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.
What laws govern pay for elected officials during a federal shutdown?
Executive Summary
Members of Congress and the President continue to receive pay during a federal funding lapse because their compensation is governed by constitutional provisions and a statutory permanent appropriation established in 1983, while most federal employees are subject to lapse-of-appropriations rules under the Antideficiency Act. Proposed bills and public calls to withhold congressional pay during shutdowns reflect political pressure to change that arrangement, but none of those measures have become law as of the latest reports in early November 2025. The practical divide stems from distinct legal authorities: the Constitution and permanent appropriations for elected officials versus appropriations law and OMB/DOJ guidance for federal workers [1] [2] [3].
1. Why lawmakers’ pay survives a shutdown — the constitutional and statutory firewall
The central legal reason members of Congress and the President still draw salaries during a lapse in appropriations is constitutional and statutory: Article I, Section 6 separates congressional compensation from annual appropriations, the 27th Amendment prevents immediate changes in congressional pay until after the next election, and Congress established a permanent appropriation for member pay in 1983, which makes their salaries functionally immune to appropriation gaps. Reporting explains that the permanent appropriation means regular paychecks continue despite a funding lapse, and the President’s salary likewise remains guaranteed by constitutional authority [1]. These provisions create a legal distinction between elected officials and most civilian federal employees who rely on annual appropriations that can lapse.
2. How the Antideficiency Act shapes who works and who gets paid
The Antideficiency Act governs agency conduct during funding lapses and directs agencies not to obligate funds absent appropriations, triggering furloughs for non-exempt personnel and permitting exceptions only when work is necessary to protect life or property. Agencies rely on OMB and DOJ guidance to interpret exceptions like "necessarily implied" activities, which can allow payroll processing and benefit disbursements to continue in narrow circumstances, but this framework does not equate to an entitlement for elected officials — it governs executive-branch employees and operations [2] [4]. Consequently, many federal employees either are furloughed without pay during a shutdown or work without immediate pay but later receive back pay if Congress enacts retroactive appropriations.
3. Recent legislative efforts and political responses seeking to stop member pay
Multiple lawmakers have introduced bills or sought to refrain from accepting pay during shutdowns. Representative Bryan Steil introduced legislation to withhold pay and at least 20 members asked to have pay withheld; Senator John Kennedy introduced measures to block congressional pay during a shutdown but those efforts were blocked in the Senate by Senators Rand Paul and Patty Murray, illustrating bipartisan disagreement over remedies [3] [5] [6]. These proposals aim to align member compensation with the hardships borne by rank-and-file federal workers and to respond to public frustration, but none of these measures had passed into law as of early November 2025, leaving the underlying legal structure intact [3] [7].
4. The practical effects and equity arguments highlighted by media and lawmakers
Coverage and statements from members emphasize a political and ethical tension: essential federal workers, including military and law enforcement, may work without pay during shutdowns while lawmakers receive their salaries, creating perceptions of inequity that fuel reform efforts [1] [6]. Lawmakers offering to forgo pay or proposing statutory changes frame the issue as accountability; opponents argue that altering compensation mechanics could raise constitutional and logistical issues, including the 27th Amendment timing constraint and the administrative mechanics of withholding or recouping pay across agencies and payroll systems [1] [4]. These competing frames drive both legislative proposals and public debate.
5. Bottom line: law today, politics tomorrow — what remains to be resolved
The current legal picture is clear: elected officials’ pay continues during a shutdown because of constitutional protections and a permanent appropriation created in 1983, while federal workers are governed by the Antideficiency Act and agency guidance that can suspend pay until appropriations are restored [1] [2]. Changing that status quo requires new statutory authority, potentially complicated by the 27th Amendment’s timing constraints and by procedural hurdles in Congress; recent bills and voluntary withholdings signal political momentum but have not produced a legal change as of November 2025 [3] [5]. Any durable reform will need to reconcile constitutional text, statutory mechanics, and the practicalities of federal payroll law.