass different versions, a conference committee must negotiate a single, reconciled version that both chambers must then approve. In recent years, Congress has often failed to pass a budget resolution at all, which complicates but doesn’t prevent the rest of the process from moving forward.

When Congress fails to pass a budget resolution, appropriators must work without clear spending targets, often leading to confusion and conflict later in the process. This failure to complete basic budget planning is itself a sign of the increasing dysfunction in the congressional budget process.

Step 3: The 12 Appropriations Bills (June 30 – September 30)

This is where specific funding decisions are made. The overall discretionary spending total from the budget resolution (or an informal agreement) is divided among 12 subcommittees in both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Each subcommittee drafts one of the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund a specific cluster of federal agencies.

The 12 appropriations bills cover:

1. Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration
2. Commerce, Justice, Science
3. Defense
4. Energy and Water Development
5. Financial Services and General Government
6. Homeland Security
7. Interior, Environment
8. Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
9. Legislative Branch
10. Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
11. State, Foreign Operations
12. Transportation, Housing and Urban Development

Each bill goes through multiple stages of review and markup. Subcommittees hold hearings with agency officials, examining spending requests line by line. They then “mark up” the bills, making changes and additions before sending them to the full Appropriations Committee. The full committee may make additional changes before sending the bills to the House or Senate floor for a vote.

This process is supposed to provide detailed oversight of federal spending and ensure that taxpayer money is used effectively. In practice, it often becomes bogged down in partisan disputes over relatively small amounts of money or controversial policy provisions.

To become law, each of these 12 bills must be passed in identical form by both the full House and the full Senate and then signed by the President. This requirement for identical passage means that even minor differences between House and Senate versions must be resolved through conference committees or informal negotiations.

Step 4: The Fiscal Year Deadline (October 1)

This is the ultimate deadline. If all 12 appropriations bills haven’t been signed into law by the time the new fiscal year begins on October 1, any agency not covered by a new funding law faces a shutdown.

The October 1 deadline is arbitrary in some sense – the government’s fiscal year could begin on any date. However, it has become a hard deadline that creates enormous pressure on negotiators as it approaches. The knowledge that government operations will cease if no agreement is reached by midnight on September 30 is supposed to force compromise.

In practice, however, this deadline pressure often backfires. Instead of encouraging early agreement, it creates incentives for strategic delay. Political actors may deliberately wait until the last minute to make concessions, hoping that the threat of a shutdown will force the other side to give in. This game of chicken can result in actual shutdowns when both sides miscalculate.

This multi-stage process, requiring agreement between the House, the Senate, and the President at numerous points, is inherently vulnerable to conflict. A breakdown at any stage can derail the entire timeline and push the government toward a shutdown.

The Breakdown of Regular Order

In theory, the budget process is supposed to follow “regular order” – a systematic progression through each step of the process, with ample time for debate and amendment at each stage. In practice, regular order has become increasingly rare.

Congress hasn’t completed all 12 appropriations bills on time since 1996. Instead, the process has devolved into a series of continuing resolutions and last-minute omnibus bills that bundle multiple appropriations together. This breakdown of regular order has several causes:

Increased Partisanship: As the parties have become more ideologically distinct, finding common ground on spending priorities has become more difficult. What were once bipartisan negotiations over funding levels have become partisan battles over the role of government.

Electoral Incentives: Members of Congress have increasingly strong incentives to position themselves for the next election rather than focus on governing. Voting against spending bills can be portrayed to voters as fiscal responsibility, even if it leads to government dysfunction.

Interest Group Pressure: Advocacy groups on both sides pressure members to hold firm on their positions rather than compromise. Conservative groups may punish Republicans who vote for spending increases, while liberal groups may punish Democrats who accept spending cuts.

Media Coverage: Modern media coverage tends to focus on conflict and positioning rather than the technical details of budget negotiations. This creates incentives for political theater rather than serious negotiations.

Legislative Tools and Tactics

When the process breaks down, lawmakers resort to specific legislative tools to either force a compromise or avoid a shutdown.

Appropriations Bills

These are the fundamental legislative vehicles that authorize government spending. An appropriation is a law passed by Congress that provides a federal agency with budget authority, allowing it to incur obligations and make payments from the U.S. Treasury for specified purposes. These bills are at the center of every shutdown fight.

Appropriations bills have several important characteristics that make them powerful legislative tools. First, they have deadlines – agencies need new funding by the start of each fiscal year. Second, they’re considered “must-pass” legislation because the consequences of not passing them are severe. Third, they can be amended with “riders” – policy provisions unrelated to spending that piggyback on the must-pass nature of the bill.

Continuing Resolutions

As the October 1 deadline nears with appropriations bills unfinished, Congress typically passes a Continuing Resolution, or CR. A CR is a temporary, stopgap funding law that keeps the government open for a limited period – from a few days to several months – to give lawmakers more time to negotiate.

