The Trump administration, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the leadership of Russell Vought, has increasingly exercised executive authority over federal spending, a responsibility traditionally reserved for Congress. Recent decisions have included the cancellation of foreign aid and the power to withhold billions in domestic spending. Joshua Sewell, the director of research and policy at Taxpayers for Common Sense, anticipates that any impending shutdown will differ significantly from past occurrences. He believes that the Trump team's strategies will be politically motivated, utilizing the shutdown as a tool to reshape governmental functions.
Max Stier, the chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit focused on enhancing the federal government, warns that if lawmakers fail to negotiate a deal, Trump and Vought will possess substantial authority to decide which services, programs, and federal employees may be sidelined. Such decisions could exceed the scope of previous shutdowns, indicating a shift in how shutdowns are managed. The Antideficiency Act prohibits the government from incurring debts or spending money without Congressional approval, yet historically, the shutdown process has been more about adherence to tradition than strict legal frameworks.
In recent government shutdowns, while hundreds of thousands of federal employees were furloughed, these shutdowns did not lead to widespread permanent layoffs or major reorganizations. According to federal law, furloughed workers are entitled to receive back pay once the shutdown concludes. During a shutdown, Trump and his congressional allies would oversee government operations, raising questions about the extent of their authority.
The Trump administration has already reduced the federal workforce by approximately 200,000 employees, a figure that could rise to 300,000 by year-end, as noted by Stier. Moreover, the administration has significantly cut budgets for various agencies and programs, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Voice of America. An email from OMB, first reported by Politico, instructed agency heads to consider issuing “reduction in force” notices to employees working in programs deemed inconsistent with the President’s priorities or lacking secure funding sources.
Rachel Greszler, a workforce expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, pointed out that while the administration has not mandated layoffs, it has encouraged agencies to notify employees about potential job losses if Congress proceeds with funding cuts. This strategy could signal to Democrats that their demands for health care funding may backfire, potentially resulting in more significant reductions to the federal workforce.
The memo from OMB raises several questions about the timing and scale of potential layoffs. It suggests that once appropriations for fiscal year 2026 are approved, agencies should reassess their staffing plans. Sewell indicated that this memo hints at a dual strategy of implementing shutdown-related furloughs alongside a separate process for mass layoffs. However, whether these layoffs will occur before or after funding is restored remains uncertain. Experts have mixed opinions regarding the legality of these layoffs, emphasizing that any such actions must adhere to established regulations, including a mandatory 60-day written notice.
Sam Berger from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who previously worked at OMB during the Biden and Obama administrations, stated, “A shutdown provides no new legal authority to engage in widespread firings.” In response to these concerns, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the memo as an “attempt at intimidation” and predicted that any resulting firings would likely be reversed.
Despite a government shutdown, certain mandatory spending programs, such as Social Security, will continue without interruption. This ensures that Americans can still receive their Social Security checks and access Medicare and Medicaid services. In previous shutdowns, essential services like border protection, medical care, and law enforcement remained operational, although disruptions can occur. For instance, during the 2018-19 shutdown, holiday travelers experienced delays due to the absence of unpaid TSA staff and air traffic controllers.
Each administration has considerable discretion in defining what constitutes an “essential” worker. For example, during the 2013 shutdown, the Obama administration closed national parks, whereas the Trump administration kept many parks open with limited services, using previously collected entry fees to cover personnel costs—a move later deemed a violation of federal law by the Government Accountability Office.
As Trump’s second term progresses, the administration is likely to prioritize key policies such as immigration enforcement while potentially targeting cuts in areas already facing reductions. Notably, Trump has consistently campaigned on a pledge to abolish the Education Department and has actively worked to diminish the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency. As the political landscape continues to evolve, the implications of a government shutdown under the Trump administration could reshape the federal workforce and influence the delivery of essential services across the nation.
