A government shutdown now looks all but certain because Democrats insist on continuing taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants, and Republicans are ready to hold the line. The White House has a plan that turns a shutdown from a liability into leverage, and that plan includes mass firings and a sharp political message. This piece lays out what that plan means for federal workers, for GOP strategy, and for the next round of negotiating leverage in D.C.
An Office of Management and Budget memo from the White House that was shared with Politico earlier this week instructed agencies to prepare for mass firings of federal workers if the shutdown occurs. The memo zeroes in on programs that Congress does not legally require to continue, telling agencies to keep only the staff necessary to maintain core, legally mandated operations. That approach is deliberate: it punishes programs that don’t match the President’s priorities while saving money and sharpening the political contrast.
The memo signals more than short-term furloughs; it points to permanent reductions in force that would cut bureaucracy and lock in savings. Republicans view this as slimming down a federal workforce that swelled regardless of outcomes, and as finishing work started in previous administrations that emphasized spending restraint. For conservative voters who want less government and more accountability, this is a clear message that the administration intends to follow through.
“Insane demands”
The memo places blame for the impending shutdown squarely on Democratic leaders who, in the White House view, are insisting on unreasonable spending and policy priorities. It frames the standoff as a choice between fiscal responsibility and unchecked expansion of government obligations. The administration positions itself as the only force defending taxpayers and the integrity of federal budgets.
Over the past 10 fiscal years, Congress has consistently passed Continuing Resolutions (CRs) on or by
September 30 on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats are signaling that they
intend to break this bipartisan trend and shut down the government in the coming days over a series of
insane demands, including $1 trillion in new spending.Last week, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 5371, a clean CR that would fund the government
at current levels through November 21. The Administration supports Senate passage of H.R. 5371, but
congressional Democrats are currently blocking this clean CR due to their partisan demands.
By reproducing the memo’s language, the White House wants the public to see Democrats as obstructive and extreme. That narrative is intended to win public sympathy and to paint future Democratic arguments as purely political. Republicans hope voters will side with fiscal sanity over expanded entitlements for noncitizens.
The memo also gives agency leaders cover to act quickly and decisively if appropriations lapse, since it cites applicable law and civil service rules. That legal framing turns a political fight into an administrative action, making firings and RIFs procedurally defensible. For an administration committed to reshaping the federal footprint, the legal cover is crucial.
With respect to those Federal programs whose funding would lapse and which are otherwise
unfunded, such programs are no longer statutorily required to be carried out. Therefore, consistent
with applicable law, including the requirements of 5 C.F.R. part 351, agencies are directed to use this
opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or
activities (PPAs) that satisfy all three of the following conditions: (1) discretionary funding lapses on
October 1, 2025; (2) another source of funding, such as H.R. 1 (Public Law 119-21) is not currently
available; and (3) the PPA is not consistent with the President’s priorities.
That passage in the memo is a checklist: fund lapses, no backup funding, and misalignment with presidential priorities equals potential RIF. It reads like a target list for cutting fat and focusing federal work on core priorities. For Republicans, it’s a way to enforce campaign promises about smaller, mission-focused government.
Not everyone on the right is cautious about this approach. John Nolte of Breitbart wrote in response to the news: “So, let’s all do our part to encourage Democrats to shut down the government.” That one-liner captures a more aggressive strain of conservative thinking that sees a shutdown as a political weapon, not a risk. The White House seems to be threading a line between cautious deterrence and tactical brinksmanship.
Win-win for Republicans
From the Republican perspective, this gambit is clever and low-risk: if Democrats force a shutdown, the White House can accelerate cuts and shrinks the bureaucratic state. If Democrats blink and let a clean continuing resolution pass, Republicans still get credit for demanding discipline and blocking massive new spending. Either outcome strengthens the GOP hand going into the next legislative fights and election cycles.
Operationally, announcing the possibility of permanent RIFs raises the political stakes and applies pressure on Democratic senators who might face backlash at home. Voters sympathetic to fiscal restraint will see the administration as willing to take tough steps rather than capitulate to expansion. That perception matters politically and could reshape the messaging around federal spending debates.
There will be real human consequences for federal employees in affected programs, and the administration acknowledges that by framing the cuts as targeted and lawful. Messaging will emphasize taxpayer savings, better alignment of priorities, and the need to stop funding activities that do not serve the national interest. For conservatives who want results, the move is presented as painful but necessary.
In short, the White House is treating a possible shutdown as leverage, a test of resolve, and an opportunity to reshape government. Republicans see it as a practical application of their long-stated goals: reduce waste, cut programs inconsistent with administration priorities, and force Democrats to choose between fiscal responsibility and political theater. No matter which way the immediate fight goes, the strategy is designed to leave Republicans in a stronger position politically and administratively.