CRs usually fund the government at the previous fiscal year’s levels and prohibit new projects or initiatives. This “freeze” approach means that agencies can’t start new programs, hire additional staff, or increase funding for existing programs, even if Congress has already authorized these changes in other legislation.

Once a rare emergency measure, CRs have become the norm. Congress has passed at least one CR in all but three of the last 47 fiscal years. Some fiscal years have seen multiple CRs as lawmakers repeatedly extend temporary funding for short periods.

While CRs prevent shutdowns, they create their own dysfunction. The Government Accountability Office has found that operating under a constant stream of CRs creates uncertainty and inefficiency, as agencies can’t plan long-term, must delay hiring and contracts, and waste valuable staff time preparing for potential shutdowns that may or may not occur.

CRs also distort spending priorities. Because they typically maintain previous year funding levels, they don’t account for inflation, changing needs, or new priorities. Programs that need increased funding may be starved of resources, while programs that should be reduced or eliminated continue at previous levels.

Omnibus Bills

When Congress can’t pass the 12 appropriations bills individually due to gridlock, leaders may bundle many or all of them into a single, massive piece of legislation known as an omnibus spending bill. The term “omnibus” is Latin for “for all,” and these bills can be thousands of pages long, covering the entire discretionary budget.

Omnibus bills represent a complete abandonment of the careful, systematic review process that the appropriations system is supposed to provide. Instead of 12 separate bills that can be debated and amended individually, Congress is presented with a single, take-it-or-leave-it package that must be passed quickly to avoid a shutdown.

This approach forces a single, high-stakes, up-or-down vote, limiting opportunities for debate and amendment. Members of Congress often have just hours or days to review thousands of pages of spending provisions before being forced to vote. This makes it impossible for individual members to understand what they’re voting for and eliminates most meaningful oversight.

While criticized for their lack of transparency, omnibus bills are often the only way to break a legislative logjam and fund the government for the full year. They allow leaders to negotiate complex trade-offs behind closed doors and present rank-and-file members with a fait accompli.

What Happens During a Shutdown?

When a funding gap occurs and a shutdown begins, the consequences are immediate and far-reaching. Federal agencies must consult their contingency plans, developed under Office of Management and Budget guidance, to determine which functions must cease and which may continue.

Each federal agency is required to have a detailed shutdown plan that specifies which employees will be furloughed, which will continue working, and which activities will be suspended. These plans are updated regularly and must be approved by OMB. The process of developing and implementing these plans consumes significant administrative resources even when shutdowns don’t occur.

Agency-by-Agency Breakdown

Different agencies are affected very differently by shutdowns, depending on their funding sources and the nature of their work.

Department of Defense

The military continues operating during shutdowns because defense activities are considered essential for national security. Active-duty military personnel continue serving, though they don’t receive paychecks until the shutdown ends. Major weapons systems and training continue, but some maintenance activities may be delayed.

However, civilian Defense Department employees – who make up about half of DOD’s workforce – are largely furloughed. This can affect everything from base services to weapons procurement to intelligence analysis. During the 2013 shutdown, about 400,000 civilian defense workers were furloughed.

Department of Homeland Security

Most DHS activities continue during shutdowns because they’re considered essential for public safety. Border Patrol agents, TSA screeners, Coast Guard personnel, and immigration enforcement officers continue working without pay. However, administrative functions like processing immigration applications or conducting workplace safety inspections may be suspended.

The continuation of security functions during shutdowns can create operational challenges. When TSA agents and air traffic controllers work without pay for extended periods, some may call in sick or find other employment, leading to longer lines and flight delays.

Internal Revenue Service

The IRS has one of the most complex shutdown procedures of any agency. Tax collection continues because it’s considered essential for government operations. However, customer service, audits, and most enforcement activities stop. During tax filing season, this can create enormous backlogs and delays in processing returns and issuing refunds.

The IRS typically furloughs the majority of its workforce during shutdowns, keeping only about 10-15% of employees working. This skeleton crew focuses on maintaining computer systems and processing payments but can’t handle most taxpayer inquiries or compliance activities.

National Institutes of Health

NIH continues emergency medical care for current patients, but stops accepting new patients for clinical trials and suspends most research activities. This can be particularly devastating for patients with serious illnesses who are depending on experimental treatments.

The interruption of research activities can have long-lasting effects beyond the shutdown period. Scientific experiments that require continuous monitoring may be lost entirely, setting back research projects by months or years. Graduate students and postdoctoral researchers may lose critical data or miss important career opportunities.

Department of Education

Most Education Department activities stop during shutdowns, including processing student financial aid applications and monitoring compliance with federal education laws. However, schools and universities generally continue operating because they’re primarily funded by state and local sources.

The timing of shutdowns can be critical for education impacts. Shutdowns that occur during peak financial aid processing periods can delay students’ access to federal loans and grants, potentially affecting their ability to enroll in or continue their education.

Who Works and Who Stays Home?

