The White House has directed federal agencies to draw up plans for mass firings of employees if Congress fails to pass a spending bill by October 1. The policy shift marks a major escalation from past shutdown preparations and raises questions about which programs will be trimmed, who will be affected, and how this aligns with the administration’s priorities.

What the Memo Requires from Federal Agencies

In a memo issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies are instructed to identify programs, projects and activities that depend on discretionary funding that would lapse if the government shuts down. For those programs that are unfunded and “not consistent with the President’s priorities,” agencies are told to produce reduction-in-force (RIF) plans. Unlike past shutdowns—where non-essential employees were furloughed temporarily—this directive contemplates the permanent elimination of positions.

The memo asks agencies to submit their RIF plans to the OMB and issue notices to affected employees. Once funding is restored, the directive states agencies should revise their employment plans to retain only the minimal workforce necessary to carry out statutory or essential functions. The memo makes clear that layoffs may affect roles that are currently considered discretionary or outside the administration’s policy-defined priorities.

This plan extends existing efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce. Already this year, a program known as DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) has been executing buyouts and reductions. Roughly 300,000 civilian federal employees are expected to leave by the end of the year, with many buyouts effective September 30. The RIF directive represents a more aggressive and structural approach than buyouts: roles could be permanently gutted rather than temporarily vacated.

Why the Administration Has Turned to Mass Firing Prep

The memo reflects growing urgency as the October 1 fiscal deadline approaches. Congress has not yet passed a continuing resolution or appropriation to keep the government fully funded. Republicans in the House passed a short-term funding bill through November, but Democrats rejected it, demanding amendments to restore healthcare funding and Medicaid cuts. These clashes have made a full funding deal increasingly uncertain.

The administration appears to be using the possibility of mass firings as leverage in budget negotiations. By raising the political stakes of a shutdown—by threatening concrete consequences for workers and agencies—the White House may be hoping to pressure Congress, especially Democratic leaders, into making concessions. Because a shutdown often goes over the soft edges of public awareness, the threat of permanent job loss is a powerful addition to the bargaining table.

Another driver behind the move is alignment with the administration’s broader agenda of shrinking the federal workforce and reallocating resources. Roles and programs deemed non-aligned with the president’s policy goals are more likely to be targeted. By reducing positions permanently, the administration not only cuts costs, but shapes which federal functions survive and which do not. It’s also consistent with recent rhetoric and policy moves emphasizing efficiency, priority driven spending, and trimming bureaucracy, especially after recent executive orders and efficiency programs.

Who Might Be Affected and How This Differs from Past Shutdowns

Programs that are discretionary and have no alternative funding sources are most at risk. These likely include smaller regional initiatives, grants that require renewal by Congress, contracts, and some administrative roles. Employees in such programs may face permanent job loss, rather than temporary furloughs. Additionally, roles that do not directly align with what the administration defines as its priorities—such as border security, defense, and other high-profile policy areas—may be preserved while others face elimination.

In contrast to previous shutdowns, where non-essential federal staff were placed on unpaid leave but reinstated when funding resumed, this memo signals that some layoffs would not be reversed. Permanent elimination of positions would result in loss of roles even after government reopens. Agencies are asked to send notices to employees even if their program might seem temporarily affected. That level of messaging suggests urgency and a punitive tone.

Federal civilian headcounts have already been declining this year via voluntary buyouts and other cuts. A large cohort of departures is slated for September 30, which coincides with the end of the fiscal year and the potential shutdown date. The RIF directive adds a layer of involuntary action: beyond voluntary exits, positions will be fully removed.

Political Fallout and Legal Risks in the Shutdown Showdown

Democrats have immediately denounced the memo. Senate Minority Leader said the move is an attempt at intimidation and threatened legal challenges. House Minority Leader also spoke out, saying that workers and families are being used as political pawns in what’s essentially a negotiation tactic. Opposition lawmakers argue there is no statutory authority for permanent firings tied solely to temporary funding lapses, and some suggest that any such firings could be reversed or undone after the fact.

Labor unions and civil servant advocacy groups are likely to push back, especially if notices are issued in anticipation of the shutdown. There is precedent in the courts for challenging executive orders perceived to overstep legal boundaries. The administration’s approach bears resemblance to past episodes where agencies were instructed to identify workers for termination, leading to lawsuits and injunctions.

The broader public sector implications are significant: beyond the immediate budget fight, the memo changes expectations of job security in the federal workforce. It signals that under this administration, political priorities may drive which federal functions survive funding lapses. For employees in programs that are lower-profile, smaller, or viewed as less aligned with the administration, risk has just materially increased.

With Congress and the White House far apart on issues of healthcare funding, Medicaid, and other policy riders, the threat of mass firings raises the prospect of deeply disruptive outcomes. Federal agencies are already scrambling to understand which positions will be preserved, which eliminated, and how to communicate these changes. In many cases, programs may go dark temporarily, but under this directive, they might never return.

(Adapted from Politico.com)