On October 13, local time, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, warned that the "shutdown" of the federal government may become the longest in American history.
In fact, since October 10, a number of federal employees have been dismissed in a row.They thought that as long as the allocations were restored, they would be able to return to their jobs, and now this hope is completely shattered, which also makes the government shutdown into the third week more unpredictable - the associated risk of "cuts" being stopped from the budget, has evolved into the most obvious reality problem, and has become a real backdrop for Johnson's remarks.
According to the Washington Post, the White House has launched a cross-sectoral cuts.Put approximately 4200 federal employees on the first batch of abolishments, involving core departments such as the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Education.This is an unprecedented move in previous shutdowns of the US government.The U.S. Federal Employee’s Association has filed a lawsuit on the matter, accusing the government of “abusing the suspension power” and several experts have warned that the move will permanently change the government’s employee structure and may even reshape Washington’s governance logic.
The government shutdown was supposed to be a "temporary shutdown", but now it has evolved into a "structural slimming". Fiscal gridlock is becoming a political experiment in reshaping the bureaucracy, and in the process, the boundaries between crisis and governance are being redefined.
Salary and Reduction
Temporary crisis to structural reduction
Traditionally, a government shutdown means that Congress fails to pass an appropriation bill, federal agencies cannot spend non-emergency funds, and "non-essential employees" are forcedUnpaid vacationThis leave is a temporary suspension of work, the employee status remains, and can be returned to work after the budget is restored.
However, at this closure, the White House did not stop with a "suspension", but started directly.Permanent redundancy (RIF) proceduresAccording to several media reports,About 1,446 people were removed from the plan by the Ministry of Finance, 1,100 to 1,200 from the Ministry of Health and Public Services, and about 466 from the Ministry of Education.These sectors are not marginal institutions, but core units related to public health, fiscal management and education policies.
The Guardian said the move turned the shutdown crisis from a "budget event" to a "structural event" for the first time, meaning substantial human restructuring began within the federal system.
In administrative law, the difference between unpaid leave and layoffs is crucial:Unpaid leave is a temporary financial emergency measure, the position is retained; redundancies are permanent job cancellation, and the employment relationship is completely terminated.
In the past few decades of shutdown, the government tried to avoid layoffs. Now this boundary has been broken, and the "temporary suspension of pay" has been dragged into a "long-term cut-off of supply". The budget problem has naturally evolved into a structural problem, which also symbolizes the redrawing of the boundary of administrative power-the government redistributes management power and resources through the fiscal vacuum period.
CNN reports that more than 4,000 federal employees received notice of dismissal on October 10.
Name of Crisis
The White House agenda.
In fact, this round of cuts is not entirely passive. The Trump administration has long advocated “the lean Washington” in the campaign phase, depicting the federal bureaucracy as the source of redundant, inefficient and delayed decision-making. Today, in the context of budget stagnation and Congressional impasse, the White House sees this as an opportunity to implement reforms. Cuts and institutional mergers naturally become a tool for administrative reform and no longer a mere fiscal emergency.
The White House Office of Management and Budget has recently asked departments to submit "critical functional assessments" and "human structure optimization plans" to pool resources in priority areas such as national security, energy independence and border prevention and control with limited funding. The "Politics" commentary believes that this order "in the name of the financial crisis, but actually promotes a political bureaucratic restructuring", embodying the "de-bureaucracy" concept planned by the presidential team for a long time.
Russell Watt, director of the White House’s Office for Management and Budget, has publicly stated that this is an opportunity for the federal government to return to efficiency. This statement has been widely interpreted as the government’s profound reform, which is difficult to advance in conventional political cycles, is being exploited by the cessation of crisis. This “crisis as a means” logic is also seen by the public as a sign of Trump’s style of rule.
The Atlantic Monthly commented that the Trump administration is using the budget impasse as a political lever.
The double power game.
standoff between Congress and the White House escalates
Once the "dismissal order" came out, the differences in the mountain of Congress immediately expanded.
Democratic lawmakers accused the White House of making ordinary civil servants political hostages and condemned the move as a deliberate political act of creating chaos; some moderate Republicans also warned that layoffs could lead to the weakening of key government functions and trigger long-term governance chaos.
According to The New York Times's analysis, the White House is amplifying public dissatisfaction by "creating visual pain points", that is, layoffs, pay suspension and service shutdown, thus forcing Congress to compromise funding. But this strategy is also reshaping the logic of government governance: the budget is no longer just a fiscal tool, but is becoming an experimental field for political power.
According to some economic analysis estimates, if the shutdown continues, it will result in economic losses of about $7 billion per week, with some more pessimistic estimates reaching $15 billion.
Politics that the White House raised a dismissal warning, and Democrats condemned the move for deliberately creating chaos
Chain of Risk
From Policy Fault to Social Trust Crisis
The negative effects of the chain from "closing the door" to "layoffs" have appeared at many levels.
The first is the policy implementation fault.With the loss of professional jobs, there has been a "vacuum" in many fields: disease prevention, research funding, food safety, visa audit and other aspects have stalled.The Politics disclosed that more than 300 projects within the disease control center have been forced to suspend due to lack of personnel.
The second is the crisis of social trust.Federal Employee Board Chairman Everett Kelly said this is not a budget impasse, but a political punishment, and the government is letting loyal civil servants pay for political differences.He warned that cuts will hit the morality and attractiveness of the civil servant system, and young people will no longer believe public service is a career worth investing.
Furthermore, there is legal dispute.Several experts in administrative law have pointed out that initiating dismissal procedures during the government shutdown may violate the Fiscal Anti-Deficit Act and the relevant provisions of the Federal Staff Law. The Associated Press cites experts as saying that this is equivalent to redefining administrative powers in the budget vacuum, the legitimacy of which will be examined by the court.
On the surface, this is still a financial crisis; but from a systemic perspective,It is more like an experiment of power restructuring on the occasion of a crisis.The Trump administration has turned budget shutdowns into an administrative reform tool – trying to break the existing bureaucratic inertia and centralized administrative power through cuts and departmental integration – representing a new governance logic that uses chaos to restructure and pressure to push for reform.
In the short term, this approach may improve the efficiency of resource allocation; but in the long run, the lack of congressional supervision and legal constraints could undermine the professionalism of public governance and erode the balance mechanism of the federal system.
This transition from "no pay to layoffs" is not only a financial operation, but also a political experiment. It demonstrates a new trend in contemporary American politics: crisis is governance and abolition is reshaping. The results of this experiment may determine how the U.S. government will operate in the future-more efficient or more unbalanced. At the same time, this politicized "crisis management" has also made the already deadlocked government shutdown more unpredictable and more difficult to end. (CCTV reporter Wu Weihong)