During a shutdown, the federal workforce is divided into three categories:

Furloughed Employees

Employees whose work is deemed “nonessential” are furloughed, meaning they’re placed on temporary, unpaid leave and are legally barred from working – even voluntarily. During the 35-day partial shutdown of 2018–2019, approximately 380,000 federal employees were furloughed.

The term “nonessential” is somewhat misleading because many of these employees perform important functions that aren’t considered immediately critical for life and safety. Park rangers, food safety inspectors, and research scientists are all typically furloughed, even though their work contributes significantly to public welfare.

Furloughed employees are prohibited from working in any capacity, including checking email or answering phones. They can’t even volunteer their time to help maintain operations. This total prohibition can create absurd situations where experienced employees watch critical work go undone while being legally prevented from helping.

Excepted (Essential) Employees

Employees whose jobs are considered essential for the protection of life and property must continue to report to work. This includes active-duty military personnel, federal law enforcement officers, border security agents, air traffic controllers, and some medical staff. During the 2018–2019 shutdown, about 420,000 excepted employees worked without pay.

The decision about which employees are “essential” involves complex judgment calls that can seem arbitrary. For example, some IRS employees who process tax payments are considered essential, while others who answer taxpayer questions are not. Some NASA employees who monitor the International Space Station are essential, while others who conduct research are not.

Working without pay creates enormous financial stress for federal employees. Unlike furloughed workers who can at least file for unemployment benefits in some states, excepted employees are expected to continue working full-time without any immediate compensation. This can force families to rely on savings, borrow money, or depend on food banks to survive.

Exempt Employees

A small number of employees are exempt from a shutdown because their salaries aren’t funded by annual appropriations. This includes the President and members of Congress, whose pay is constitutionally protected, as well as federal judges and some other officials with special statutory protections.

The fact that members of Congress continue receiving their salaries while federal workers go without pay is a frequent source of public criticism during shutdowns. Some members voluntarily donate their salaries to charity during shutdowns, but they’re not required to do so.

Although Congress has, after every past shutdown, passed legislation to provide full back pay to all furloughed and excepted employees, the period without income can cause immense financial hardship, forcing families to delay mortgage payments, miss bills, and rely on food banks.

The promise of back pay, while providing some eventual relief, doesn’t help families pay immediate expenses like rent, mortgages, or groceries. Federal employees often have to take out loans or rely on credit cards to survive during shutdowns, incurring interest and fees that back pay doesn’t cover.

Impact on Federal Contractors

One of the most overlooked consequences of government shutdowns is their impact on the millions of Americans who work for companies that contract with the federal government. Unlike federal employees, contractors typically don’t receive back pay when shutdowns end, making them some of the biggest financial victims of these political standoffs.

The federal government is one of the world’s largest purchasers of goods and services, spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on everything from office supplies to major weapons systems. When shutdowns occur, much of this spending stops immediately, creating ripple effects throughout the economy.

Small businesses are often hit hardest by shutdowns. Unlike large corporations that may have diverse revenue streams, small contractors may depend heavily or entirely on federal contracts. When payments stop during a shutdown, these businesses may be forced to lay off workers, delay projects, or even close permanently.

Even after shutdowns end, contractors face additional challenges. Government agencies often need time to restart operations and process delayed payments. This can mean that contractors wait weeks or months to receive money they’re owed for work completed before the shutdown began.

Impact on Public Services

The impact of a shutdown on the public varies widely depending on the agency and service.

Benefits and Entitlements

Major benefit programs with mandatory funding continue. Social Security and Medicare checks are still sent, and Medicaid and SNAP (food stamp) benefits are generally paid out, at least for a short time. However, the furlough of administrative staff can halt the processing of new applications, appeals, or benefit verification.

The continuation of benefit payments during shutdowns reflects their importance in the federal budget and the political impossibility of stopping them. Social Security alone serves over 65 million Americans, and interrupting these payments would create an immediate crisis for millions of vulnerable people.

However, administrative disruptions can still cause significant problems. New applicants for Social Security disability benefits may face delays in processing their claims. Veterans seeking disability compensation may see their cases put on hold. Small problems can compound over time, creating backlogs that take months to clear after shutdowns end.

Veterans’ medical centers and clinics remain open because they receive advance funding, but the VA may stop processing disability claims and other benefits. This can be particularly problematic for veterans who are already waiting months or years for decisions on their cases.

Travel and Recreation

Air travel becomes more difficult during shutdowns. Unpaid TSA agents and air traffic controllers may call in sick, leading to longer lines and flight delays. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, some major airports experienced significant delays as TSA staffing levels dropped.

The aviation system’s vulnerability during shutdowns highlights a critical weakness in the “essential services” approach. While air traffic control is considered essential, the system depends on complex coordination between multiple agencies and support staff who may be furloughed.

National parks, monuments, and Smithsonian museums typically close to the public, devastating local economies that rely on tourism. During the 2013 shutdown, the closure of national parks resulted in an estimated $500 million in lost visitor spending.

