Reporting indicates the White House is preparing unusually aggressive personnel actions if funding lapses, using the threat or reality of broad dismissals rather than the furloughs that have defined past standoffs. The aim is to pressure Congress into a deal and reassert executive control over workforce management during a funding crisis. The civilian federal workforce numbers about 2.2 million people, and the most recent shutdown in 2018–2019 stretched 35 days and affected roughly 800,000 workers who were furloughed or required to work without pay until Congress acted.
For decades, shutdown planning has followed a familiar script, identify excepted roles that must continue for safety or national security, furlough the rest, then provide back pay once appropriations resume. Congress codified that expectation in 2019 with a law guaranteeing back pay for furloughed and excepted employees after a lapse ends. Permanent separations have not been the norm because shutdowns are temporary and the law anticipates a return to normal operations. The reported approach would break from that playbook by treating a funding lapse as an opening to conduct separations at scale, not only to manage near term budgets but also to reshape the workforce. How far agencies could actually move, and which categories of workers would be affected, remains uncertain.
Inside the strategy and the Vought memo
Supporters of a tougher stance argue that the prospect of permanent job losses would sharpen the incentive for Congress to pass a continuing resolution or final appropriations. They also claim that paying back pay after extended furloughs is inefficient, and that a targeted restructuring during a lapse could reduce costs and better align talent with mission needs. Some of that thinking echoes a memo circulated by Ross Vought, a former Office of Management and Budget director, that urges an assertive use of existing authorities to realign the federal workforce and accelerate removals where performance or mission fit is in question. The memo has become a touchstone for those who want the executive branch to be more muscular during periods of fiscal gridlock.
Critics counter that using a temporary funding crisis to effect permanent separations short circuits due process and exceeds the spirit of existing law. They warn that tying workforce changes to shutdown brinkmanship risks normalizing a tool that damages services, from benefits processing to aviation safety, and makes recovery tougher once funding returns.
What mass firings could mean in practice
For career civil servants, statutory protections are robust. Reductions in force require agencies to follow detailed rules tied to lack of work or funds, reorganization, or job abolition. That process involves retention registers, veterans’ preference, bump and retreat rights, and written notice periods that can stretch for weeks or months. Adverse actions also trigger due process and appeal rights, which slows any large scale effort and exposes it to review.
Probationary and temporary employees face lower procedural barriers, which makes them a more likely target for rapid moves. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and can be removed quickly, but mass removals would create operational gaps and political blowback, and they would do little to reduce costs tied to career positions.
Contractors sit in a different regime. Agencies can suspend or terminate contracts under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, often with faster timelines. That can trigger layoffs among contractor staff, which ripple through local economies and critical support functions. Finally, shutdown classifications matter, if an agency labels a role as excepted, that person works without pay until funding returns, if non excepted, the employee is furloughed. How agencies draw those lines would influence who could be targeted and when.
Risks, blowback, and what to watch
The risks are substantial. Agencies could shed institutional knowledge that is hard to replace, while morale and recruitment suffer across an already competitive labor market. Litigation could erase any savings on paper once back pay, interest, and legal fees are factored in. Equity concerns are real as well, rapid separations often hit newer, lower paid, or probationary workers first, which can produce disparate impacts and more legal exposure. Contractors are not insulated either, contract suspensions can quickly lead to layoffs that disrupt everything from cybersecurity to facility maintenance.
Expect unions and employee groups to mobilize, including emergency grievances and court challenges, if agencies move from planning to implementation. Lawmakers in both parties may push back if constituents feel the pain, especially in regions with heavy federal or contractor employment. The most immediate signals to watch will be any guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, updated agency shutdown contingency plans, and how agencies label excepted versus non excepted roles in the days before a potential lapse. Even if mass firings do not materialize, the mere threat could shape negotiations on Capitol Hill, which may be the point.
