Congress isn’t known as the place for bipartisan cooperation, but since October 1, inter-party arguing has led to a shutdown of the federal government. This has caused the closing of offices, the suspension of services, and the placing of hundreds of thousands of workers on furlough. The reason, as usual, is infuriating but straightforward: Congress failed to pass a spending bill or even a short-term extension to keep the lights on.
Democrats blame Republicans for infighting despite holding the White House, House, and Senate. Republicans blame Democrats for blocking votes in the upper chamber, where 60 votes are required to overcome a filibuster. The issue at the heart of this fight is the continuation of pandemic-era healthcare subsidies, temporary tax credits Democrats now want to make permanent, and Republicans insist must end.
Why the Government Shut Down
Shutdowns are often used as political theater, but more importantly, they are a legal necessity under the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which prohibits federal agencies from spending money Congress has not appropriated. When no funding bill or continuing resolution is enacted, agencies must immediately halt “non-excepted” operations, everything from research grants to passport services, because spending without appropriations is a crime under federal law.
A few agencies and functions remain active because their work is considered essential to the “safety of human life or the protection of property.” These include airport security, border patrol, military operations, and air traffic control. The employees who perform these tasks are known as “excepted” workers, and they must continue working without pay until Congress acts. The rest of the furloughed employees are told to stay home without pay until the government reopens.
Under the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, all affected workers are legally guaranteed back pay as soon as appropriations are restored. That statute, passed after the 2018–19 shutdown, was meant to end the uncertainty that federal workers face every time Washington hits a stalemate. Whether the Trump administration interprets that obligation the same way it did when he first signed it into law remains to be seen.
What’s Still Running, and What’s Not
Because not all money is created equal, some programs don’t stop when a shutdown begins. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid continue to operate because they are funded through mandatory spending, not annual appropriations. The U.S. Postal Service continues to operate because it is self-funded. Veterans’ hospitals remain open, and the military continues to operate.
But discretionary programs, those funded annually by Congress, are another story.
- Federal contracting and grant-making have halted, mainly.
- New regulatory inspections, research projects, and environmental enforcement are suspended.
- National parks and museums are closed or operating with skeletal staff.
- Passport and visa processing have slowed dramatically.
- Food assistance programs like SNAP and WIC could soon face delays as contingency funds dry up.
Even the agencies that remain “open” are doing so on borrowed time and goodwill. The ADA does not allow agencies to promise future payment for current work, meaning everyone still on the job is technically working on credit.
Why the Shutdown Hits States Like Maine Harder than Others
Shutdowns have a second lever of consequences: they stop federal reimbursements to states. In particular, Maine relies heavily on federal transfers for education, transportation, health care, and social services. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, approximately one-third of the state budget comes from federal funding for central government functions. When that flow stops, so does much of the state’s operating capacity.
Gov. Janet Mills has roughly $1 billion in the Rainy Day Fund, which is about one-fifth of what the federal government sends to Maine annually, but she cannot use it unilaterally. The Maine Constitution limits the governor’s ability to appropriate funds without legislative approval. To deploy emergency funds, Mills would have to either:
- Declare an extraordinary occasion and call a special legislative session, or
- Wait until the regular session begins in January.
That means any federally funded but non-exempted programs, such as specific transportation projects, housing assistance, or workforce grants, currently lack both federal and state backup funding. Unless the Legislature convenes early, these programs may simply have to pause.
This intergovernmental dependency highlights a more profound vulnerability: Maine’s fiscal health is tightly bound to Washington’s political stability, which is far from a healthy foundation. The more the federal government centralizes control over social programs, the less flexibility states have when that control fails. But no one is forcing us: Maine doesn’t have to be so reliant on D.C.; we chose to be, or at least our political leaders did.
How Long Could It Last?
When both parties feel like they have strong incentives to draw things out, shutdowns can sometimes last over a month. Republicans see Democrats as attempting to make temporary pandemic policies permanent, including some healthcare benefits for noncitizens, and many within the GOP see this fight as a line in the sand. The shutdown also gives President Trump significant leverage over federal agencies and blue-state funding streams, which some in his circle view as politically advantageous.
Democrat leadership, from their perspective, can not afford to seem weak in the face of President Trump. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faces pressure from the progressive left to hold firm; otherwise, he might invite a primary challenge from progressives within his own party. With the rise of anti-establishment progressive Democrats in New York, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, or more recently Zohran Mamdani, more established Democrats like Schumer have good reason to worry about their political futures. Thus, both sides believe they benefit from “standing their ground.”
