The Trump Administration Is Purposefully Inflicting Unnecessary Pain During the Shutdown

By their nature, shutdowns cause significant harm that worsens over time. In the absence of appropriations, many critical programs and services that people rely on are halted or hamstrung. But the Trump Administration is making the situation worse by taking unprecedented, and even illegal, steps during the shutdown to inflict unnecessary damage to public services and investments, the federal workers who deliver them, and the public who depends on them, seemingly to force Democrats in Congress to accede to the Administration’s funding demands. These types of attacks are exactly why guardrails are needed in a funding bill; the Administration has taken these damaging steps in the past and will continue doing so without enforceable provisions in place to stop it.

Since the shutdown began, the Administration has gleefully trumpeted instances where it is withholding funding or canceling grants supporting transportation and energy infrastructure projects across the country, even though funding for these projects had been previously approved and none of it has lapsed. Nothing like these project pauses and threatened cancellations have occurred in prior shutdowns, as they are not required by a short-term lack of funding. Despite that, the Administration has broadcast its efforts to find more programs and projects it disfavors to undermine in this way.

One of the first announcements after the shutdown began was the Administration’s hold on $18 billion of infrastructure projects in the New York City area, home to the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives. This was followed by the announcement that nearly $8 billion of energy infrastructure projects would be cancelled, with the President’s budget director specifically noting the 16 states that would be impacted — each of which is represented by two Democratic senators. Similar projects in other states were not targeted in this manner. The Secretary of Energy made clear that the Trump Administration’s decision to terminate these energy projects was not made because of the shutdown at all, and had, in fact, been made in the months prior.

More recently, the Administration announced that an additional $11 billion of infrastructure projects in New York, San Francisco, Baltimore, and Boston — cities that the Trump Administration has threatened in other contexts over policy disagreements — would be paused and considered for cancellation. While the President’s budget director said that this action was because the “shutdown has drained the Army Corps of Engineers’ ability to manage billions of dollars in projects,” only about 3 percent of the Army Corps’ staff is financed through annual appropriations and therefore furloughed, per the agency’s lapse plan. Furthermore, an Office of Management and Budget spokesperson explicitly called out differences over immigration policy as a justification for targeting projects in these cities and states.

Even some Republican senators have called out the Administration’s political targeting of project cancellations as inappropriate. Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas said funding for projects should be based on merits rather than political patronage or retaliation, and Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said infrastructure funding decisions shouldn’t be made on the basis of “political maneuvering.”

These funding delays and terminations are not required by the shutdown, but they closely mirror other illegal funding pauses and cancellations attempted or carried out by the Administration in the months prior to the shutdown. A CBPP analysis found a clear pattern of illegal, targeted delays and disruptions of resources provided in the March 2025 funding deal.

In addition to funding cuts, the Administration has also sought to use the shutdown to justify firing federal workers in programs that it does not support. To be clear: there is no legal justification for firing federal workers during a shutdown. Reductions in force (RIFs) are intended to address lasting issues, such as longer-term funding shortfalls or agency reorganizations, not a temporary lapse in funding.

Nor is there a budget rationale: these federal workers do not get paid during the shutdown, and the RIFs only take effect in mid-December (a 60-day notice is required). The RIFs provide no additional funding to be used during the shutdown. No prior administration, including the first Trump Administration, has ever sought to engage in RIFs during a shutdown, and a district court has found these RIFs to be illegal.

These firings would significantly impair the federal government’s capacity to deliver public services funded and mandated by Congress, with real implications for people and communities across the country. For example, they would gut agencies that provide support for children with disabilities, for financial services provided in underserved communities, and for state efforts providing substance use treatment and other mental health services.

Moreover, these mass layoffs are a continuation of the Administration’s ongoing efforts to push out hundreds of thousands of federal employees, ignoring legal constraints and bypassing Congress. In fact, the RIFs at the Department of the Interior announced during the shutdown had been under consideration for months prior to the lapse in funding, and the Department has stated in court that the RIFs have nothing to do with the shutdown.

There are steps that Congress can take to address these abuses, such as preventing unilateral rescissions by the executive branch, limiting partisan use of rescission authority, eliminating means of illegally delaying when appropriated funds are spent, and undoing the RIFs initiated during the shutdown while prohibiting similarly unnecessary RIFs in the future.

The damaging, illegal behavior the Administration has displayed during the shutdown is a stark reminder of the importance of including guardrails in funding legislation. In the absence of enforceable provisions to limit abuses, there is every reason to think the Administration will continue them once the shutdown ends.