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 powers does the President have during a shutdown and how has the administration responded to shutdowns historically (e.g., 2013, 2018-2019)?
Executive Summary
The President gains temporary operational control over which federal employees continue working and which are furloughed during a lapse in appropriations, but lacks unilateral power to reallocate funds or make permanent workforce reductions without statutory authority; long-term staffing changes require Congress or separate legal authorities [1] [2] [3]. Historically, administrations have used this temporary discretion to prioritize missions and push political pressure—most notably during the 2018–2019 35‑day shutdown and episodic shutdowns like 2013—by issuing agency guidance on furloughs, considering layoff notices, and exploring personnel cuts, with disputed claims about the scope of permanent restructuring the executive can accomplish [4] [2] [5]. The evidence shows a pattern of leveraging short‑term executive levers to advance policy or fiscal aims, constrained by law and by political, legal, and logistical limits [6] [7].
1. What powers the President actually controls right away—and what he does not
The President can designate “excepted” employees and direct agencies on continuity of operations, ordering which functions must continue during a funding lapse to protect life and property, and agencies implement furloughs accordingly; executive direction also allows temporary use of agency personnel authorities within existing legal limits [1] [3]. The President cannot lawfully transfer appropriations between accounts, create new spending, or permanently fire staff to circumvent Congress; the Antideficiency Act and appropriations law prevent spending without Congressional appropriation, and any structural or permanent workforce changes require either statutory changes or independent legal authority such as downsizing statutes or agency rulemaking [2] [3]. This creates a gap between short‑term operational discretion and long‑term personnel or programmatic change that administrations sometimes attempt to exploit politically but cannot fully bridge by fiat [5].
2. How administrations have used those tools during past shutdowns—2013 and 2018–2019 compared
During the 2013 shutdown, the executive branch focused on continuity plans and political messaging, with agencies issuing standard furlough lists and the Obama administration emphasizing restoration of services once funding resumed; disputes centered on which programs were truly essential [4]. The 2018–2019 shutdown under President Trump was different in scale and strategy: it lasted 35 days, produced widespread agency guidance on furloughs, and included administration directives to consider large workforce reductions, “layoff notices,” and policy options to shrink personnel even beyond the shutdown window—moves framed as leveraging the lapse to pursue a broader administrative agenda [4] [5]. Those tactics imposed real costs—financial losses to the economy and disruption for federal workers—while simultaneously testing legal boundaries about what an administration can accomplish during a lapse [7] [2].
3. The legal guardrails and where conflicts typically arise
Statutes and precedent create guardrails: the Antideficiency Act prohibits obligations or expenditures in excess of appropriations, while continuity statutes and appropriations riders define excepted activities. Legal conflicts arise when administrations claim broader reorganization authority during a shutdown—threatening mass firings or declaring programs nonessential in ways that effectively defund them—because courts and OMB guidance can limit or rebuke those claims [2] [3]. Agencies that attempt to use a funding lapse as cover for permanent policy change face litigation risk and political pushback; historical practice shows courts and Congress often reassert authority after shutdown episodes, restoring limitations on executive-only restructurings [5] [4].
4. How administrations leveraged shutdowns for political and policy goals—and how opponents responded
Executives have used shutdowns to pressure Congress and advance policy priorities, issuing personnel directives, threatening workforce reductions, or prioritizing certain programs to signal priorities. The Trump administration explicitly threatened broader workforce reshaping during shutdowns and instructed agencies to consider personnel reductions, which served both administrative and political signaling functions [2] [5]. Opponents—Congress, courts, union advocates, and impacted stakeholders—respond with legislative countermeasures, oversight, and litigation; these responses historically limited the permanence of changes and often forced retroactive remedies for furloughed workers, reflecting a push‑pull dynamic between temporary executive maneuvering and institutional checks [6] [7].
5. Big picture: what this means going forward for shutdown dynamics and public consequences
The recurring pattern is clear: shutdowns create short‑term executive latitude but not unbounded authority. Administrations can control day‑to‑day operations, issue broad guidance, and use personnel levers to apply pressure, but lasting reorganizations require statutory authorization or face legal and political reversal [1] [3]. The practical consequences—service interruptions, economic costs, and strained federal operations—amplify incentives for both sides to negotiate, yet administrations continue to test the edges of executive power during lapses, prompting ongoing debates about reforming appropriations law or clarifying continuity rules to reduce leverage and uncertainty in future shutdowns [4] [5].