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: What were the estimated costs of the 2013 government shutdown to the US economy?
Executive Summary
The 2013 federal government shutdown is widely estimated to have imposed economic costs on the United States ranging from a few billion dollars in direct lost output to as much as $24 billion in reduced GDP on an annualized basis; most official and private estimates place the likely range between $2–6 billion in immediate fourth-quarter lost output and $23–24 billion when annualized or including broader indirect effects [1] [2] [3]. Multiple analyses agree the shutdown shaved 0.2–0.6 percentage points off fourth-quarter 2013 GDP growth, with differing framing and scope across reports [4] [2].
1. Why the headline numbers diverge and what they mean for GDP growth
Estimates differ because authors measure distinct things: immediate lost output during the shutdown, broader economic ripple effects, and annualized GDP impacts reported by private firms. The Office of Management and Budget framed the effect as a reduction in fourth-quarter real GDP growth of 0.2–0.6 percentage points, translating to roughly $2–$6 billion in lost output depending on the assumed baseline, which captures near-term disruptions to federal services and contractor payments [1]. By contrast, private-sector analyses such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s converted the disruption into an annualized figure and reported a larger headline of about $23–24 billion, reflecting a different presentation rather than a contradicting estimate of permanent loss [2].
2. How federal agencies quantified lost productivity and fiscal effects
The White House budget office and OMB focused on measurable federal impacts: about $2 billion in lost productivity from roughly 850,000 furloughed employees and other immediate fiscal disturbances, a figure that excludes broader private-sector multiplier effects and thus appears smaller than some private-sector estimates [3] [1]. OMB’s November report emphasized programmatic and budgetary costs and provided the 0.2–0.6 percentage point GDP reduction range, explicitly cautioning that some estimates could reach higher numbers depending on secondary feedbacks. These official figures prioritize conservative, documentable losses tied to government operations [1].
3. Private sector tallies and the “annualized” framing that inflates headlines
Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s presented the shutdown’s cost as $23–24 billion, with S&P describing about $1.5 billion lost per day over 16 days and a 0.6 percentage point hit to annualized fourth-quarter growth [2]. This framing uses annualization, which scales a short-term disruption to a 12-month equivalent growth rate to show how a two-week pause would affect the year-on-year pace if it persisted. This method is standard for communicating GDP impacts but can create headlines that seem larger than the economy-wide loss experienced over the short shutdown period itself; analysts and officials warned this difference matters for interpretation [2] [4].
4. Reconciling short-term losses with long-term economic effects
Analysts agree the immediate economic damage was limited and largely reversible, centered on lost output and delayed activity, yet secondary effects—such as deferred federal contracts, reduced consumer or business confidence, and administrative backlog—create uncertainty about lingering costs. OMB and CRS reports emphasized a cumulative fourth-quarter hit up to 0.6 percentage points while noting stronger countervailing forces in the broader economy could dampen long-run impacts, indicating the $2–6 billion lost-output estimate is a conservative near-term figure whereas the $23–24 billion figures capture a broader, more cautionary lens [4] [3].
5. Political framing and apparent agendas behind differing figures
Private ratings firms and the White House relied on different framings that served distinct purposes: administration reports typically prioritized verifiable federal losses and modest headline numbers to underpin budgetary claims, while credit agencies highlighted larger annualized economic risks to stress macroeconomic vulnerability and potential rating implications [3] [2]. Both approaches are valid but can be used strategically: smaller, conservative estimates minimize perceived damage, while larger annualized figures garner attention and underscore political costs; readers should note these different incentives when comparing headlines [1] [2].
6. Bottom line for readers: the range and the most defensible interpretation
The defensible, well-documented consensus is that the shutdown caused a measurable but not catastrophic hit: $2–$6 billion in direct fourth-quarter lost output per OMB’s framework, and roughly $23–24 billion when one presents the disturbance as an annualized GDP equivalent, a common but potentially misleading headline device [1] [2]. Policymakers, journalists, and citizens should therefore treat both numbers as informative: the smaller as a conservative estimate of immediate fiscal and output loss, and the larger as an annualized portrayal that signals how persistent disruptions could scale if they continued.