The closure of national parks affects not just visitors but entire communities. Gateway towns near popular parks like Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon depend heavily on tourism revenue. Hotels, restaurants, and tour operators can lose most of their business overnight when parks close during peak seasons.

Passport services, which are primarily funded by application fees, usually continue to operate, but an office located in a closed federal building would be inaccessible. This creates a patchwork of service availability that can be confusing and frustrating for the public.

Economic and Financial Services

The IRS is required to continue accepting tax payments, but services like taxpayer assistance, audits, and the issuance of tax refunds can be delayed. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, which occurred during tax filing season, the IRS had to recall furloughed employees to process returns and issue refunds.

The Small Business Administration stops processing new government-backed loans during shutdowns, cutting off a critical source of capital for entrepreneurs. SBA loans are often the only financing option available to small businesses that can’t qualify for conventional bank loans. Delays in SBA loan processing can force businesses to postpone expansion plans or, in some cases, shut down entirely.

Financial regulatory agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission largely shut down during funding gaps. This can delay investigations, halt new regulations, and reduce oversight of financial markets at critical times.

Health and Safety

Public health can be put at risk during shutdowns. The Food and Drug Administration may suspend routine food safety inspections, increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks. The EPA may halt inspections of hazardous waste sites and drinking water systems, potentially exposing communities to environmental hazards.

The CDC continues monitoring disease outbreaks and other public health emergencies, but may reduce other surveillance activities. During flu season or other disease outbreaks, this reduced capacity could slow the detection and response to emerging health threats.

Federal scientific research is severely disrupted during shutdowns. The National Institutes of Health can’t accept new patients for clinical trials, and ongoing experiments can be compromised or lost entirely due to a lack of staff. Long-term research projects that take years or decades to complete can be set back significantly by even short shutdowns.

Weather forecasting, provided by the National Weather Service, continues during shutdowns because it’s considered essential for public safety. However, climate research and long-term weather monitoring may be suspended, potentially affecting the quality of future forecasts.

State and Local Government Impacts

While shutdowns directly affect only federal operations, they can have significant indirect effects on state and local governments. Many state and local programs depend on federal funding or federal data that may be disrupted during shutdowns.

State unemployment offices may be overwhelmed by federal employees filing for benefits. Local food banks may see increased demand from federal workers and contractors who are struggling financially. Tourism-dependent communities may see their tax revenues plummet when federal attractions close.

Some state and local agencies may step in to provide services normally handled by the federal government. During the 2013 shutdown, several states used their own funds to keep national parks open. However, most state and local governments lack the resources to fully compensate for lost federal services.

Economic Damage

The economic harm from a shutdown extends far beyond the federal workforce and isn’t fully recoverable. Multiple studies have attempted to quantify these costs, and they consistently find that shutdowns impose significant economic losses that persist even after normal operations resume.

Direct Economic Loss

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the 35-day partial shutdown of 2018–2019 reduced real GDP by $11 billion over two quarters. While much of that was recovered once the government reopened and back pay was issued, the CBO concluded that $3 billion of that economic activity was permanently lost.

This permanent loss comes from several sources. Cancelled business trips mean lost revenue for airlines, hotels, and restaurants that can never be recovered. Construction projects that are delayed may face higher costs due to inflation or changes in material prices. Research experiments that are interrupted may have to be restarted from the beginning, wasting months or years of work.

The economic impact of shutdowns is not evenly distributed across the economy. Government contractors, tourism-dependent businesses, and communities with large federal workforces bear disproportionate costs. Meanwhile, some businesses may actually benefit from shutdowns if they provide services that substitute for government functions.

Impact on the Private Sector

The federal government spends an average of $13 billion per week on contracts with private businesses. During a shutdown, this spending halts. Contractors may not be paid for work already completed, and new contracts are delayed, forcing some companies to lay off their own employees.

The impact on contractors varies significantly depending on the type of work they do and the agencies they work with. Defense contractors may be less affected because military operations continue during shutdowns. However, contractors working on civilian projects may see their work stop entirely.

The 2018–2019 shutdown delayed over $2 billion in SBA-backed loans to small businesses. These loans are often critical for small businesses that are expanding, purchasing equipment, or managing cash flow. Delays in loan processing can force businesses to postpone growth plans or seek more expensive alternative financing.

The uncertainty created by shutdowns can have economic effects that extend beyond their actual duration. Businesses may delay investments or hiring decisions if they expect future shutdowns. Contractors may demand higher prices to compensate for the risk of payment delays. These effects can persist long after shutdowns end.

Consumer and Business Confidence

Shutdowns can damage consumer and business confidence in ways that are difficult to quantify but economically significant. When the government appears unable to perform basic functions like passing a budget, it can undermine confidence in the stability and competence of American institutions.

International investors and trading partners may view shutdowns as signs of American political dysfunction, potentially affecting currency exchange rates, interest rates, and trade relationships. During the 2013 shutdown, some foreign media outlets characterized the U.S. as a country whose political system was fundamentally broken.

