WASHINGTON, D.C. (Newsweek) — As the U.S. government entered its first shutdown since 2019, President Donald Trump escalated warnings that the funding lapse could allow his administration to make “irreversible” changes—including large-scale dismissals of federal employees.
“We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible, that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.
However, unions are seeking emergency injunctions against turning shutdown furloughs into permanent layoffs, saying it violates employment protections, and it remains unclear if such layoffs would be legal. “We are in largely uncharted territory,” one legal scholar told Newsweek, amid others voicing doubts.
Another expert told Newsweek that Trump was seeking to gain greater control of the executive branch through the layoffs and would readvertise the positions using “loyalty as the new hiring litmus test.”
Why It Matters
The showdown over Trump’s threat to make government shutdown layoffs “irreversible” is about far more than the current budget standoff. At its core is a test of presidential power and the lon-standing job protections that shield roughly 2 million federal employees from political retaliation.
If courts permit a president to turn a funding lapse—historically a temporary disruption—into a tool for permanent workforce cuts, it could weaken Congress’s control over spending, destabilize essential public services, and set a precedent any future administration could use to reshape the government during partisan gridlock.
What To Know
Largely Untested Legal Terrain
A Reduction in Force (RIF) is the formal process federal agencies must follow to eliminate jobs for reasons such as budget cuts, lack of work, or reorganization.
It is tightly regulated under Title 5 of the U.S. Code and rules set by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).
Agencies must rank employees for retention based on tenure, veteran status, length of service, and performance, provide at least 60 days’ written notice, and allow appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
When appropriations lapse, the Anti-Deficiency Act and civil service laws direct agencies to place “non-excepted” staff on unpaid leave but guarantee reinstatement and back pay once funding resumes.
Congress reinforced this approach through the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which mandates retroactive pay after a shutdown.
Nothing in these statutes authorizes mass terminations tied to a lapse in funding.
Professor Nicholas Bednar of the University of Minnesota Law School told Newsweek: “We are in largely uncharted territory. Neither the Merit Systems Protection Board nor the federal courts have addressed whether agencies may use reductions in force during a shutdown.”
He added “Precedent gives agencies broad discretion to invoke RIFs in response to budget shortfalls, and there are strong reasons to think courts would extend that discretion to shutdowns. Such a determination, however, would not prevent employees from challenging RIFs on procedural grounds.”
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has similarly concluded that a shutdown “would not provide the Administration with any additional legal authority to engage in widespread firing of federal employees,” underscoring that statutory constraints remain even during funding gaps.
Constitutional Limits on Removal Power
The Supreme Court’s 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States upheld Congress’s ability to protect certain officials from at-will dismissal.
More recently, Seila Law v. CFPB (2020) narrowed but did not eliminate those limits.
“The President’s power to remove executive branch officials (i.e. heads of FTC or SEC) does not expand during a shutdown. Neither does his ability to permanently discharge employees via a RIF,” said Harold Krent, former dean of Chicago-Kent College of Law, in an interview with Newsweek.
“Nonetheless, the President can decide which employees are essential and furlough the rest for the pendency of the shutdown. That being said, he can also RIF employees if he follows procedures that Congress has established, but not merely due to the furlough,” he added.
Daniel P. Meyer, partner at Tully Rinckey PLLC in Washington D.C., told Newsweek: “This is not about saving money; Federal personnel costs are budget dust compared to Debt Interest, Defense, and Entitlements. This is about getting control of the Executive branch, removing the influence of the Congress and the Senior Executive Service. As the President slices, he will readvertise and use loyalty as the new hiring litmus test. The problem Stephen Miller [White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy] and Scott Kupor [Director, OPM] face is they cannot terminate employees fast enough for either conduct or cause, the performance and disciplinary review process is not design for mass reorganization.”
Even with a unitary executive theory in play, courts have been reluctant to grant blanket authority to terminate nonpolitical civil servants.
