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.
Fact check: What are the constitutional limits on presidential power during a government shutdown?
Executive Summary
A government shutdown does not confer new constitutional powers on the president; instead, it creates operational leverage and political opportunities that the executive can exploit within existing legal constraints. Reporting from late September 2025 shows commentators and officials debating how a shutdown could let President Trump reshape agency functions, threaten federal employees with layoffs, and affect federal spending practices, but the underlying constitutional limits—such as the Antideficiency Act and Congress’s power of the purse—remain the core legal constraints [1] [2] [3].
1. Why a shutdown looks like expanded presidential power — and why it’s not automatic
News stories in late September 2025 describe how a shutdown can create de facto power for the White House by controlling which programs continue and which pause, and by directing agencies to prepare contingency operations or mass firings [3] [4]. The administration’s capacity to order agency actions during a funding lapse is real, and the White House can weaponize discretionary administrative steps to achieve policy ends, but those actions are still bounded by statutes and internal regulations. Observers point to operational control during a shutdown as leverage, not a constitutional transfer of authority, because Congress retains the power to appropriate and authorize spending.
2. The Antideficiency Act: the principal statutory brake on executive action
Reporting references the Antideficiency Act as the main legal limit on spending when appropriations lapse, preventing officials from obligating or expending funds absent congressional authorization [5]. That statute forces agencies to furlough nonessential workers and suspend activities that would create spending obligations. While administrations can interpret “essential” narrowly or broadly, the Antideficiency Act remains a statutory constraint that courts and watchdogs can enforce; it’s not a constitutional expansion of presidential power. The Act channels executive behavior during a shutdown and is the primary mechanism by which Congress’s spending prerogative constrains the president.
3. Administrative discretion and the risk of overreach during a shutdown
Multiple accounts describe White House directives asking agencies to prepare for mass firings and cessation of certain programs, which could be used to pursue political or regulatory aims during a funding lapse [4] [3]. Administrative discretion—deciding which functions are “excepted” for safety or national security—gives executives room to maneuver. That discretion, however, is subject to statutory text, agency rules, and potential judicial review. Legal challenges can limit or overturn specific actions, but litigation takes time, so the immediate period of a shutdown can see actions that are later scrutinized and possibly restrained.
4. The political leverage of blaming Congress and shaping public pressure
Coverage emphasizes how a president can use a shutdown to apply political pressure by controlling federal operations and framing the stoppage as congressional failure [1] [2]. That leverage is a political, not constitutional, power: the president can mobilize public opinion, threaten agency cuts, or delay services to increase pressure on lawmakers. The constitutional checks remain intact because Congress can pass appropriations, attach conditions, or use oversight powers. Political effects can, nevertheless, alter bargaining dynamics and produce policy outcomes without requiring changes to formal constitutional authority.
5. What the reporting shows about using personnel moves as leverage
The White House budget office’s directives about potential mass firings and withholding pay highlight how personnel actions can be used strategically during a shutdown [4]. Firing or furloughing employees may reallocate institutional capacity and change the federal workforce’s composition, but employment decisions remain governed by civil service law and procedural protections. Agencies must follow statutory requirements even when saying they may “prepare” to fire thousands; premature or unlawful dismissals could trigger administrative appeals and litigation. Thus personnel leverage is potent in the short term but legally contestable.
6. Courts, oversight, and the longer-term constitutional boundaries
Analysts note that while a shutdown can produce immediate administrative effects, courts and congressional oversight remain the remedies to check unlawful executive action [5] [3]. The judiciary enforces statutory limits like the Antideficiency Act, and Congress can reclaim control via appropriations, amendments, or conditions placed on funding. Historical practice shows that courts rarely rewrite the separation of powers during a shutdown, but they can and do restrain executive measures that exceed statutory authority. Oversight hearings and appropriations riders are political checks that reassert congressional authority.
7. Bottom line: leverage vs. law — what actually constrains the president
The late-September 2025 reporting collectively shows that a shutdown amplifies administrative leverage and political opportunities for the president but does not erase constitutional and statutory constraints such as the Antideficiency Act and Congress’s appropriation power [1] [3]. Short-term operational control can influence policy outcomes and force negotiations, yet actions that purport to create new, enduring presidential authority are vulnerable to legal challenge and congressional corrective measures. The practical effect is increased executive maneuverability within a legal framework that still vests budgetary authority with Congress.