admin
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget has quietly told federal agencies to prepare reduction-in-force plans that would permanently eliminate jobs if Congress allows a shutdown when discretionary funding lapses on October 1, 2025. This is a dramatic break from the old playbook of short-term furloughs and shows an administration finally willing to treat Washington’s bloat like the crisis it is. The move forces Democrats to stop treating federal workers as political hostages and start negotiating in good faith.
The OMB memo specifically instructs agencies to identify positions tied to programs, projects, or activities that meet three conditions: funding lapses on October 1, no other funding source exists, and the program does not align with the President’s priorities. In plain language, if a program isn’t funded and it isn’t a core function, its positions can be cut — not temporarily furloughed but eliminated. That’s the kind of accountability taxpayers have demanded for years from a federal workforce that has ballooned and too often operates without results.
This is far tougher than past shutdown protocol, which usually meant nonessential employees were sent home and then brought back afterward. A reduction in force not only lays people off but eradicates the positions, creating long-term pressure to shrink redundant programs and stop the never-ending cycle of rehiring. The federal government has already seen buyouts and other cuts this year, and this administration appears determined to translate rhetoric about efficiency into real change.
Predictably, House and Senate Democrats reacted with outrage, calling the memo intimidation and threatening legal challenges while insisting on policy concessions before supporting continued funding. Their posture should surprise no one — they have repeatedly tied routine appropriations to politically charged healthcare demands and other rider bills. If Democrats prefer theatrical outrage to responsible lawmaking, they must accept the consequences of their obstruction.
There are legal and procedural steps agencies must follow before any mass RIFs can take effect, including notification windows and post-shutdown revisions once FY26 appropriations are passed. Agencies were also asked to submit lapse plans earlier this summer, suggesting this was not a spur-of-the-moment threat but a considered contingency to protect core functions while cutting the rest. Conservatives should welcome a process that forces hard choices rather than endless soft funding that perpetuates waste.
Let’s be blunt: Washington’s perennial funding standoffs are largely the fault of parochial, status-quo defenders who put their programs ahead of taxpayers. The memo raises the stakes — and rightly so — by attaching real consequences to political brinkmanship. If Democrats want to keep programs that matter, they should be willing to fund them openly instead of demanding ransom payments in the form of policy changes during must-pass funding deadlines.
The American people deserve a federal government that prioritizes safety, security, and prosperity over programs that exist only to expand bureaucratic control. Republicans and the administration are finally using the leverage they were elected to wield, and it’s time the country stops romanticizing indefinite government employment as if it were an entitlement. Congress should either pass responsible, limited funding that aligns with national priorities or own the difficult but necessary job of trimming the federal footprint.
