Last updated 1 day ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Washington faces another potential government shutdown, but this time with an unprecedented twist. The Trump administration has threatened to permanently fire federal employees instead of temporarily furloughing them, according to reporting from the Associated Press and The Washington Post.
Is this a credible policy shift designed to permanently reshape the federal workforce, or a political bluff to force Democrats into concessions? The Guardian and CBC have both examined the implications for the country’s political landscape.
The answer affects 2.1 million federal workers, essential public services, and the merit-based civil service system that has existed for over a century, as detailed by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
How Government Shutdowns Work
A government shutdown happens when Congress fails to pass the 12 annual appropriations bills that fund federal operations. The fiscal year starts October 1. Without these bills or a temporary Continuing Resolution (CR) to maintain funding, a “funding gap” occurs and triggers a shutdown, according to Rep. Stanton’s office.
Before 1980, the government kept operating during funding gaps. That changed after Attorney General opinions in 1980 and 1981 interpreted federal law as requiring non-essential operations to cease during funding lapses, CBS News reports. Since then, there have been 20 funding gaps since 1976. The longest was the 34-day partial shutdown under President Trump in 2018-2019, per Times of India.
The Antideficiency Act
The Antideficiency Act, dating back to 1870, provides the legal foundation for shutdowns. The law enforces the constitutional provision that no money can be spent without congressional appropriation, according to the Government Accountability Office.
The act prohibits federal agencies from spending beyond what Congress appropriates. A key provision bans accepting “voluntary services.” Furloughed employees cannot work, check emails, or make phone calls from home. An agency cannot accept unpaid labor except in specific emergencies, as USDA guidance explains.
Violating the Antideficiency Act carries serious penalties: administrative discipline including removal, plus criminal penalties with fines and imprisonment.
Who Works During a Shutdown
During a shutdown, federal workers fall into three categories, according to the Partnership for Public Service:
Exempt employees receive salaries from multi-year funding or user fees. They work and get paid normally.
Excepted employees perform work deemed essential for “safety of human life or protection of property.” They must report to work but receive no paycheck until the shutdown ends.
Non-excepted employees are considered “non-essential” and placed on furlough. They go home and cannot work.
Essential services that continue include active-duty military, federal law enforcement at the FBI and CIA, air traffic controllers, TSA agents, and border protection officers, AP reports.
Programs funded through mandatory spending or user fees remain unaffected. Social Security and Medicare checks continue. The Postal Service delivers mail. Passport and visa services typically stay open because application fees fund them, Rep. Stanton’s office notes.
Many government functions stop. Past shutdowns closed Smithsonian museums and national parks, paused new Social Security benefit applications, delayed mortgage and small business loan approvals, and suspended economic data collection and publication.
How Agencies Decide Who’s Essential
The Antideficiency Act’s exceptions for activities protecting life and property give the executive branch significant authority in deciding which functions and employees are “excepted,” CBS News explains. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exercises this authority.
An administration can prioritize agencies that align with its political agenda. Trump administration contingency plans show the Department of Education would furlough nearly 90% of staff, while the Department of Homeland Security would furlough only 5%, keeping most Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel working, according to Times of India.
This selective application transforms a shutdown from a simple funding lapse into an administrative tool, letting the president shape government operations in real-time. Political opponents worry it could be used to “decimate the government,” The Washington Post reports.
Furlough vs. Firing: The Legal Difference
The difference between furlough and firing represents a vast gap in legal status and consequences for federal employees.
A shutdown furlough is temporary and non-disciplinary. An employee enters non-duty, non-pay status because of a funding lapse, USDA guidance states. The position isn’t eliminated. The employee returns to work once funding resumes.
Since the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, all federal employees affected by a shutdown receive guaranteed retroactive pay, whether furloughed or required to work, the Partnership for Public Service notes.
A Reduction in Force (RIF) is permanent. It’s a formal legal process agencies use to abolish positions due to reorganization, shortage of funds, or lack of work, according to the Office of Personnel Management. The employee’s job is eliminated. Separation from federal service is permanent.
