Democrats erupted in anger Thursday after a White House budget office memorandum directed federal agencies to prepare permanent layoffs if the government shuts down.
At a Capitol press conference, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) blasted the Office of Management and Budget directive as a threat to federal employees.
Recommended Stories
- Haley Stevens to file articles of impeachment against RFK Jr.
- Democrats and Trump dig in on shutdown demands
- House Democrats' campaign arm targets GOP over shutdown and expiring Obamacare credits
“We will not be intimidated by Russ Vought, who’s completely and totally out of control,” Jeffries said. “The Trump administration has made their intentions clear: They want to continue to fire civil servants who are hardworking American taxpayers. If the government shuts down, it will be because they want the government to shut down.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed that charge, calling the memorandum an attempt at “intimidation” on Wednesday night. Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA) said Trump should negotiate “a funding bill that prevents health care premiums from skyrocketing for families and keeps the government operational” instead of threatening mass layoffs.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was even more blunt, labeling Trump “a petty wannabe tyrant” and warning he was trying to “abuse a shutdown — just like he’s trampled our laws for months.”
“The constitution does not make the president a king, and a shutdown certainly doesn’t make him one either,” Murray said. Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) dismissed the directive as “absolute bluster and bs,” arguing that a shutdown gives the administration “no additional legal authority to fire or [reduction in force].”
This is absolute bluster and bs.
— Rep. James Walkinshaw (@Rep_Walkinshaw) September 25, 2025
1. Trump Admin has already done everything (legal and illegal) to fire federal workers whose role or loyalty is insufficiently MAGA.
2. A shutdown gives the Admin no additional legal authority to fire or RIF. https://t.co/giHpDBW94K
The backlash followed a memorandum issued late Wednesday by OMB that directed federal agencies to draft reduction-in-force plans that could permanently shrink the federal workforce if a shutdown occurs. The guidance instructed agencies to prepare RIF notices, not just temporary furloughs, for staff in programs that will lose discretionary funding on Oct. 1, lack an alternative source of support, and do not align with President Donald Trump’s priorities.
“Agencies are directed to use this opportunity to consider Reduction in Force (RIF) notices for all employees in programs, projects, or activities … not consistent with the President’s priorities,” the memorandum reads.
The document made clear that layoffs would go further than traditional shutdown planning. “RIF notices will be in addition to any furlough notices provided due to the lapse in appropriation,” it reads, adding that employees could face termination even if they would normally be exempted during a funding lapse.
Agencies must submit their proposed plans to OMB, which said they should not assume any repurposing of funds without approval. Once appropriations are enacted, the memorandum continues, agencies should revise their RIFs “to retain the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions.”
The directive marks a sharp break from how shutdowns have been handled in the past, when most employees were furloughed temporarily and returned once funding was restored. This time, OMB Director Russ Vought is raising the possibility of permanent layoffs, warning that some employees could be fired even if they continue working during a funding lapse.
The fight over the memorandum comes as the fiscal year draws to a close on Sept. 30. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution to keep the government open through late November, but the measure failed in the Senate after most Democrats and two Republicans voted against it. Senate Democrats are pressing for bipartisan negotiations that could extend Affordable Care Act subsidies and undo Medicaid cuts included in the GOP’s tax and immigration legislation. Democrats countered with their own plan to extend funding through Oct. 31, but neither measure cleared the Senate before lawmakers adjourned for a weeklong recess. Senators are expected to reconsider the GOP bill on Monday.
Schumer and Jeffries planned to meet with Trump this week to negotiate a way forward, but the president canceled the session in a social media post, declaring no talks “could possibly be productive” given Democrats’ “unserious and ridiculous demands.”
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) underscored the healthcare stakes, warning that a shutdown could threaten coverage for millions. “My position is it’s in everyone’s interest to keep [government] open … and to make sure that we don’t have millions of people losing their health insurance,” she said in an interview on CNBC, adding that she supported President Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” approach for any eventual deal to safeguard premium tax credits and other healthcare measures.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also urged both sides to avoid a shutdown. “We must pass a clean, short-term continuing resolution to prevent a harmful government shutdown and allow Congress time to complete the annual funding bills,” Collins said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “Federal employees dedicate themselves to serving the public, and they should not be treated as pawns amid a needlessly partisan impasse.”
Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) struck a similar note of urgency, telling CNN that both parties need to back the stopgap bill that already passed the House.
FEDERAL AGENCIES TOLD TO PREPARE REDUCTION-IN-FORCE PLANS IF GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN
“House Republicans passed a continuing resolution last week to keep the government funded and open,” Lawler said. “No one wins in a government shutdown. The American people are the ones that lose. The economy loses. It is wrong.”
He argued that there was “not one legitimate reason” for Democrats to oppose the current CR other than, in his view, an unwillingness to back a plan under Trump.