The New Normal of Holding Federal Workers Hostage

The end this week of the longest ever shutdown of U.S. government offices marks a new normal in polarized Washington. Closing federal doors is now a routine power play for Republicans and Democrats alike. Last year, a bitter fight over healthcare funding forced some 900,000 civil servants to stop work for 43 days. This year, the same impasse hit about 100,000 employees in the Department of Homeland Security for almost twice as long. Returning to work with no resolution of the underlying dispute promises more future shutdowns.

Thirty years ago, American voters viewed the stoppage of government as unacceptable. When the Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, refused to pass funding bills unless President Bill Clinton agreed to steep budget cuts, the backlash helped propel Clinton to reelection in 1996. A chastened GOP did not pull the trigger on federal funding until 2013, when closing government down failed to stop the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

Now, however, the public seems ready to go along with missing the full range of government services as long as a few important red lines are not crossed. These include delays in federal benefits and tax refunds, the closure of national parks, and prolonged disruption of airport security. The other big things done by the government in public health, regulation, scientific research, and a host of other fields don’t figure as punishable.

While Congress and the White House focus on shutdowns as a maneuver, the deeper damage of holding government hostage goes unnoticed.

First, shutdowns over the past decade have pulled attention away from exploding U.S. budget deficits. The clash between President Clinton and House Speaker Gingrich in 1996 over the nation’s financial future had a positive outcome. Both sides agreed that U.S. budget deficits were unsustainable—they just differed on the pace and distribution of cuts. The compromise that ended the shutdown put the country on a path to pay down the national debt and resulted in one year of actual surplus.

The national debt has grown from $5.7 trillion to $39 trillion since 2000. Budget confrontations, however, have nothing to do with bringing deficits under control. Instead, government shutdowns stem from a bitter divide over America’s racial, ethnic, and cultural identity. The funding of President Trump’s border wall brought the government to a standstill during his first term, while no-holds-barred immigration enforcement has done so during his second. The divide over national identity has marginalized voices of fiscal restraint on both sides of the aisle. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are ready to hit the brakes.

Second, the normalization of shutdowns has weakened Congress. Every decision not to fund the government marks a failure on Capitol Hill of give-and-take political bargaining. Surveys record steep drops in public approval of Congress from the mid-30s to the mid-teens after every shutdown, followed by partial recovery when government reopens. Nevertheless, hardliners feel empowered by voters to stick to their guns.

The electoral costs of refusing to find common ground may be low, but the price that Congress pays as an institution is high. Legislation with input across party lines creates institutional leverage. However, the Republican-led Senate and House have given unequivocal backing to a them-versus-us agenda set by the White House. As a result, President Trump exercises a degree of control over Congress that used to be unthinkable, undermining its classic role as a check on executive power.

The third way in which shutdowns do damage is that they devalue federal workers. Having to stop work highlights their facelessness and political vulnerability rather than their specialized skills and commitment to public service. Since more than two million civil servants are spread over 15 cabinet departments and 50 independent agencies, most Americans lack an overall picture of what they do, why they do it, or what the true impact of stopping their work is. Lack of knowledge feeds a stereotype of careerists as overpaid, overprotected, and able to withstand shutdowns because they eventually get their paychecks.

The president has deliberately devalued the federal workforce by making its reduction a priority domestic goal. Some 350,000 career employees have left government through retirement, resignation, and layoffs since January 2025. The White House has taken credit for this downsizing despite the loss of experience and expertise and the need to backtrack on hasty, mission-threatening personnel cuts in disaster relief, tobacco oversight, and other federal programs.

A singular focus on reducing the size of government leaves out America’s stake in attracting and retaining top-tier personnel in dozens of specialized fields. As I have learned firsthand from high-performing federal workers, talent means as much in government as it does in the private sector. Devaluing federal careers reduces their appeal to the very men and women who are needed to improve federal performance.

Holding non-partisan civil servants hostage is an act of self-destruction. The damage won’t stop unless Americans get serious about rejecting extremism and making democracy work.