But reality will set in soon. Around October 15, federal workers would be expected to receive their paychecks if we weren’t in the middle of a shutdown. When those checks don’t arrive, political pressure will spike on both sides: Democrats from the public-sector workforce that tends to support them, Republicans from military families and contractors. However, because President Trump has established compensation for military members, there is likely to be more pressure on Democratic legislators than Republicans to end the shutdown. Of course, shutdowns can’t last forever, and the reality is that they’ll last exactly as long as our leaders want them to.
Can the President Withhold Funds from Blue States After the Shutdown’s End?
No, not legally. While there is reason to worry about political retaliation, the law is clear: the President cannot simply refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated.
In Train v. City of New York (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that, “Should the President desire to withhold or delay the obligation or expenditure of budget authority, he must submit a similar special message to Congress. His recommendation may be rejected by either House adopting a resolution disapproving the proposed deferral.” That case arose when President Nixon tried to withhold Clean Water Act environmental funds Congress had enacted over his veto. The Court said no.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) formalized that rule, requiring the President to notify Congress if he wishes to delay or cancel spending. Congress must approve any rescission; otherwise, the money must be released.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reaffirmed this principle in 2020, when it found that the Office of Management and Budget violated the ICA by withholding military aid to Ukraine for policy reasons. As the GAO wrote:
“Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted.”
In short, once this shutdown ends, the administration must reimburse states for all eligible costs. Any selective withholding would be illegal and likely overturned in court.
Can the President Fire Federal Workers or Deny Back Pay?
Kind of, but with many restrictions. Shutdowns don’t erase civil-service protections. Federal agencies cannot simply fire employees “for lack of funds” without following the Reduction in Force (RIF) procedures established under 5 Code of Federal Regulations Part 351, which include retention registers, veterans’ preference, and advance notice. The executive branch has been attempting to expand its ability to unilaterally initiate mass firings among agencies for a while, with some success. However, agencies still have to follow the proper procedures.
As for back pay, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 mandates that both furloughed and excepted employees “shall be compensated for the period of the lapse in appropriations […] on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends.” Even if the Trump administration tries to reinterpret “earliest date possible,” the legal obligation remains. Outside experts agree that once Congress appropriates funds again, agencies are legally bound to pay those wages retroactively. The Trump administration and outside experts have been debating whether a shutdown-ending appropriations bill will need to authorize the backpay explicitly, but traditionally, it hasn’t been required.
How This Shutdown Differs from Past Ones
This shutdown stands out in several ways:
- Different trigger: The fight is over what would amount to approximately $350 billion in costs from the Democrats’ proposal to expand enhanced premium tax ACA credits permanently. This puts a new perspective on our last shutdown, which ended in 2019 and was caused by President Trump asking for a comparatively measly $5 billion for a border wall.
- Executive assertiveness: The administration has signaled that it may “review” which programs get reimbursed, a test of impoundment limits unseen since the 1970s.
- State exposure: States like Maine are more dependent than ever on federal aid, making shutdowns locally disruptive even when state finances are relatively stable.
- Timing: This standoff comes early in Trump’s second term, when political capital is high and compromise incentives are low.
- Executive protection of military paychecks: In some previous shutdowns, Congress passed legislation to ensure most military members were paid during a shutdown, such as the “Pay Our Military Act” of 2013. However, this appears to be the first shutdown where the president has attempted to unilaterally redirect funds, here about $8 billion in R&D, to allow the Department of Defense to issue paychecks.
For context: the 2018–19 shutdown lasted 35 days and cost the economy an estimated $11 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some of that was recovered later, but at least $3 billion never was.
What Comes Next
There are three realistic ways out of this impasse:
- A short-term continuing resolution that reopens the government without resolving the healthcare dispute.
- A partial appropriations deal funding “must-pass” agencies (defense, homeland security) while deferring everything else.
- A drawn-out standoff that eventually breaks under public and market pressure.
Regardless of the path chosen, the shutdown underscores a larger truth: Washington’s dysfunction always flows downhill. States like Maine, which historically balance budgets more prudently and maintain rainy day reserves, are still held hostage to some degree by federal paralysis.
If this pattern continues, state policymakers should begin exploring how to insulate critical programs from federal uncertainty, perhaps through dedicated stabilization funds or structural reforms that reduce dependence on federal matching grants.
Conclusion
The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, yet modern shutdowns increasingly reveal a deeper struggle: who really controls the machinery of government? As the executive branch tests the limits of impoundment and as Congress flirts with fiscal brinkmanship, the losers are typically ordinary Americans and the states that depend on Washington’s consistency.
Shutdowns used to be temporary inconveniences. Today, they are constitutional stress tests. And for states like Maine, the lesson is clear: fiscal independence isn’t just good policy, it’s self defense.
