Overview of the claim
In a statement posted on Truth Social, former President Donald Trump said he had found a way to ensure that U.S. military personnel would be paid despite the ongoing federal government shutdown. He asserted that he had directed his defense secretary to use all available funds to get troops paid on October 15, framing the action as a necessary measure to protect national security and avoid a hostage situation caused by partisan gridlock.
What Trump said and what it implies
Trump claimed: “I am using my authority, as commander-in-chief, to direct our secretary of war, Pete Hegseth, to use all available funds to get our troops PAID on October 15.” He asserted that funds would be identified to make the payments happen and stressed that he would not allow Democrats to “hold our military … hostage.” While the president’s supporters may view this as decisive leadership, the assertion raises questions about legal authority, appropriations, and the practical mechanics of funding during a shutdown.
The broader context of the shutdown
The federal government began its shutdown on October 1, marking the first lengthy pause since late 2018. At issue is a stalemate between Republicans and Democrats over spending packages, with one faction seeking to reopen agencies while the other resists funding provisions tied to broader policy fights. As a result, more than 1.3 million military personnel could have missed pay at the start of the shutdown, in addition to roughly 750,000 federal employees furloughed or affected by other financial adjustments.
Legal and financial considerations
Experts note that in past shutdowns, Congress has ultimately provided back pay to federal workers once funding was restored. A law passed after the 2018 shutdown ensured that federal workers would be paid when the government reopened, potentially limiting long-term consequences for civilian employees. The question now is whether a similar remedy could apply to active-duty military members if funds are reallocated or identified during a shutdown, and what legal mechanisms would authorize such moves without new appropriations.
Reactions from lawmakers and unions
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Democrats have framed the shutdown as a bargaining tactic that harms public services and national security. The White House has announced layoffs of federal workers, sparking legal challenges and union opposition. AFGE and other unions warn that mass terminations threaten essential services and have signaled they will pursue court action to protect workers’ rights. The AFL-CIO has also indicated support for defending workers’ pay and challenging policies viewed as politically motivated or unlawful.
What’s next?
With the Senate at an impasse and the White House moving ahead with workforce reductions, the political and legal battle over funding could continue for days or weeks. If the administration’s interpretation of executive authority is tested in court, outcomes may hinge on statutory provisions governing federal appropriations and the recourse available to the executive branch during a shutdown. Observers will watch for new funding proposals, potential back-pay arrangements, and any shifts in public confidence as the standoff persists.
Why this matters to the public
Beyond headline politics, the shutdown affects millions who rely on government services. The debate over whether military members can be paid independently of congressional appropriations touches on how presidential power is exercised in crises, the limits of executive actions, and the resilience of critical public institutions when political divisions intensify.
