Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: Which federal agencies have the largest share of employees furloughed during a government shutdown and why?
Executive Summary
The largest shares of federal employees furloughed during the 2025 government shutdown concentrated in agencies whose functions are deemed non-essential for imminent public safety or where routine regulatory and administrative work can be paused, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Education among the most heavily affected by percentage of staff furloughed [1]. By contrast, mission-critical agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, and parts of Social Security retained far more on-duty employees, reflecting statutory and operational priorities that protect core national security, benefits, and emergency services [2] [3]. This analysis compares reported furlough shares, explains why patterns differ across agencies, and highlights competing narratives about the scale and economic consequences of those furloughs [4] [5].
1. Which agencies lost the highest proportion of staff — and the headline numbers that matter
Reporting identifies the EPA furloughing roughly 89% of its staff and the Department of Education about 87%, positioning those agencies as the highest proportional impacts among civilian federal workforces [1]. Other cabinet agencies such as Commerce, Labor, and HUD also experienced substantial proportional cuts according to aggregated accounts, while larger agencies with mixed mission sets saw smaller proportional furlough rates despite large absolute numbers of employees affected. The Defense Department, for example, reportedly furloughed about 55% of its civilian employees under one plan, reflecting both the department’s scale and the variable criticality of its civilian roles [3]. These percentages capture share of staff furloughed rather than absolute employee counts, which alters public perception: smaller agencies can show extreme percentages even while affecting fewer people overall [1] [3].
2. Why some agencies keep most workers on the job — mission, law, and continuity
Agencies maintaining low furlough shares did so because statutory obligations, national security priorities, and benefit continuity require continuous operations. The Department of Homeland Security reported extremely low furlough shares—about 5%—because border operations, immigration enforcement, and disaster response are designated essential [2]. The Department of Veterans Affairs and Social Security Administration also retained high proportions of staff—VA around 3.2% furloughed and Social Security about 12%—because benefit payments and clinical operations are legally or operationally protected from interruption [2]. Agencies set furlough rosters by combining legally protected work categories, operational necessity, and internal continuity plans, producing an uneven furlough landscape that prioritizes public safety and statutory entitlements [2] [3].
3. How percentages and politics can skew the story — context the headlines omit
Percentage figures headline coverage but omit key context: relative agency size, absolute numbers furloughed, and temporary exceptions such as carryover funding or targeted appropriations. An agency with thousands of staff generating a moderate furlough percentage can produce more dislocated workers than a smaller agency with a high percentage. Reporting that “only 23% of federal workers would be furloughed” under one plan emphasized aggregate resilience while downplaying concentrated hardship in specific agencies, illustrating how framing shapes public understanding [3]. Political agendas influence which metrics are emphasized: administration briefings may stress aggregate shares to minimize perceived disruption, while media profiles and worker testimonies highlight agency-level pain and personal hardship to underline human consequences [3] [5].
4. Economic and human impacts beyond headcounts — what furloughs actually do
Furloughs reduce current incomes, disrupt services, and can ripple through local economies; anecdotal accounts show federal workers tapping retirement savings or facing immediate hardship during prolonged shutdowns [5]. At the macro level, extended furloughs can dent economic growth and market expectations, potentially influencing Federal Reserve policy and market volatility as economists factor in lost incomes and delayed services [4]. Agencies with large furlough shares also suspend nonessential regulatory activity and grant processing, which can delay infrastructure projects, environmental reviews, and education funding actions—creating downstream costs that outlast the shutdown itself [1] [4]. These consequences underscore why concentrated furloughs matter even when aggregate percentages appear modest.
5. Competing narratives and what to watch next — accountability, recovery, and political leverage
Two competing narratives emerge: one stresses operational continuity and broad resilience by citing low aggregate furlough shares and mission-critical continuity plans, while the other emphasizes concentrated hardship and service disruption in agencies where regulatory and community-facing roles were paused [3] [1]. Policymakers and watchdogs will next focus on reconciliation of backpay, the time needed to restore paused programs, and the long-term staffing and morale effects in heavily hit agencies. Observers should track updated official agency reports and follow-up audits that quantify absolute furloughed headcounts, the timeline to resume suspended services, and any legislative or administrative remedies proposed to mitigate repeat damage from future funding standoffs [6] [5].