How does the Antideficiency Act affect federal worker pay in shutdowns?

1. Why the Antideficiency Act turns funding gaps into pay stoppages

The Antideficiency Act makes it a criminal and administrative violation for federal agencies to incur obligations or make expenditures without a valid appropriation, which legally compels agencies to halt non‑essential operations when annual appropriations lapse. That statutory prohibition, not managerial choice, creates furloughs and unpaid duty periods: agencies may not lawfully pay staff for services performed outside an appropriation, and they cannot accept voluntary services, so many employees are placed on furlough while others deemed “excepted” must continue working without pay until an appropriation resumes. The act also triggers mandatory internal reporting to the President, Congress, and the Comptroller General when violations occur, constraining executive discretion during shutdowns ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Who works and who gets paid later — the practical split in federal payrolls

During a lapse, agencies categorize employees as either excepted (essential for safety of human life or protection of property) or furloughed; excepted employees work through the lapse but are not paid until funding is restored, while furloughed workers are sent home. Historically and legally, both groups have received retroactive pay once Congress or the President authorizes back pay, as in the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which mandates retroactive compensation once the lapse ends. That retrofit fixes missed paychecks after the fact but does not prevent immediate financial hardship or administrative burdens such as processing back pay and adjustments to benefits ^{[2] [5]}.

3. The human cost: unemployment filings, delays, and repayment risks

Shutdowns prompt many affected workers to seek state unemployment benefits, but the process can be slow and uncertain: verification of wages and eligibility often delays payments, and employees who later receive retroactive federal back pay may be required to repay state benefits, creating short‑term cash flow problems. Media reporting during recent lapses highlights thousands of unemployment claims early in shutdowns, while many eligible workers avoid filing because the hassles and potential payback make benefits less attractive. The interplay of federal retroactive pay and state unemployment rules produces messy outcomes for individual households ^[3].

4. Private funding is tempting but legally fraught

Public discussions and proposals to use private donations or third‑party funds to pay federal workers during a lapse confront legal constraints under the Antideficiency Act and constitutional separation of powers concerns. Experts warn that accepting or spending private funds to pay civilian or military personnel without congressional appropriation risks violating the Act and setting an unconstitutional precedent, because accepting such funds effectively bypasses the constitutional appropriation power of Congress. The Department of Defense and other agencies have considered and in rare cases explored private relief, but legal analyses emphasize the precariousness of that path and potential reporting or sanction consequences ^{[6] [1]}.

5. Scale and sectoral winners and losers in a shutdown’s payroll picture

Shutdown impacts are uneven: reports indicate roughly 730,000 employees working without pay alongside about 670,000 furloughed employees in recent shutdowns, and certain categories—Supreme Court justices, some appointees, and positions funded by multi‑year or indefinite appropriations—continue to be paid. Agencies funded from non‑annual appropriations or dedicated receipts can continue operations, and emergency or safety functions persist under the excepted classification. That differential means the immediate financial burden is concentrated among large swaths of the civil service and contractor‑adjacent functions, amplifying economic and operational ripple effects across communities and services ^{[7] [8]}.

6. Legal safeguards, reporting, and the political remedy that ultimately matters

While the Antideficiency Act prescribes criminal penalties and reporting obligations to deter unlawful spending, the recurring practical remedy has been legislative: Congress typically passes post‑shutdown measures authorizing retroactive pay and clarifying exceptions. The law’s safeguards limit executive improvisation but place the remedy in the political arena—Congress must act to make affected workers whole, and agencies must execute statutory reporting and internal controls. This structure makes shutdown pain both a legal consequence and a political lever, with downstream effects on administration operations, employee morale, and public perception until appropriations are restored ^{[1] [4]}.