The Potential Implications of a Government Shutdown
Government shutdowns have happened before, but this one could be unique. The current administration, led by the President, could potentially use a shutdown to exercise greater power over government spending, a role usually held by Congress. The administration has already made moves to cut foreign aid and assert control over several billion dollars of domestic spending.
Some experts are suggesting this shutdown may not resemble previous ones. They predict that this administration's decisions will be largely driven by political objectives.
Shutdowns and Government Functions
The President could potentially use a shutdown to reshape governmental functions, a step that some see as far-reaching. In case lawmakers fail to make a deal, the President and his top aides could have a lot of power to decide which government services, programs, and employees are essential and which ones are not. These decisions could potentially be more drastic than what we've seen in past shutdowns.
Although the Antideficiency Act states that the government can't spend or owe money without Congress' approval, the process of how a shutdown unfolds has often been guided more by convention than by law. In previous shutdowns, many employees were put on leave, but these situations didn't lead to widespread permanent layoffs or major reorganizations. Federal law guarantees that federal workers receive back pay for the period they are furloughed.
What Might Happen During a Shutdown?
During a shutdown, the President and his allies in Congress would be in control of the government. But what could the President do by himself? He could advise agencies to think about layoffs. The current administration has already downsized the workforce by about 200,000, a number that could rise to 300,000 by year's end. The administration has also significantly reduced some agencies and programs.
Agencies have been advised to think about sending "reduction in force" notices to employees working on programs not in line with the President's priorities or without mandatory or other funding. This doesn't mean layoffs are mandatory, but it might serve as a warning to federal employees about which jobs could be at risk if Congress reduces their agency's funding.
This could also serve as a warning to those demanding more funding for health care, as it could potentially lead to further reductions in the size of the federal government. However, many questions remain, such as how many employees might face layoffs and when they might happen.
Legality of Potential Layoffs
Opinions are mixed on whether any layoffs would be legally upheld. Any such process must abide by the rules, including providing a 60-day written notice. It's worth noting that a shutdown doesn't provide new legal authority for massive layoffs. Some critics have labeled this as an intimidation tactic and predict that any such layoffs would be reversed.
Continued Services During a Shutdown
Mandatory spending—ongoing expenditure that doesn't need periodic renewals from Congress—usually continues during a shutdown. This means Americans would still receive Social Security checks and have access to Medicare and Medicaid. In past shutdowns, border protection, hospital care, air traffic control, law enforcement, and power grid maintenance were deemed essential and remained active.
However, even essential services can be disrupted. For instance, during a previous shutdown, many travelers faced delays as unpaid TSA staff and air traffic controllers didn't show up for work. Administrations have a lot of leeway to define "essential" workers. In a previous shutdown, one administration closed national parks, while another kept many national parks open with limited services, using paid entrance fees to cover personnel costs.
The current administration is expected to continue its focus on priorities such as immigration enforcement. It might try to cut areas that have already faced reductions. The President campaigned on a promise to abolish the Education Department, and his administration has already significantly downsized the Environmental Protection Agency.