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.
Can the President legally fire federal civil servants during a lapse in appropriations?
Executive Summary
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration’s widespread reductions-in-force announced during the 2025 government shutdown, finding those actions likely unlawful and politically motivated, and courts are treating mass firings during lapses in appropriations as legally contested [1] [2]. Congress and agencies have long-standing rules — including the Anti-Deficiency Act and OPM shutdown guidance — that generally constrain agencies from using shutdowns to permanently eliminate civil service positions, while recent legislation proposals aim to further bar such layoffs [3] [4] [5]. The dispute now centers on statutory interpretation, separation of powers, and whether the executive may reorganize or fire employees absent explicit congressional authorization, with litigation and legislation unfolding in parallel [6] [7].
1. Court intervention signals a hard legal limit — for now
A federal judge’s preliminary injunction halted roughly 4,000 planned layoffs and blocked new reductions-in-force, reasoning that the administration’s actions likely exceeded statutory authority and were driven by political retribution rather than lawful workforce management [1] [6]. The court emphasized that a lapse in appropriations does not automatically grant the executive branch the power to permanently eliminate positions without congressional authorization, and it suggested that firing employees during a funding gap may conflict with existing statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act and the Anti-Deficiency Act [7]. Plaintiffs — unions and impacted employees — successfully argued that agencies cannot ignore statutory duties or use appropriations lapses as cover to circumvent hiring and retention rules, and the injunction will remain while the case proceeds to further hearings assessing whether particular layoffs were tied to the funding lapse [1] [6].
2. Administration’s argument: shutdowns allow reorganization and layoffs
The administration has maintained that a lapse in appropriations permits agencies to curtail programs and reorganize, including conducting reductions-in-force before, during, or after a shutdown, asserting that Congress’s failure to appropriate funds implicitly allows workforce reductions and that any back pay guarantees make subsequent dismissals lawful [1] [2]. That position frames layoffs as within executive discretion to manage an unfunded workforce and as consistent with OMB instructions to agencies, with officials arguing they can prioritize policy objectives when Congress does not fund activities. Courts and critics view that rationale skeptically, contending that it conflates temporary furlough authority with permanent personnel cuts and risks transforming funding disputes into tools for politicizing the civil service [1] [2].
3. Statutory constraints: Anti-Deficiency Act, OPM guidance, and proposed law
Legal and administrative frameworks constrain agency action during funding lapses: the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits unauthorized expenditures and influences how furloughs and excepted work are handled, while OPM guidance establishes procedures for shutdown furloughs, excepted employees, retroactive pay, and workforce realignment during lapses [3] [4]. Courts have relied on those norms to question whether carving out HR staff or paying for separations during a shutdown violates spending restrictions. Meanwhile, Congress has moved to codify protections: the Securing Assurance for Federal Employees Act and similar proposals aim to ban mass layoffs during shutdowns and to restore or prevent reductions taken under the pretext of lapses, reflecting bipartisan support from unions and some legislators to curb executive overreach [5].
4. Human impact and political framing escalate the legal stakes
Plaintiffs in the litigation documented severe stress, health consequences, and trauma tied to the uncertainty and threat of dismissal, and the judge referenced these human impacts in finding the administration’s plan likely unlawful, noting that the government’s approach inflicted real harm on employees [6]. Unions and congressional proponents of protections emphasize the human and institutional costs of using shutdowns as pretexts for workforce changes, while administration defenders frame layoffs as policy tools and accountability measures. That clash over framing — worker protections versus executive prerogative — informs both legal arguments and broader political narratives, increasing pressure on courts and lawmakers to settle whether shutdowns can lawfully be converted into personnel-policymaking events [6] [5].
5. What happens next: litigation and legislation will define the line
The preliminary injunction pauses the administration’s plan while further hearings and evidence-gathering proceed to delineate when, if ever, personnel actions during a lapse are lawful; courts will weigh statutory texts, APA standards, the Anti-Deficiency Act, OPM guidance, and factual showings about motivations and procedures [1] [7]. Simultaneously, lawmakers are advancing bills to bar mass layoffs during funding lapses and to mandate restoration or protections for affected workers, which would remove ambiguity by codifying limits on executive action [5]. The ultimate resolution will combine judicial rulings clarifying statutory constraints and possible congressional action to either restrict or explicitly authorize certain workforce moves during appropriations gaps, but as of the injunction, the President’s unilateral use of shutdowns to fire civil servants is legally constrained and contested [2] [4].