The RIF Process
Agencies cannot conduct RIFs arbitrarily. OPM regulations govern the process to ensure fairness based on merit principles, not political favoritism.
When agencies abolish positions, they must determine which employees to release by applying four retention factors in order:
- Tenure of employment (career permanent versus temporary)
- Veterans’ preference
- Length of service (total federal civilian and uniformed service time)
- Performance ratings (typically the last three annual reviews)
OPM regulations create a retention register ranking employees. Those with the lowest standing go first. Agencies must provide written notice at least 60 days before a RIF takes effect, the American Action Forum explains.
| Feature | Shutdown Furlough | Reduction in Force (RIF) |
|---|---|---|
| Cause | Lapse in congressional appropriations | Reorganization, lack of funds, position abolishment |
| Duration | Temporary (until funding restored) | Permanent separation |
| Legal Basis | Antideficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) | OPM Regulations (5 C.F.R. Part 351) |
| Pay Status | Temporary non-pay status with guaranteed back pay | Permanent salary loss; potential severance |
| Employee Rights | Right to return once funding resumes | “Bump and retreat” rights to other positions; Merit Systems Protection Board appeals |
| Selection Criteria | Applies to all “non-excepted” positions | Based on tenure, veteran status, service length, performance |
The Legal Conflict
The core legal conflict lies in the clash between political priorities and merit system principles.
The OMB memo directs agencies to consider RIFs for programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities,” AP reports. Federal law and OPM regulations mandate RIFs based on four neutral criteria: tenure, veteran status, service length, and performance.
“Consistency with the President’s priorities” isn’t a legally permissible factor in determining which employee gets laid off. Initiating a RIF based on political alignment rather than established criteria would likely constitute an illegal “prohibited personnel practice” under civil service law, designed to prevent politicization, according to the Office of Special Counsel.
The directive challenges the legal foundation of merit-based civil service, created to replace the political “spoils system” of the 19th century, the Merit Systems Protection Board notes.
The White House Memo
An OMB memo to federal agencies, first reported by Politico, instructed agency heads to prepare for mass layoffs beyond typical shutdown furloughs.
The memo directs agencies “to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities” meeting three conditions:
- Discretionary funding lapses October 1
- No alternative funding source exists
- They are “not consistent with the President’s priorities”
The memo clarifies this is separate from furloughs, stating RIF notices would be issued “in addition to” furlough notices, PBS reports. This means agencies would prepare to eliminate jobs regardless of whether employees are furloughed or deemed “excepted.”
Once any shutdown ends and new funding passes, agencies should revise RIF plans “as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions,” The Guardian reports. This indicates the administration views a shutdown as a catalyst for achieving a smaller federal workforce.
Trump’s Public Statements
President Trump has consistently blamed Democrats for a potential shutdown. “Could be, yeah, because the Democrats are crazed. They don’t know what they’re doing,” he told reporters. About mass firings, he said, “Well, this is all caused by the Democrats,” AP reports.
This occurs while Republicans control the White House and both chambers of Congress. The administration argues Democrats are forcing a shutdown by refusing a “clean” CR and demanding policy concessions, particularly extending Affordable Care Act subsidies and reversing Medicaid cuts, according to The Guardian.
This strategy contrasts sharply with 2018-2019, when Trump publicly declared he would “take the mantle” of responsibility for the border wall funding fight.
Legal Obstacles to Shutdown Firings
The administration’s plan faces significant legal and practical hurdles. The law mandating shutdowns also constrains agency operations, creating a situation where the government may be too shut down to legally fire people.
The Practical Problem
Executing a legal RIF is complex. It requires human resources specialists, legal counsel, and multiple management levels to ensure compliance with 5 C.F.R. Part 351 regulations, The Dispatch explains. During shutdowns, most administrative personnel are “non-essential” and furloughed.
The Antideficiency Act’s prohibition on “voluntary services” means furloughed HR and legal professionals cannot perform their duties, including work required to prepare and execute RIF notices, the Center for American Progress notes.
