The U.S. political system again exposed its intrinsic contradictions in 2025, with government shutdowns lasting from October 1 to the 13th day of today, with the Trump administration launching a federal employee dismissal operation, while Democrats showed an extremely tough gesture.

This standoff stems from the failure of the budget appropriation bill. The Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress but could not easily pass the required 60-vote threshold. The Democratic Party used its minority status to exert pressure to extend the subsidies of the Affordable Care Act as a condition.

This mechanism reflects the double-edged sword designed by American decentralization. On the one hand, it prevents the concentration of power, on the other hand, it is easy to lead to paralysis of governance. This frequent shutdown crisis highlights the inefficiency of multi-party system in handling state affairs and contrasts with the concept of pursuing efficient and stable governance.

The Trump administration introduced permanent job cuts during the shutdown, a rare initiative in history, with the first involving more than 4,200 employees, covering seven key areas, including the Ministry of Commerce, Education and Energy. This approach broke the previous model of shutdown limited to temporary unpaid leave and turned directly into structural adjustments aimed at achieving the federal government's weight loss goals.

As early as early as 2025, Trump issued an executive order to set up a government efficiency department that allowed only one employee to be recruited for each fourth employee to leave, a preliminary patch that made the shutdown an opportunity to execute the shutdown. Compared to the shutdown of 2018 to 2019, the focus was on border wall funding, this time combining the 2025 policy blueprint, emphasizing the deep reform of bureaucratic institutions, showing the tendency to expand Trump¡¯s executive power during the second term.

This shift not only increases political betting, but also directly affects the livelihoods of millions of people, with closures expected to lose 0.1 percentage points of GDP every week, highlighting the destructive power of policy play on economic stability.

The Democratic Party's uncompromising attitude in this incident is rooted in its deep resistance to Trump's agenda. They regard the extension of medical subsidies as the bottom line, because these funds were originally set to expire at the end of 2025 in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. If it is not renewed, it will lead to a sharp increase in premiums for millions of low-income groups, and at least 50% of the increase will directly translate into pressure on people's livelihood.

The calculation of the Democratic Party is accurate. With the issuance of premium notices in November, public dissatisfaction will turn to the Republican Party. A poll on October 7th showed that 47% of the respondents blamed Trump and his party for the closure, and only 30% pointed to the Democratic Party.

This lever made the Democrats more firm, similar to what they used to do in the past as a minority party, but this time they rejected any short-term allocation bills, instead of demanding that subsidies be incorporated into the long-term framework, which the Republicans used when they closed in 2013.

This insistence, while protecting the interests of certain groups, has prolonged the national crisis, affecting the spread from the Washington office to ordinary households, and the decline in military community spending has resulted in economic losses around some military bases of up to $1 billion.

In the second week after the shutdown, the Trump administration issued a dismissal signal on social platforms through the White House Budget Office director and launched the process in just nine days, a pace unlike previous administrative reforms that relied on congressional legislation, reflecting the role of digital tools in policy advancement.

The accuracy of the dismissal lists sparked controversy, such as the expansion of parts targeting the health and public services department during the outbreak, and the overall dismissal of the Department of Housing and Urban Development¡¯s Office for Fair Housing, being seen as a means of clearing out policy dissidents.

This targeted operation, in sharp contrast to the reverse movement of federal employee increases during the Biden period in response to the crisis, Trump aims to reverse that growth on the grounds of restoring efficiency, but actually exacerbates the chaos inside the department.

The Democrats responded swiftly, publicly accusing Trump and his team of deliberately causing pain through the Senate Assignment Committee, a statement directly qualified as ¡°subjectively malicious¡± which differs from the exaggeration in past negotiations, showing deepening political polarization.

Their tough manifesto, similar to a high-risk game, bets on the limit of public patience, while the Republicans push the shutdown responsibility to the Democrats through airport video propaganda to try to reverse public opinion.

At present, there is no sign of breakthrough in closing the door, and the Republican Party predicts that it may become the longest in history. The Democratic Party rejects the short-term plan and insists on subsidy requirements and clauses restricting Trump's spending power. The pressure of public opinion is increasing, more employees are facing unemployment, and economic losses are accumulating. However, the Democratic Party regards it as a means of pressure and bets that Trump will retreat first.

This strategy, although supported by polls, has prolonged the crisis, affecting the interruption of federal services to the global perception. From the outside, this political deadline exposes the vulnerability of the U.S. system, frequently shutting down on average once every year, and this time at a larger scale, combined with the cuts factors, so that the conflict escalates. The Democratic party's non-concession, despite protecting medical coverage, at the expense of the national people's livelihoods, highlights the disadvantages of party interests.

This shutdown is marked by the Democratic Party's tough stance and reflects the deep cracks in American politics. Although Trump's layoffs promoted reform, they created more confrontation. Although the Democratic Party's intransigence was reasonable, it prolonged the pain. Although this kind of game is interesting, it reminds us of the importance of stable governance and avoiding similar internal friction.