What Is Going on With This Shutdown and Why?
Shutdowns have become a fairly routine event in the federal government. When it becomes routine, people know what to expect and act accordingly.
In the past, shutdowns were typically short, with little to no doubt about employee pay after the political theater was over. Some federal employees likely took advantage of the warm weather, as it made a short trip to the beach or the mountains an attractive option.
This year, that is not the case. There is uncertainty about whether employees will receive pay after the shutdown ends.
There is also doubt as to how many federal employees will lose their jobs as the shutdown drags on. As noted in this article, the administration is preparing for a reduction-in-force to be held in some federal agencies. By pushing for permanent reductions, the administration is leveraging the shutdown to reduce the size of the federal workforce, which has been a priority for the Trump administration.
Federal “shutdowns” did not exist before 1980. That is not because there were times when money had not been appropriated by Congress for the government to continue operating. That was, and still is, a fairly common occurrence.
But, when there was a time when money had not been appropriated, government employees still went to work, still got paid (usually a little late until funds were approved) and the situation was resolved without all the political drama we have invented since 1980.
The man who invented the shutdown? Benjamin Civiletti. Civiletti was the attorney general for President Jimmy Carter. He issued a legal opinion that led to the various shutdowns that now occur. Civiletti wrote:
[T]here is nothing in the language of the Antidcficicncy Act or in its long history from which any cxccption to its terms during a period of lapsed appropriations may be inferred. Faithful execution of the laws cannot rest on mere speculation that Congress does not want the Executive branch to carry out Congress’ ‘unambiguous mandates.
Perhaps another attorney general will compose another legal opinion in the future that overturns what was done in 1980, or Congress will intervene to pass a new law that modifies the process. Until that happens, shutdowns are now a recurring part of the federal landscape.
There have been 10 shutdowns (i.e. funding lapses that led to furloughs or curtailed government operations). The longest one was 35 days and was a dispute over funding for a border wall along the southern American border. Most ended after a few days.
This shutdown looks and feels different. The underlying political disputes are more than just about funding a program. It is more about the size and form of government as well as determining spending priorities.
Events From Trump’s First Term and Latest Government Shutdown
The latest federal government shutdown started on October 1, 2025, following a contentious impasse regarding healthcare subsidies, rescissions, and spending priorities.
The current shutdown and the intense emotions underlying the actions and decisions from both sides did not happen in a vacuum. Presidential directives to maintain troop compensation, mass agency layoffs, and what Democrats characterize as an existential struggle over the administrative state, cannot be understood without examining how President Donald Trump was treated by significant portions of the federal government structure during his first term and how that experience has influenced his second-term strategy.
In his first term, Donald Trump employed fairly standard methods to achieve his objectives, including countering the power of the “deep state”. He was often challenged and overridden by the existing governmental system. During his four-year tenure in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump was a fairly standard political leader working to meet his political objectives in a fairly traditional way.
To quote one popular commentator, “He got hosed”. He obviously concluded that approach did not work. Trump has become a stronger leader. “He has no use for the bureaucracy. HE will institute policies and accountability, not a slow-moving system infused with fanatical ideology.”
Scholarly research and contemporaneous reporting from 2017 to 2021 documented instances of overt resistance, intra-administration pushback, and a persistent stream of executive efforts to curtail regulatory authority and replace career staff with loyalists. This experience solidified an approach in which, when re-elected, the president treats personnel and regulatory levers as primary tools to reshape government rather than mere instruments for policy implementation.
With the myriad of court decisions now in the system challenging his actions, and more on the way, we do not know the final outcome. We do know that he did not wait around to work within the traditional system.
He imposed changes. Some will remain, and some will be overturned. If he has a solid majority in Congress after the mid-term elections, he will work to put these changes into law.
From the inception of the Trump administration, the president and numerous allies characterized career civil servants, agency experts, and certain senior appointees as resistant to his agenda—a “deep state” narrative that justified aggressive political controls over the federal workforce and rulemaking.
The practical outcome: Policies and plans drafted in the lead-up to and following the 2025 inauguration prioritized rapid deregulation, hiring and firing authority, and structural changes to agencies.
The administration has been explicit that a shutdown is an opportunity to enact cuts more challenging to pass through ordinary appropriations or rulemaking. This background helps explain the speed and targeting of recent layoffs, as well as the emphasis on rescissions and other mechanisms that can permanently remove funds or programs.
Concurrently, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) decision to maintain his stance rather than seek a quicker agreement possesses its own strategic rationale as outlined below.
How First Term’s Clashes Translated into Shutdown Tactics
There is a connection between the earlier battles to what is now occurring:
Personnel as Policy
Past frustrations with “resistant” career officials prompted the administration to treat hiring, RIFs (reductions in force), and reassignments as a means to alter agency priorities. The current layoffs and personnel actions during the shutdown align with this strategy—utilizing the funding pause to eliminate or sideline offices and programs deemed misaligned with the president’s agenda.
