Government Shutdown: Trump Challenges America’s Traditional Fiscal Law
Rokna Political Desk: U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to bypass a 150-year-old budget deficit law in an effort to address the ongoing federal government shutdown — a challenge that, according to Axios, stems from legal interpretations made in the 1980s, when federal agencies were first required to halt operations during funding gaps.
The American model of a government shutdown has long been considered a structural flaw in the U.S. system of governance, and Trump is now attempting to circumvent the century-old Antideficiency Act, a law that forbids spending without congressional approval and upholds Congress’s control over public finances. The act serves as the main tool for restraining federal expenditures, and any attempt to reinterpret it broadly would significantly expand executive power.
David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, noted that the Antideficiency Act carries criminal penalties, but under current conditions, the Department of Justice is unlikely to prosecute anyone for violating it. “The Department of Justice operates in accordance with the president’s political and legal agenda,” he said. “Everyone knows that no one will be charged, even for the most blatant violations.”
Trump clashed with the same law during his first term, when his administration kept national parks open and continued tax refund services during the 2018–2019 shutdown. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled those actions illegal and warned that deliberately repeating such behavior could trigger penalties. Despite the warning, Trump’s administration continued to explore ways to circumvent the shutdown law and its consequences.
Axios explained that the concept of a government shutdown, as it exists today, originates from legal interpretations issued in 1980. Before then, funding gaps did not lead to a halt in government operations—federal agencies simply continued functioning until Congress passed a new budget. However, Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, serving under President Jimmy Carter, issued a legal opinion declaring that agencies must cease operations in the absence of approved funding, allowing only activities necessary to “orderly terminate” their functions. Civiletti emphasized that the Antideficiency Act prevents any new spending commitments without congressional authorization. The U.S. Supreme Court has also affirmed that exceeding allocated budget limits constitutes a federal crime subject to prosecution.
Nonetheless, successive administrations, including Trump’s, have sought ways to mitigate the impact of shutdowns on the public. Trump’s team explored legal avenues to maintain food assistance programs for mothers and children and to continue paying military salaries. But, as Super noted, “The law clearly does not allow the replacement of expired funds; the budget for military pay has expired. This is a direct violation of the Antideficiency Act.”
Meanwhile, some legal scholars argue that strict interpretations of the law should be reconsidered. Alan Schoenberger, a law professor at Loyola University Chicago, believes that government employees must fulfill their statutory duties even in the absence of formal appropriations.
Charles Tiefer, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and former counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, advocates for a “dynamic approach” that would allow agencies to retain essential staff during prolonged shutdowns.
Axios concluded that government shutdowns are largely unique to the United States, as most comparable countries resolve budget crises through temporary funding extensions or early elections. This distinction underscores how the American model of shutdowns represents a singular and challenging feature of the nation’s governance structure.
Send Comments