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.
Are members of Congress required to refuse pay during a federal government shutdown in 2018 or 2019?
Executive Summary
Members of Congress were not legally required to refuse or forfeit their pay during the 2018–2019 federal government shutdown; congressional salaries are funded by permanent law and the Constitution guarantees compensation, so pay generally continued unless a member voluntarily declined it. Multiple reviews and news analyses from the 2019 shutdown through later reporting confirm that refusals of pay were voluntary acts by individual lawmakers, and proposals to force forfeiture have faced constitutional and statutory hurdles. [1] [2] [3]
1. Why lawmakers kept getting checks — the legal backstop that matters
Congressional pay is treated differently from most federal spending because it is effectively a permanent appropriation established by statute and reinforced by constitutional provisions guaranteeing compensation for members, so a lapse in annual appropriations did not obligate members to stop receiving pay during the 2018–2019 shutdown. Contemporary reporting and government analyses during and after that shutdown observed that members continued to be eligible for salary even while many federal employees were furloughed or worked without pay, highlighting a structural difference between discretionary program funding and legislative compensation [3] [4]. Lawmakers who publicly declined pay were acting on personal choice rather than legal compulsion, and efforts to change that arrangement confront the 27th Amendment and Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution, which complicate any immediate statutory fix [5].
2. What actually happened during the 2018–2019 shutdown — voluntary refusals, visible actions
During the December 22, 2018–January 25, 2019 lapse — then the longest shutdown in modern history — some members of Congress chose to reject or donate their paychecks, with more than a hundred lawmakers publicly refusing pay according to contemporaneous media reports. Those voluntary gestures were widely reported as symbolic responses to furloughed federal workers’ hardships, but they did not reflect a legal obligation to forgo compensation; the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act and subsequent measures focused on retroactive pay for federal employees, not on congressional salaries [1] [6] [2]. Reporting at the time emphasized the optics and political pressure around pay rather than any statutory mechanism mandating forfeiture [7].
3. Reform proposals vs. constitutional constraints — why automatic docking is tricky
Proposals to withhold or dock congressional pay during shutdowns have been introduced repeatedly, including calls for automatic forfeiture or constitutional amendments, but they confront significant legal constraints. The 27th Amendment prevents changes to Congressional compensation from taking effect until after the next House election, meaning immediate statutory adjustments to withhold pay for a currently sitting Congress are legally fraught. Analysts and journalists have noted that while proposals can change norms and future practice, they cannot easily create an immediate requirement that members forfeit pay during a shutdown without running into constitutional timing rules and separation-of-powers issues [8] [5].
4. The Antideficiency Act and why it doesn’t force congressional pay cuts
The Antideficiency Act restricts agencies from obligating funds during a lapse in appropriations, which explains why many federal employees were furloughed or worked without pay; however, that law does not apply to the statutory mechanics that ensure congressional pay continues, because member salaries are not dependent on annual discretionary appropriations in the same way as agency payrolls. Government analyses and CBO reporting from the post-shutdown period made that distinction clear: the Antideficiency Act governed agency behavior, while congressional compensation continued under separate, mandatory spending or statutory authority [9] [4]. This legal separation is why members’ continued pay during a shutdown became a focal point for political criticism but not a straightforward statutory violation.
5. Takeaway and where discussion stands — voluntary gestures, contested politics, and proposed fixes
The settled factual finding across multiple contemporaneous and retrospective sources is clear: members of Congress were not required to refuse pay during the 2018–2019 shutdown, and refusals were individual voluntary acts. Journalists and analysts have documented the political pressure that prompted voluntary refusals and legislative ideas to change the rules, but constitutional protections and existing statutory frameworks limit rapid reform; proposals range from voluntary pledges to formal amendments or docking mechanisms, each carrying different legal and practical barriers. The debate therefore centers on political accountability and potential structural reforms rather than on any legal obligation that forced members to forfeit pay during that specific shutdown [1] [2] [3].