Regulatory Acceleration
A playbook developed after 2017 to roll back existing rules and block new ones has been significantly accelerated in 2025. Think-tank trackers and legal strategies indicate active efforts to rescind or delay rules and pressure press agencies to abandon certain programmatic work. A shutdown would reduce administrative friction for making abrupt pivots.
Narrative and Leverage: The President’s Strategy
Having portrayed the bureaucracy as an adversary in his first term, the president employs provocative public statements and unilateral actions (e.g., ordering the Pentagon to pay troops from other funds) to assert that he is safeguarding Americans while simultaneously exerting pressure on opponents in Congress. This communication strategy aims to shift blame, halt negotiation momentum, and create political incentives for GOP members to maintain their stance.
The strategy is different. The strategy is bold or reckless, depending on the observer. The stakes are higher for both sides, including for federal employees. This time, there is a possibility that tens of thousands of federal jobs may be eliminated.
Why Chuck Schumer is Not Rushing to Cut a Deal: The Motives Behind the Holdout
At first glance, it may appear unusual for Senate Democrats to permit a shutdown to persist, considering the economic hardship and political risk involved. However, several pragmatic and institutional factors contribute to Schumer’s stance:
Avoiding Leverage for Future Use
Schumer and numerous Senate Democrats caution that accepting concessions now could render any subsequent gains susceptible to “rescissions” or executive overreach. This concern is particularly pertinent given the administration’s repeated utilization of rescission and executive action earlier in 2025. To them, a swift rescue that leaves structural changes in place would constitute a political and policy setback. (Schumer argued earlier that a shutdown would “grant Mr. Trump and Mr. Musk the authority to dismantle vital government services at a significantly accelerated pace.”)
Protecting Popular Programs and Messaging to the Base
The central issue in the 2025 dispute has been Affordable Care Act-related premium subsidies and other programs that Democrats consider core priorities. Schumer estimates that ceding these now, even to end a shutdown, would have political consequences for Democrats in 2026 and beyond. Public statements from Schumer and other Senate Democrats emphasize maintaining these priorities rather than passing a short-term CR that eliminates them.
Senate Arithmetic and the Filibuster
Even with control of the chamber’s leadership, Democrats cannot unilaterally force policy wins in the current Senate without either persuading a few GOP senators or changing Senate rules. Therefore, Schumer must weigh whether a hasty compromise would actually achieve lasting protections. The procedural realities of the Senate make a tactical holdout more feasible than it might seem.
Political Calculation and Signaling
Schumer also needs to maintain cohesion among a divided Democratic caucus (from moderates concerned about immediate constituent harm to progressives demanding strong stances). By holding firm in public votes and framing the issue as a defense of people’s health coverage and essential services, Schumer aims to avoid being perceived as the party that capitulated and to compel Republicans to bear the political consequences. Coverage of Schumer’s approach highlights that he is balancing the fear of empowering sweeping administrative changes against short-term political risks.
Tradeoffs Both Leaders Accept
Both parties are engaged in deliberate calculations. For Trump, the shutdown provides immediate political pressure and public messaging, and an opportunity for personnel and regulatory changes.
For Schumer, Democrats are also a much different party now than just a few years ago. Schumer is probably concerned about a challenge to his leadership from the influential left wing of his party. No doubt, he foresees potential challenges to his leadership from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) (D-NY) and others in his party who have a perceived advantage in not being older white men.
That potential challenge from “progressives” on the far-left and his potential loss of power are strong motivations to hold out against the Republicans. The short-term discomfort of a shutdown is weighed against the long-term risk of allowing the administration to establish broad retrenchment of federal programs and protections that Democrats consider difficult to reverse, making it easier to resist halting the shutdown.
Consequently, a high-stakes standoff ensues in which national institutions—agencies, courts, and the budget process itself—are being utilized as political instruments.
What to Watch Next
- Legal and Appropriations Maneuvers: Court challenges from unions were predictable and have already been filed in liberal jurisdictions (Northern California) and states regarding layoffs, as well as narrowly targeted legislative fixes (military pay, veterans’ programs) that may serve as pressure valves.
- Personnel Moves: If the administration continues to selectively use furloughs and RIFs, agencies’ capacity in health, science, and oversight could be permanently altered.
- Public Opinion and Messaging: The party that appears to “own” the political narrative in the coming weeks will shape the post-shutdown agenda and the 2026 campaign framing.
Conclusion
Some federal employees contend they are not working in a political organization and that the federal bureaucracy is apolitical. This shutdown demonstrates politics, power, and governmental structure are all playing a role in keeping the shutdown in place.