Credit rating agencies have cited shutdown threats as factors in their assessments of U.S. government debt. While the U.S. has never defaulted on its debt due to a shutdown, the periodic crises create uncertainty that can affect borrowing costs even for short periods.

Lost Productivity and Administrative Costs

Beyond the direct economic hit, shutdowns are incredibly inefficient. A bipartisan congressional report found that the three shutdowns between 2013 and 2019 resulted in a loss of productivity equivalent to nearly 57,000 work-years from furloughed federal employees.

Furthermore, the government incurs additional administrative costs simply to execute the shutdown and then restart operations. These costs include overtime pay for employees who must work extra hours to shut down and restart operations, costs of communicating with the public about service disruptions, and late fees on contracts that can’t be processed during shutdowns. The same three shutdowns resulted in at least $338 million in these direct administrative costs and late fees.

The process of shutting down and restarting government operations is complex and time-consuming. Agencies must notify contractors, reschedule meetings, cancel travel, and secure facilities. When operations resume, they must reverse all these steps, often creating confusion and delays that persist for weeks.

Over 80% of federal employees live and work outside the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, meaning this economic pain is distributed across communities in every state. Rural areas that depend heavily on federal agencies like the Forest Service or the Department of Agriculture can be particularly hard hit.

When Shutdowns Are Most Likely

While any budget negotiation can be difficult, certain political conditions dramatically increase the probability of a government shutdown. Understanding these patterns can help predict when shutdown risks are highest and explain why some periods see multiple shutdowns while others see none.

Divided Government

A divided government – where one political party controls the White House while the opposing party controls at least one chamber of Congress – is one of the strongest historical predictors of a shutdown. The most significant and prolonged shutdowns in U.S. history have occurred under these conditions:

• 1995–1996: Democratic President Bill Clinton faced a Republican-controlled House and Senate
• 2013: Democratic President Barack Obama faced a Republican-controlled House
• 2018–2019: Republican President Donald Trump faced a Democratic-controlled House (after the 2018 midterm elections)

Divided government inherently creates legislative gridlock because passing the 12 appropriations bills requires cooperation and compromise between institutions controlled by rival political forces. Each party has different policy priorities, is accountable to a different electoral base, and may see a political advantage in obstructing the other’s agenda.

The dynamics of divided government have changed significantly over time. During earlier periods of American history, divided government often led to bipartisan compromise, as both parties recognized the need to govern effectively. However, as parties have become more ideologically distinct and primary elections have empowered more partisan candidates, divided government increasingly leads to confrontation rather than cooperation.

However, divided government alone isn’t a perfect predictor. Shutdowns have also occurred during periods of unified government, most notably the five shutdowns under President Jimmy Carter, when Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress. These were caused by deep intra-party divisions, demonstrating that factionalism within a party can be just as disruptive as conflict between parties.

The Carter-era shutdowns were typically brief and focused on specific policy disputes rather than broad ideological conflicts. They often involved regional or ideological factions within the Democratic Party disagreeing over spending priorities or regulatory policies.

Partisan Polarization

While divided government provides the structural opportunity for a shutdown, intense partisan polarization provides the political motive. Polarization refers to the widening ideological gap between the two major parties. As Democrats and Republicans have moved further apart on policy and see the other side not just as opponents but as existential threats, the common ground needed for compromise on the budget has evaporated.

Political scientists have documented the dramatic increase in partisan polarization since the 1970s. Congressional voting patterns show that the parties have become more internally unified and more distinct from each other. Members of Congress increasingly view their political opponents as enemies rather than legitimate competitors for power.

This dynamic transforms budget negotiations from a positive-sum exercise of distributing funds into a zero-sum ideological war. It encourages the use of the shutdown threat as a tool of political warfare. A key tactic fueled by polarization is the use of “policy riders” – attaching highly controversial, often unrelated policy demands to must-pass spending bills.

Policy riders have become increasingly common and controversial. They allow political actors to force votes on issues that might not pass through normal legislative channels by attaching them to bills that must pass to avoid a shutdown. This shifts the debate from disagreements over spending levels to fundamental battles over policy.

For example, the 2013 shutdown was triggered by conservative Republicans’ attempt to defund or delay the Affordable Care Act through the appropriations process. The 2018–2019 shutdown was caused by President Trump’s insistence on including $5.7 billion in funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, a demand Democrats refused to meet.

These examples illustrate how modern shutdowns often have little to do with fiscal policy and everything to do with broader ideological conflicts. The budget process becomes a proxy battlefield for disputes that can’t be resolved through normal legislative procedures.

The combination of divided government and high polarization creates the most dangerous conditions for a shutdown. Divided government creates the institutional veto points, and polarization provides the ideological fuel that makes compromise seem like surrender. This combination turns the budget process into a high-stakes game of chicken, where shutting down the government can be viewed by some as preferable to compromising on a core principle.

