Who Has Control During a Shutdown?
The federal government manages hundreds of programs and employs millions of Americans, from air traffic control to federal law enforcement. Funding all of these activities requires Congress to pass an annual budget that decides how much money each agency, job, and program receives. When Congress fails to pass the budget or temporary funding measures on time, the government enters a shutdown, meaning that it cannot legally spend money on most programs. Shutdowns are typically viewed through a political lens by the public as an attempt to push a certain agendas. However, the effects of shutdowns transcend politics. The Antideficiency Act, a law meant to prevent agencies from spending money without congressional approval, dictates how the government must respond to these shutdowns. It does not close everything down, rather, agencies must decide which programs and employees should continue operating and which should be paused temporarily. These decisions often rely on broad categories, like protecting life and property, which leaves agency officials to make their own calls. In practice, this means the executive branch ends up deciding which parts of the government remain functional, even though Congress never directly voted on those choices. The Antideficiency Act, while designed to enforce Congress’s control over federal spending, ends up giving the executive branch the real power during government shutdowns. The responsibility to make real decisions during a shutdown is, in effect, shifted to the executive branch because of how the Antideficiency Act works in practice.
The Antideficiency Act, passed in 1884, was intended to prevent federal agencies from spending money without congressional approval. At its core, the law is described as a restriction on government spending, but during a shutdown it operates less like a prohibition and more like a sorting mechanism. Agencies aren’t simply shutting down; rather, they are required to actively determine which functions must continue and which ones can afford to be suspended. This process forces officials to rank government activities based on urgency, necessity, and consequence. For example, functions tied to national defense, law enforcement, and economic stability are almost always preserved, while long-term research and regulatory enforcement may be paused. These are not purely neutral, objective decisions. Choosing to continue airport security while suspending regulatory inspections, for example, reflect judgements about what the government should prioritize in a moment of constraint. In this way, the Act transforms a lack of funding into a structured way to make decisions about national priorities.
These decisions are not made by Congress, which has already failed to pass funding, but by executive officials applying the law in real time. As a result, the Antideficiency Act does not simply enforce legislative authority. It compels the executive branch to step in and make choices about how the government should function during a shutdown. This places meaningful control in the hands of the executive branch, often under time pressure and with significant discretion. Congress decides whether funding exists,but the executive branch decides how the absence of funding is experienced. These decisions are not subject to the same level of debate and transparency as a congressional action. The result is a system where the executive branch gains temporary but meaningful control over national priorities. Past government shutdowns show how much control the executive branch holds through the Antideficiency Act. During the 1995-1996 shutdowns, core services such as Social Security payments, federal prisons, and air traffic control continued operating while many other functions were suspended. These decisions were made by executive branch officials under the direction of President Bill Clinton. This directly triggered the shutdown of non-essential government services. This led to the furlough of over 800,00 workers. The shutdown, in this case, was a strategic conflict between Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich over budget priorities. Clinton opposed Republican demands to shut down spending in Medicare, education, and the environment. The 2013 and 2018-2019 shutdowns that followed showed similar cuts in spending, particularly on research and regulatory activities. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees were furloughed or required to work without pay. In each case, the executive branch determined how the shutdown would actually affect the public.
Because not all programs are treated equally during a shutdown, certain groups of people are targeted. Workers in certain sectors, like the environment or Social Security, may be furloughed while others are required to continue working without pay. This creates uneven consequences of shutdowns across the workforce. These outcomes are not random; they reflect the decisions and agendas the Executive Branch wants to push. For example, choosing to maintain border enforcement while delaying benefits like Medicaid signals which functions are treated as priorities. In this way, the executive branch shapes how burdens and benefits are distributed, and which groups of people will remain protected.
Government shutdowns are often viewed as moments where Congress fails to do its job. However, the Antideficiency Act also reveals who truly holds the power during a shutdown. While the Antideficiency Act is meant to enforce COngress’s control over federal spending, it ends up placing the real responsibility in the hands of the executive branch once funding runs out. Because agencies must decide which parts of the government continue operating, they are not just carrying out the law, they are shaping how the government functions during a crisis and what agendas are pushed, as seen in the case of Clinton. As a result, control over government operations during a shutdown does not rest entirely with Congress. Rather, the power is shown to shift to the executive branch.
Bibliography
Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “Antideficiency Act.” U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources.
The antideficiency act explained • Bipartisan Policy Center. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/the-antideficiency-act-explained/.
USAFacts. “Antideficiency Act Definition.” USAFacts, February 18, 2026. https://usafacts.org/articles/antideficiency-act-definition/.
USAFacts. “What Happens during a Government Shut Down?” USAFacts, January 29, 2026. https://usafacts.org/articles/everything-you-need-to-know-about-a-government-shutdown/.
Understanding the legal framework governing a shutdown. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.cbpp.org/research/understanding-the-legal-framework-governing-a-shutdown.
“The Constitution and Federal Government Shutdowns.” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-constitution-and-federal-government-shutdowns.