Administration Plans for Mass Firings in a Shutdown Not Justified by Law or Prudent Management

Last week, the Trump Administration leaked a memo directing agencies to consider widespread firings of federal employees in the event of a government shutdown.^[1] But a shutdown provides no new legal authority to engage in mass layoffs, nor does it provide any sound management or policy reason to do so.

Raising the prospect of mass layoffs as direct retaliation if Democrats do not accede to the House Republicans’ short-term funding proposal is simply an Administration threat to hurt the American people if it does not get its way. But it also serves as a reminder that the Administration is already engaged in large-scale firings (known as reductions in force, or RIFs) unrelated to negotiations around a short-term funding bill. The Administration has made clear that it plans to continue this campaign of mass layoffs apart from the outcome of any funding negotiations, even though these personnel cuts would actually make it harder for the Administration to properly implement the spending deal that is reached.

The Administration’s threat reinforces the need for enforceable provisions in any funding bill to prevent these types of abuses of power that would badly degrade or eliminate critical services that families and communities depend on.^[2]

A Shutdown Provides No Legal, Management, or Policy Justification for Widespread Firings

In its memo, the Trump Administration claims that programs whose appropriation has lapsed are “no longer statutorily required to be carried out” and directs agencies “to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees” in programs that are not funded by the recent Republican reconciliation bill and are not consistent with the Administration’s priorities.

But a shutdown provides no new legal authority for an agency to engage in widespread firings.^[3] RIFs are intended to respond to long-term funding shortfalls or an agency reorganization, not a short lapse in funding as lawmakers negotiate a spending bill. A shutdown is by its very nature temporary, and it would be absurd to use it to justify RIF procedures that are meant to make permanent changes. The Trump Administration’s own guidance on shutdown furloughs acknowledges this, stating that “A reduction in force is a process to separate or reassign employees when positions have been abolished. A furlough is the placing of an employee in a temporary non-duty, non-pay status because of lack of work or funds, or other non-disciplinary reasons.”^[4]

Nor does a shutdown provide any sound management or policy reason for RIFs. Shutdowns have occurred before, including three times during the first Trump Administration. No previous Administration sought to fire employees for the limited duration of a shutdown. And for good reason: most shutdowns last only a few days, and the longest lasted a little more than a month.^[5]And the laws governing RIFs require 60 days (or 30 days in exceptional circumstances) from when an employee is notified of a potential layoff before they can be separated from employment. If the intention is to cancel the RIFs after a shutdown ends, all the Administration will have accomplished is creating unnecessary confusion and stress for both federal employees and the people they serve, in addition to significant unnecessary management burdens at the taxpayer’s expense.

Alternatively, if the Administration intends to continue with these RIFs after funding has been provided, it would be using the shutdown as cover for advancing its goal of undermining the government’s ability to deliver the services families and communities count on — from protecting against unsafe food, medicines, and medical products and lowering heating and cooling costs for families with low incomes to supporting K-12 education and affordable housing — and that the Administration is obligated to provide under the law.

A Funding Bill Needs to Limit Administration Abuses

While a shutdown provides no legitimate justification for engaging in widespread firings, the Administration’s memo serves as a reminder of its ongoing efforts to hollow out the federal workforce and undermine the functioning of critical services that people depend on.

The memo’s directive to implement RIFs echoes the Administration’s ongoing efforts to carry out “large-scale” firings across the government.^[6] The memo makes this connection clear, as it directs agencies to “revise their RIFs as needed to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions” once funding is provided, rather than directing agencies to halt them entirely. And just last week, it was reported that the Department of the Interior is moving forward with significant RIFs in the near future, regardless of whether there is a shutdown.^[7]

The Administration’s plans raise serious legal issues. Among the reasons why: the massive RIFs the Administration is already planning to carry out in agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services could so degrade agency capacities that they would effectively end congressionally mandated activities, undermine funding laws, and violate statutory requirements.^[8]

The Trump Administration has taken numerous steps to undermine funding laws and effective governance, including through illegal funding freezes, fast-track rescissions, and illegal unilateral rescissions. Its willingness to threaten further layoffs as a political cudgel — when such cuts would significantly harm public services people depend on — only further emphasizes the need for safeguards to ensure the Administration abides by the terms of any funding deal.