Primary Election Dynamics

The rise of partisan primaries has contributed significantly to shutdown risk by creating electoral incentives for legislators to take extreme positions rather than compromise. In many congressional districts, the biggest threat to incumbents comes not from the other party in the general election but from more ideologically pure challengers in their own party’s primary.

This creates what political scientists call “primary pressure” – the incentive for politicians to appeal to their party’s most committed activists rather than to moderate voters in the center. For Republicans, this often means opposing any increases in government spending or taxes. For Democrats, it may mean opposing any cuts to social programs or environmental regulations.

Primary pressure is particularly intense for members of Congress from “safe” districts where one party has a large advantage in the general election. These members have little to fear from the other party but must constantly worry about being “primaried” by someone who claims to be more conservative or liberal.

The threat of primary challenges has made many members of Congress reluctant to vote for compromise budget deals, even when they privately believe such deals are necessary for effective governance. This dynamic has made it much more difficult for congressional leaders to negotiate bipartisan agreements.

Interest Group Influence

Modern budget negotiations are heavily influenced by organized interest groups that mobilize their members to pressure politicians to take specific positions. These groups often have more influence on shutdown dynamics than the general public, which typically opposes shutdowns regardless of their political affiliation.

Conservative groups like the Club for Growth, Heritage Action, and FreedomWorks have been particularly influential in encouraging Republican members of Congress to vote against spending increases or compromise budget deals. These groups maintain scorecards of congressional votes and may spend money in primary elections against members who stray from their preferred positions.

Liberal groups like MoveOn, the AFL-CIO, and various environmental and social justice organizations play a similar role on the Democratic side, though they have historically been somewhat less willing to encourage shutdown confrontations.

The influence of these groups has grown significantly with the rise of social media and online fundraising, which allow them to quickly mobilize their members and raise money for or against specific politicians. A single tweet or email blast can generate thousands of calls to congressional offices within hours.

Media and Public Opinion

Media coverage of budget negotiations and shutdowns has evolved in ways that may inadvertently encourage more confrontational behavior. Modern media outlets, particularly cable news channels and online platforms, tend to focus on conflict and drama rather than the technical details of budget negotiations.

This coverage can create incentives for political actors to engage in theatrical behavior designed to generate favorable media attention rather than serious negotiation. Politicians may make extreme demands or inflammatory statements knowing they will receive media coverage, even if such tactics make compromise more difficult.

Social media has amplified these dynamics by allowing politicians to communicate directly with their supporters without traditional media filters. This can create echo chambers where politicians receive positive feedback for taking extreme positions and negative feedback for any signs of compromise.

Public opinion polls consistently show that large majorities of Americans oppose using government shutdowns as a negotiating tactic. However, this general opposition doesn’t translate into effective political pressure because voters tend to blame the other party for shutdowns while supporting their own party’s position.

Election Cycles

The timing within the political calendar, particularly proximity to elections, significantly influences shutdown risk. Shutdowns can be used as a high-profile platform for political posturing, allowing a party or faction to demonstrate its commitment to a core issue to energize its base before an election.

Election timing can affect shutdown risk in several ways. Politicians may be more willing to risk a shutdown in nonelection years when the immediate political consequences are more distant. Conversely, they may be more eager to demonstrate ideological purity to their base in the months leading up to primary elections.

Presidential election years create particularly complex dynamics. Candidates for president may take extreme positions on budget issues to distinguish themselves from their competitors, making compromise more difficult. At the same time, the party controlling the White House may be reluctant to preside over a shutdown that could damage their electoral prospects.

The outcome of a presidential or midterm election can also set the stage for a shutdown. A lame-duck Congress (the period after an election but before the new Congress is sworn in) may either rush to pass a budget or strategically “punt” the decision into the new year, hoping for a more favorable political alignment.

Lame-duck periods can be particularly volatile because members who have lost reelection or chosen not to run again may feel liberated from normal political constraints. They may be more willing to take extreme positions or vote against deals they might have supported when they faced voters.

A History of Government Shutdowns

The history of government shutdowns is a story of political evolution, from brief procedural hiccups to prolonged, weaponized standoffs. Examining these key events reveals the growing influence of the political predictors discussed above and illustrates a concerning breakdown of the informal norms that once guided the budget process.

Complete History of Major Shutdowns (1980-Present)

The following table provides a comprehensive reference for every major federal government shutdown that has resulted in the furlough of government employees since the Civiletti opinions established the modern shutdown framework.

The Early Skirmishes (1980s)

The Reagan administration saw eight shutdowns, but most were extremely brief, often lasting only a day or even a few hours over a weekend. These were typically tactical maneuvers in a divided government, with President Reagan using his veto power to extract further domestic spending cuts from the Democratic-controlled House.

The Reagan-era shutdowns were characterized by their brevity and relatively narrow focus. They usually involved specific disagreements over spending levels or particular programs rather than broad ideological conflicts. Both sides generally treated them as temporary inconveniences rather than existential battles.

