Fact check: How has the National Emergencies Act of 1976 been used in past shutdowns?

1. How policymakers have actually navigated shutdowns — law, not emergency decrees

During shutdowns federal operations continue or halt under appropriations law and agency contingency plans rather than by invoking the National Emergencies Act. Agencies use prior-year or no‑year funds, legal exceptions for funding certain activities, and statutory authorities governing emergencies and national security to maintain core functions while nonessential work is furloughed. Several analyses note that the Act is not typically "invoked" during a shutdown; instead, administrations rely on existing statutory priorities and interpretations of public‑safety exceptions to continue certain services. Congress retains the explicit power to terminate a declared national emergency via joint resolution, but that tool has been rarely decisive in shutdown dynamics ^{[2] [5]}.

2. What the National Emergencies Act has been used for — broad emergencies, not routine funding gaps

The Act has been used for a wide range of crises — public‑health threats, economic measures, and foreign conflicts — giving presidents access to specialized statutory authorities beyond annual appropriations. Reviews catalog roughly 90 national emergencies declared under the Act by mid‑2025, and those declarations have been applied to large‑scale events such as the H1N1 outbreak, the COVID‑19 pandemic, and international crises in Ukraine, where presidents tapped authorities to restrict commerce or reallocate resources under other emergency statutes ^{[1] [4]}. These uses are framed as responses to tangible threats, not as tools to override congressional budgeting in ordinary shutdowns ^{[1] [4]}.

3. The limits and controversies — why the Act isn’t a simple shutdown workaround

Legal scholars and policy analysts criticize the Act for its potential to expand executive power with insufficient congressional checks, but they also observe practical and legal limits when it comes to replacing appropriations. Declaring a national emergency does not create unlimited funding authority; many emergency powers operate within specific statutory scopes and do not permit wholesale substitution for appropriations. Critics argue that using emergency declarations to bypass Congress would invite legal challenges and political pushback, and historical practice shows administrations have rarely attempted a broad emergency decree to fund routine government functions during shutdowns ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Case evidence from recent shutdowns — administrative workarounds, not emergency edicts

The 2018–2019 shutdown (35 days) is often cited in contemporary discussions: administrations managed priorities by identifying essential personnel and using existing legal authorities to continue critical operations while most programs were paused. The National Endowment for the Arts, for example, resumed limited operations using prior fiscal year administrative funds rather than any emergency declaration under the 1976 Act, illustrating that agencies rely on budgetary carryover and statutory exceptions rather than national emergency authority to resume work during a shutdown ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

5. The broader political and oversight picture — reform pressures and divergent agendas

The Act’s frequent use across many presidencies has generated bipartisan calls for reform to restore checks and balances, with advocates urging clearer congressional oversight and narrower emergency authorities. Proponents of strong executive flexibility argue emergencies demand quick action and statutory tools are necessary; opponents warn that routine reliance creates incentives to politicize emergencies or circumvent appropriations. These competing agendas shape legislative proposals and public debate, but they do not change the central fact revealed by past shutdowns: emergency declarations under the 1976 law have been reserved for discrete crises rather than as a general escape valve from appropriations standoffs ^{[3] [1] [2] [4]}.