Overview: Substantial layoffs amid the ongoing shutdown
The Trump administration announced that federal employee reductions are underway as the government remains closed due to Congress’s failure to pass a funding deal. White House budget director Russ Vought stated on X that the government has begun a “reduction in force” (RIFs) for workers, signaling a shift from the temporary furloughs that typically accompany a funding lapse.
A White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) spokesperson corroborated the Vought message to NBC News, saying the layoffs are expected to be substantial. While specifics about the number of workers impacted and the timing of the firings were not provided, the administration official listed several agencies that could be affected, including the Interior, Homeland Security, Treasury, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The scope points to a broader strategy tied to the shutdown rather than limited, targeted firings.
Political pushback and context
The decision to begin large-scale layoffs comes as Democrats and some Republicans have pressed to keep essential services running while the budget stalemate persists. Critics have argued that a shutdown does not authorize mass terminations or empower the executive branch to permanently curtail services. Senate Democrats and some Republicans have warned that the move risks harming the public and undermining trust in government operations.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, publicly opposed mass firings, saying she did not believe workers should be fired or furloughed in a way that worsens hardship. The administration’s choice to proceed with substantial RIFs has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers who believe Trump’s governance should minimize disruption to federal operations and the people who rely on them.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, condemned the layoffs, arguing that they deepen the pain of the shutdown and that the president is overstepping congressional limits. In her view, the administration’s approach reflects a pattern of using the shutdown as a tool to push policy aims and exert pressure on lawmakers.
Which agencies are most involved?
Officials cited multiple departments as potential loci of layoffs, with particular attention on agencies with broad public-facing responsibilities. The Interior Department, Homeland Security, Treasury, Education, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and the Environmental Protection Agency are among the agencies reportedly affected or at risk. The reductions could affect essential operations including public safety programs, environmental protections, energy oversight, and health and social services—areas where continuity is often critical even during funding gaps.
Observers say the move may be intended to pressure Congress to approve a funding package by demonstrating the tangible consequences of a prolonged impasse. However, critics argue that such tactics create avoidable hardship for workers and the communities that depend on federal services.
Public response and how to share experiences
The shutdown’s effects extend beyond federal payrolls. Individuals relying on federal services—such as veterans seeking benefits, students applying for federal aid, or communities relying on environmental or safety oversight—face uncertainty about service levels and processing times. NBC News has invited readers to share experiences, including those of federal employees who cannot work or citizens noticing changes in service delivery. Such firsthand accounts are crucial for reporting the real-world impact of the shutdown beyond headlines.
What’s next?
The Senate has previously failed to advance either party’s plan to reopen the government or to include additional health care funding and other priorities. The administration’s decision to move forward with “substantial” RIFs adds another layer of pressure on lawmakers to broker a deal. Analysts warn that a protracted standoff could have long-term consequences for federal staffing, public trust, and the country’s ability to deliver essential services during emergencies or routine operations alike.