Elaine Kamarck, a Brookings Institution senior fellow, told The Dispatch: “Even when you’re letting go of people, you still need people to let go of them legally… And there won’t be anybody there to do that. Usually the HR function is one of the first that close down.”
The shutdown itself paralyzes the administrative functions needed to carry out firings.
The OPM Guidance
Recognizing this obstacle, OPM issued last-minute guidance attempting a legal workaround, the Center for American Progress reports. The guidance breaks with decades of precedent by creating a new exception to appropriations law.
It allows human resources staff to be deemed “excepted” so they can work during a shutdown specifically to carry out RIFs set in motion before the funding lapse. The guidance also permits furloughed employees to check government email and devices specifically for RIF updates, something previously forbidden, Times of India notes.
The guidance’s existence is a tacit admission of legal weakness. For over four decades of modern shutdowns, the prevailing interpretation was that complex administrative actions like RIFs could not be conducted during funding lapses. OPM historically maintained a clear distinction between “shutdown furloughs” (caused by lack of appropriations) and “administrative furloughs” or RIFs (agency-led management actions).
If the administration believed it already possessed clear legal authority to conduct RIFs during shutdowns, no new guidance would be necessary. OPM had to invent a new legal justification, demonstrating it recognized the existing framework as an obstacle.
Civil Service Protections
Any mass firing would confront civil service laws protecting career federal employees from arbitrary, politically motivated dismissal, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund explains.
The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 codified a merit-based system, according to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
Career employees who completed probation are entitled to “due process” before major adverse actions including removal. This includes at least 30 days’ advance written notice, the right to review evidence, and the right to respond orally and in writing to an impartial deciding official, FedeLaw notes.
Employees separated via RIF can appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an independent quasi-judicial agency protecting the merit system. Employees could argue the agency failed to follow proper RIF procedures or that the RIF was a pretext for a “prohibited personnel practice,” such as firing someone for political affiliation.
The Trump administration has challenged this system, arguing in court that presidential constitutional powers supersede statutory due process rights and challenging MSPB independence.
Presidential Power and Constitutional Limits
The administration’s fundamental legal argument rests on a broad interpretation of presidential power called the “Unitary Executive Theory,” the American Action Forum explains.
Proponents contend the President possesses sole authority over the entire executive branch. Career civil servants are presidential agents. Laws limiting the president’s ability to hire and fire employees—like civil service protections—unconstitutionally infringe on executive power, according to White House statements.
The counterargument, repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court for over a century, is that the Constitution grants Congress power to create federal offices “by Law” (Article II, Section 2) and make all laws “necessary and proper” to run the government (Article I, Section 8), Congress notes.
This has long been interpreted to mean Congress has broad authority to design the federal bureaucracy, establish qualifications, and place reasonable limits on presidential removal power, particularly for non-political career officials carrying out statutory functions, Justia explains.
Political Strategy or Policy Goal?
The threat to fire federal workers can be analyzed as both short-term political hardball and long-term strategic reordering of government.
A Bargaining Chip
The immediate interpretation is as a negotiating tactic. The current standoff centers on Democratic demands for policy concessions, primarily healthcare-related. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries demand extended ACA subsidies and reversed Medicaid cuts from a recent Republican spending bill, Times of India reports.
By threatening to permanently fire hundreds of thousands of workers, the administration raises the stakes, The Guardian notes. This pressures Democrats, particularly those representing states like Maryland and Virginia with large federal employee populations, to accept a “clean” funding bill, Yahoo News reports.
Democratic leaders have called this “mafia-style blackmail” and vowed not to be swayed.
The Schedule F Connection
The threat aligns with the administration’s broader ambition to restructure civil service, encapsulated in “Project 2025” and the “Schedule F” executive order creating a new employment category, AP reports.
Reinstated and amended in January 2025, the order creates a “Schedule Policy/Career” classification, Congressional Research Service documents. This aims to reclassify tens of thousands of career employees in positions with “policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character,” Wikipedia explains.
