Brace For Impact
Trump’s plan to fire federal workers during a shutdown isn’t just reckless—it’s a calculated strategy to weaken democracy, consolidate power, and turn public servants into political hostages.
Setting the Stage
The Washington Post reports that President Trump’s administration has instructed federal agencies to prepare for mass layoffs if the government shuts down on Oct. 1. A memo from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs agencies to consider firing employees whose programs are not funded by the new Republican “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and which do not align with the president’s priorities. The memo makes clear that once funding is reinstated, agencies should rehire only the smallest number of workers legally required to function.
This represents a sharp departure from how shutdowns have historically worked. In the past, employees were furloughed and returned when funding resumed. Now, Trump is threatening to use a shutdown not as a temporary disruption, but as an opportunity for permanent purges. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the plan: “This is an attempt at intimidation. Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare.”
The playbook is becoming familiar. What happened to USAID earlier this year—where contraception programs were gutted and foreign aid capacity hollowed out—not by abolishing the agency, but by pushing out staff and shredding its mission, is now being attempted on a government-wide scale.
The Power at Play
What looks like chaos is actually strategy. Trump’s OMB memo transforms shutdowns from temporary standoffs into opportunities for structural sabotage. The logic is clear: if you cannot legally dismantle an agency established by Congress, you can still fire or drive out the people who make it work. A law may keep the shell of an agency alive, but a hollow workforce ensures it cannot fulfill its purpose.
We’ve already seen the model. USAID, once a cornerstone of American soft power, was gutted under Trump. Contraceptives were destroyed, development programs shuttered, and staff driven out until the agency’s ability to function was crippled. The law still said USAID existed, but in practice it was reduced to a political tool. Now, Trump wants to take that template and apply it across the entire federal government.
This strategy is devastating because the bell cannot be un-rung. Expertise, institutional memory, and capacity once lost are not easily rebuilt. When thousands of civil servants walk out the door, they take decades of accumulated knowledge with them. Rehiring doesn’t restore trust or undo the chilling effect of political purges. Agencies may remain on paper, but in reality they become shells—present in law, absent in function.
The Supreme Court has emboldened Trump to pursue this strategy. By allowing him to fire an FTC commissioner and signaling its willingness to revisit 90-year-old precedent limiting presidential purges of regulators, the Court has chipped away at one of the key guardrails of independent governance. Trump now sees the judiciary not as a check but as an ally in his effort to centralize control.
Measured on the political spectrum, this is very significant. Trump’s plan goes beyond fiscal battles—it’s a structural assault on the separation of powers. By hollowing out agencies through mass firings, he advances authoritarian rule under the guise of budget discipline.
A Lens of Justice
The first casualties of this strategy are the workers themselves. Federal employees are not faceless bureaucrats—they are veterans, caregivers, social workers, and scientists. Women and people of color are disproportionately represented in federal service, especially in administrative, caregiving, and public health roles. Permanent layoffs target the very people who keep government accessible to ordinary families.
But the damage doesn’t stop at the workforce. Communities reliant on public programs—housing assistance, Medicaid, food aid, tribal health services—are left stranded when agencies cannot function. A hollowed-out Department of Housing and Urban Development means more families face eviction. A crippled USDA means children go hungry when school meal programs stall. A skeletal Department of Veterans Affairs means veterans wait longer for benefits and medical care.
The USAID example underscores the global dimension. When Trump’s team gutted reproductive health programs overseas, the burden fell hardest on women and girls in developing countries who lost access to contraception and maternal care. The result wasn’t just reduced aid; it was a deliberate rollback of women’s autonomy and economic security.
Domestically and internationally, the same pattern emerges: the hollowing of agencies disproportionately harms those already marginalized—women, racial minorities, low-income families, and communities outside the power centers Trump prioritizes. This isn’t collateral damage. It’s a deliberate redistribution of vulnerability, where entire populations are made more precarious so power can be centralized at the top.
Reframing the Debate
Conservatives claim this is about fiscal responsibility. But permanent layoffs during a shutdown have nothing to do with saving money. They are about consolidating control, punishing disfavored programs, and creating fear among workers. Progressives can reframe the issue by calling it what it is:
Not efficiency, but sabotage. Firing staff ensures agencies cannot resume their missions even when funding is restored.
Not bureaucracy, but lifelines. Public employees manage Social Security checks, food aid, veterans’ benefits—the daily infrastructure of American life.
Not discipline, but authoritarianism. Trump is using shutdowns to remake neutral governance into a tool of loyalty and punishment.
Building the Conversation
When talking with skeptics, start with lived experience.
Logical appeal: permanent layoffs don’t save money—they waste it by forcing agencies to rehire and retrain while programs languish.
Emotional appeal: highlight families missing rent, veterans waiting on care, or children going hungry when school meals stop. These are not abstract “bureaucrats,” but neighbors and family members.
Ethical appeal: emphasize that government exists to serve the public, not to be weaponized against it.
One story says it all: the OMB memo means the worker who processes your grandmother’s Social Security check could be fired—not furloughed, fired—because her job isn’t aligned with Trump’s priorities. That’s not governance. That’s sabotage.
The Counterpoint Trap
Let’s anticipate conservative talking points and dismantle them:
“This is about fiscal responsibility—cutting waste.” → Strawmanning
This isn’t auditing programs; it’s targeting workers in disfavored agencies.
Takeaway: True fiscal responsibility means making government effective, not hollowing it out.
“Both parties use shutdowns as leverage.” → Both Sides Cop-Out
Democrats have never used shutdowns to permanently fire staff. Trump’s strategy is unprecedented.
Takeaway: Only one side is weaponizing shutdowns as loyalty purges.
“If Democrats weren’t demanding handouts for illegal immigrants, there’d be no shutdown.” → Euphemistic Reframing (Dog Whistles)
Labeling ACA subsidies and Medicaid as “handouts” erases the fact that these programs serve millions of families.
Takeaway: Call it what it is—healthcare and stability for working families, not giveaways.
Deeper Dive
For readers who want to dig deeper:
The Fifth Risk by Michael Lewis – exposes the hidden functions of government endangered by neglect and sabotage.
How Democracies Die by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt – explains how institutions are hollowed out when leaders erode guardrails.
The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein – on how crises are exploited to push through destructive agendas.
Democracy in Chains by Nancy MacLean – traces the conservative project to weaken government for corporate and partisan gain.
The Last Laugh
What Trump did to USAID is the blueprint: gut the staff, cripple the mission, then point to the wreckage as proof the program was never worth keeping. Now he wants to run that play on the entire federal government. The irony is that it works—once an agency has been hollowed out, you can’t simply flip a switch and rebuild the trust, expertise, and capacity that were destroyed. That’s the bell that can’t be un-rung.
This is the real austerity playbook. Not thrift, not efficiency, but sabotage dressed up as discipline. And if we let it stand, we’ll inherit a government that technically exists but no longer functions—a democracy left standing in outline, but hollow at its core.