Can the Department of Treasury use emergency powers to keep agencies open during a shutdown?

1. What people are claiming — clear headlines and contested points

Analysts and media accounts make three concrete claims: that Treasury can broadly use emergency powers to avert a shutdown; that Treasury can at least keep the IRS open by reallocating funds; and that essential services continue while non-essential functions stop. The materials show no single authoritative claim that Treasury can override the need for Congressional appropriations to keep all agencies functioning. Reporting and contingency documents emphasize limited continuity options and practical workarounds for narrowly defined functions rather than a sweeping authority to prevent shutdowns ^{[1] [4] [2]}.

2. The legal constraint that matters: the Antideficiency Act and statutory limits

The central legal limitation across the analyses is the Antideficiency Act, which forbids agencies from obligating funds absent congressional appropriation and typically forces non-exempt employees and activities to stop during a lapse. Sources stress that while essential life- and property-protecting functions continue, most other agency operations cannot lawfully be sustained without appropriations. That legal framework explains why Treasury contingency steps are compliance-focused and narrow in scope, geared toward functions expressly authorized by law rather than to an open-ended emergency spending authority ^[1].

3. Treasury’s practical playbook: contingency plans and the IRS example

Treasury’s contingency planning documents and reporting indicate targeted, short-term continuity measures. The Department and the IRS have contingency plans that identify essential activities and designate a portion of staff to continue operations; in the IRS case, Treasury planned to keep the agency operational for a limited window by shifting or using specified funds such as those from the Inflation Reduction Act for immediate needs. Those measures are framed as contingency and short-duration responses—not as a broad statutory power to keep every agency open for the duration of a shutdown ^{[2] [5] [3]}.

4. Limits of “emergency powers”: courts, statutes, and practical constraints

Analyses repeatedly show that Treasury’s capacity to act during a lapse is bounded by statutes and existing appropriations law. The contingency plans identify activities “necessary to protect life and property” or “expressly authorized by law” as exceptions—narrow categories that do not encompass routine agency operations. The sources do not document an independent Treasury authority to reprogram funds or declare a continuing emergency that would legally permit sustaining broad agency operations without congressional action; instead, contingency steps rely on preexisting legal authorizations and pre-allocated funds ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Politics, messaging, and possible agendas shaping claims

Public statements and media pieces cited in the analyses sometimes present Treasury actions as aggressive continuity planning or as evidence Treasury can keep services running; other accounts stress legal limits and the temporary nature of such measures. These divergent framings reflect different agendas: political actors may emphasize continuity to reassure constituents, while legal analyses and watchdog reporting underscore statutory constraints to caution against overreach. The materials show both the operational need to reassure the public and the legal imperative to avoid unauthorized spending, producing conflicting emphases without altering the underlying legal limits ^{[6] [7] [4]}.

6. Bottom line and remaining questions for lawmakers and the public

The factual bottom line is that Treasury can and does plan for limited continuity—especially for critical functions like debt service and, in some plans, IRS operations for a short interval—but it cannot lawfully keep agencies broadly open in place of Congress. The contingency plans cited provide temporary, narrowly tailored responses and rely on specified funding channels; they do not create a lasting mechanism to blunt the operational impact of a prolonged shutdown. Key unresolved questions are how long contingency funds can realistically sustain operations and what statutory changes, if any, Congress might consider to provide clearer authorities for continuity in future lapses ^{[1] [3]}.