Once reclassified, employees lose civil service protections including due process and appeal rights, becoming at-will employees who can be fired for any reason, including political disloyalty, the National Federation of Federal Employees notes. The stated goal is purging the “deep state” and ensuring bureaucratic loyalty to the President’s agenda, the Project on Government Oversight explains.
The OMB memo’s directive to target programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities” directly mirrors Schedule F logic and language.
A Vehicle for Restructuring
The shutdown presents a unique opportunity. While removing career civil servants perceived as ideological obstacles is normally slow and legally complex, a shutdown provides pretext. One legally permissible RIF reason is “shortage of funds.” A shutdown creates a government-wide shortage of funds, giving the administration plausible legal justification for massive RIFs.
The shutdown becomes what one professor called “a vehicle for culling entire segments of those parts of the workforce that are not aligned ideologically with the president,” CBC reports.
The threat is both bluff and policy goal: the political crisis provides the legal cover to advance the pre-existing objective of reshaping the federal workforce.
Potential Economic Impact
Following through on the threat would extend consequences beyond individual employees, triggering economic damage and long-term public service degradation.
Economic Costs
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the 35-day 2018-2019 partial shutdown cost $11 billion, with $3 billion lost permanently, CBS News reports. This came from lost productivity of furloughed workers and delayed government spending and contracts, CBO analysis shows.
That analysis assumes furloughed workers eventually receive back pay, allowing consumer spending to rebound. A shutdown with mass permanent layoffs would be far more damaging, Investopedia explains.
Permanently removing hundreds of thousands of workers from federal payrolls would create lasting drag on consumer demand, increase unemployment claims, and disrupt local economies, particularly around Washington, D.C., 19th News reports.
One analysis estimated each shutdown week costs about $7 billion, a figure compounded by permanent layoffs, Economic Times notes.
A shutdown halts publication of key economic data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis. This would leave the Federal Reserve, investors, and businesses “in the dark” about the economy, potentially amplifying market volatility.
Service Disruptions
Public service degradation would be severe and potentially permanent. The 2018-2019 shutdown provides a preview.
The Trump administration kept many national parks accessible without adequate staff. The Government Accountability Office later found this illegal, as the Interior Department improperly used recreation fee funds for operational costs. Results were devastating: overflowing toilets, illegal off-roading carving new roads into wilderness, and cutting down iconic, centuries-old trees in Joshua Tree National Park, Western Priorities reports.
Permanent layoffs would amplify disruptions across government. Past shutdowns have caused:
Delayed loans: A backlog of 1.2 million IRS verification requests delayed mortgage and other loan approvals in 2013, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes. The Small Business Administration would halt new loans.
Reduced public safety: Fewer food safety inspections would increase public health risks.
Justice system backlogs: The 2018-2019 shutdown led to over 86,000 canceled immigration court hearings, Rep. Carbajal’s office reports.
Halted research: The Department of Health and Human Services would stop admitting new patients into clinical research studies, Times of India notes.
Impact on Federal Workers
The threat has sent fear through the federal workforce. Employees describe themselves as “terrified” and call the tactics “inhumane.”
This isn’t an isolated event. It follows the “deferred resignation program,” which prompted what some call the largest mass resignation in U.S. history, and previous Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) firings.
OMB Director Russell Vought stated a desire to put federal workers “in trauma” so they “not want to go to work.”
Federal employee unions like the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) have condemned the threat, arguing the administration is using public servants as “political pawns” and pursuing “illegal mass firings.”
Long-Term Capacity Erosion
The long-term impact would be profound erosion of government capacity. A temporary furlough preserves institutional knowledge and expertise. Mass firings, particularly targeting programs based on political alignment, permanently destroy that capacity, the Senate Appropriations Committee notes.
It removes experts, erases institutional memory, and creates a chilling effect deterring talented individuals from public service careers. The result would not simply be smaller government, but less effective, less expert, and more partisan government, where service disruption becomes permanent rather than temporary.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