During this period, government shutdowns were still relatively novel, and there were few established norms about how to handle them. Agencies often made ad hoc decisions about which functions to continue and which to suspend. The lack of detailed shutdown procedures sometimes led to confusion and inconsistent implementation.

While disruptive, these early shutdowns were seen more as procedural hardball than existential crises. They established the shutdown as a viable political tool but didn’t push it to its limits. The brevity of most Reagan-era shutdowns suggests that both parties recognized the costs of prolonged confrontations and sought to resolve them quickly.

Public reaction to these early shutdowns was generally negative, but they didn’t generate the intense media coverage or public outrage that would characterize later, longer shutdowns. This may have been because their brevity limited their impact on most Americans’ daily lives.

The Game Changer (1995–1996)

The two shutdowns of 1995–1996 marked a dramatic escalation. For the first time, a shutdown was used as a prolonged, strategic weapon to achieve a sweeping ideological agenda. A newly empowered Republican majority in Congress, led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich, sought to force President Clinton to accept a plan to balance the federal budget in seven years, which included significant cuts to Medicare, education, and the environment.

The 1994 midterm elections had given Republicans control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40 years. They campaigned on a “Contract with America” that promised to fundamentally reshape the federal government by reducing its size and scope. The budget became the primary vehicle for achieving these goals.

Gingrich and other Republican leaders believed they could use the shutdown threat to force Clinton to accept their agenda, even though he had vetoed their preferred budget. They calculated that public pressure would eventually force the President to compromise rather than allow the government to remain closed.

When Clinton refused and vetoed their spending bills, the government shut down twice, for a total of 26 days (including the then-record 21-day shutdown). This was the first modern shutdown driven not just by disputes over spending levels but by a fundamental clash of visions for the role of government.

The 1995-1996 shutdowns were notable for several reasons beyond their length. They occurred during the Christmas and New Year holidays, maximizing public inconvenience and media attention. They affected a wide range of government services, from national parks to passport offices to federal websites (which were still relatively new).

Public opinion polling during the shutdowns consistently showed that Americans blamed Republicans more than Clinton for the crisis. This may have been because Clinton was more effective at framing the issue as Republican extremism versus reasonable governance. The shutdowns ultimately backfired on Republicans politically, contributing to Clinton’s reelection in 1996 and helping Republicans learn that prolonged shutdowns could be costly.

The Quiet Period (1997-2012)

Following the political backlash from the 1995-1996 shutdowns, both parties seemed to learn that prolonged government closures were politically risky. For the next 16 years, the U.S. experienced no government shutdowns, even during periods of intense partisan conflict and divided government.

This period included several moments when shutdowns seemed likely but were ultimately avoided through last-minute negotiations. The budget conflicts of this era were often resolved through continuing resolutions and omnibus bills rather than shutdowns, suggesting that political leaders had internalized the lessons of the 1990s.

Several factors may have contributed to this period of relative stability:

9/11 and National Security Concerns: The September 11, 2001 attacks created a sense of national unity and made politicians more reluctant to engage in tactics that could be seen as undermining government effectiveness during a time of ongoing security threats.

Economic Growth: Much of this period coincided with strong economic growth, which reduced fiscal pressures and made it easier to accommodate different spending priorities without fundamental conflicts.

Leadership Restraint: Political leaders on both sides may have been chastened by the political costs of the 1990s shutdowns and more willing to compromise to avoid similar confrontations.

Institutional Learning: Congress and the executive branch developed more sophisticated procedures for managing budget negotiations and avoiding last-minute crises.

However, this period of stability proved to be temporary. The underlying trends toward partisan polarization continued throughout these years, setting the stage for even more severe confrontations in the following decade.

The Modern Era of “Weaponized” Shutdowns (2013-Present)

The conflicts of the 21st century have cemented the shutdown’s role as a tool of ideological warfare in a hyper-partisan era. The shutdowns of this period have been longer, more ideologically driven, and more disruptive than their predecessors.

The 2013 ACA Shutdown

The 16-day shutdown in October 2013 was a clear case of a policy rider triggering a crisis. The government’s funding was held hostage by a faction of House Republicans determined to cripple the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

The shutdown was driven primarily by a group of conservative Republicans, many of whom had been elected in the Tea Party wave of 2010. These members were less concerned with traditional governing responsibilities and more focused on ideological purity. They believed that preventing the ACA from being implemented was worth the costs of a government shutdown.

The fight wasn’t about the budget itself but about using the must-pass nature of a spending bill to force a major, unrelated policy concession. Republicans demanded that any spending bill include provisions to delay or defund the ACA, knowing that Obama would never agree to such terms.

The shutdown lasted 16 days and cost an estimated $24 billion in economic activity. National parks closed, federal workers were furloughed, and government services were suspended across the country. The crisis was finally resolved when moderate Republicans joined Democrats to pass a clean spending bill without ACA-related provisions.

Public opinion polls showed that Americans blamed Republicans more than Obama for the shutdown, and the party’s approval ratings plummeted during the crisis. However, many of the conservative Republicans who drove the shutdown faced no electoral consequences and continued to advocate for similar tactics in future budget negotiations.

The 2018 DACA Shutdown

The brief three-day shutdown in January 2018 was unusual because it occurred during a period of unified Republican government. Senate Democrats blocked a spending bill, demanding protections for immigrants under the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program, which President Trump had moved to terminate.

This shutdown was notable for several reasons. First, it demonstrated that Democrats were also willing to use shutdown tactics when they felt strongly about an issue. Second, it occurred during a weekend, minimizing its immediate impact on government operations. Third, it was resolved quickly when Democrats concluded that they were bearing more political blame than Republicans for the crisis.

The brevity of this shutdown may have reflected lessons learned from previous confrontations. Both parties seemed to recognize that prolonged shutdowns were politically costly and sought to resolve the crisis quickly.

The 2018–2019 Border Wall Shutdown

The longest shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 35 days, was driven by a single, highly symbolic, and ideologically charged issue: President Trump’s demand for border wall funding. This event showcased how a single individual’s demand, amplified by a polarized media and political environment, could bring a significant portion of the government to a standstill.

The shutdown began in December 2018, when Congress passed a spending bill that did not include the $5.7 billion in border wall funding that Trump had demanded. Initially, it appeared that Trump might sign the bill anyway, but conservative media criticism convinced him to reject it and demand wall funding.

The shutdown continued into January 2019, when Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. This created a new dynamic, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to negotiate on wall funding while the government remained closed. The standoff became a test of wills between Trump and Pelosi, with both sides believing they could outlast the other.

The human cost of the shutdown grew as it stretched into its second month. Federal workers missed two consecutive paychecks, forcing many to rely on food banks and charitable assistance. Air travel was disrupted as TSA agents and air traffic controllers called in sick. Courts began running out of funding, and some federal agencies were forced to recall furloughed workers to handle emergencies.

The shutdown finally ended when Trump agreed to temporarily reopen the government for three weeks while negotiations continued. However, no deal was reached during this period, and Trump ultimately declared a national emergency to redirect military funds for wall construction rather than risk another shutdown.

The 2018-2019 shutdown starkly illustrated the immense strain that prolonged closures place on “essential” services and the national economy. It also demonstrated how personal and ideological factors can override traditional political and economic considerations in budget negotiations.

Lessons from Shutdown History

Several patterns emerge from this historical overview:

Escalation Over Time: Shutdowns have generally become longer and more disruptive over time. The brief, technical shutdowns of the 1980s gave way to the prolonged ideological battles of the 1990s and 2010s.

Partisan Blame: Public opinion consistently holds one party more responsible than the other for shutdowns, but which party bears the blame depends on the specific circumstances and how effectively each side frames the issue.

Policy Riders: Modern shutdowns are increasingly driven by attempts to use must-pass spending bills to force action on unrelated policy issues rather than genuine disagreements about spending levels.

Presidential Power: Presidents have significant advantages in shutdown confrontations because they control the executive branch and have a larger platform for communicating with the public. However, this advantage isn’t absolute, as Clinton’s success in the 1990s and Trump’s struggles in 2018-2019 demonstrate.

Economic Costs: The economic costs of shutdowns have grown as the federal government has become larger and more central to the American economy. Modern shutdowns affect millions of workers and billions of dollars in economic activity.

Political Risks: While shutdowns can sometimes achieve short-term political goals, they generally carry significant political risks for the party perceived as responsible. However, these risks may be diminishing as voters become more partisan and less likely to blame their own party for government dysfunction.

This historical progression shows that shutdowns have evolved from brief procedural disputes to major political weapons. They’re no longer just about numbers or even specific policies. They’re about power, ideology, and a willingness to disrupt the basic functioning of the state to achieve political goals.

This trend reflects a deeper issue: the erosion of the informal democratic norms of compromise and forbearance that once prevented such high-stakes brinkmanship. In a healthy democracy, political parties compete vigorously but also recognize that governing requires compromise and that some tactics, while technically legal, undermine the system’s effectiveness and legitimacy.

While public opinion polls show that a vast majority of Americans find using a shutdown as a bargaining chip to be unacceptable, this sentiment hasn’t been a sufficient deterrent. In a polarized nation, voters tend to blame the other party for the gridlock, insulating politicians from backlash from their own supporters.

A 2023 poll found that while 75% of adults disapprove of the tactic, 49% would blame Republicans and 43% would blame Democrats, with only 6% blaming both sides equally. This dynamic allows the cycle of crisis to continue, making future shutdowns not just possible, but under the right political conditions, probable.

The fact that government shutdowns have become a recurring feature of American politics represents a significant departure from historical norms and raises important questions about the health of American democratic institutions.

Other democracies manage to handle budget disputes without shutting down their governments, suggesting that the American experience reflects specific institutional and political choices rather than inevitable features of democratic governance.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.