Use The Shutdown Crisis To Reorder The Federal Government

As Washington adapts to the realities of its latest government showdown, the memo circulated last week by OMB Director Russ Vought offers a rare glimpse of clarity in the chaos. Vought’s instruction to federal agency heads to prepare reduction-in-force (RIF) plans in the event of a shutdown signals a bold – and long overdue – move to realign the federal workforce with the priorities of the Trump administration, which, after all, was put in place as the choice of the people. Rather than passively treat a shutdown as an interruption, the President should seize it as an opportunity to recalibrate which parts of government deserve to endure, and which should be scaled back or eliminated entirely.

In previous lapses in appropriations, the standard playbook has been furloughs: agencies halt nonessential work, employees temporarily see pay suspended and resume once funding is restored. The Vought memo explicitly goes further. It directs agencies to target programs whose funding will lapse, have no alternative funding source, and are not consistent with the President’s priorities, and to prepare RIF notices in addition to standard furlough protocols.

This is not mere brinkmanship. It is a recognition that the federal behemoth has swelled for decades, often carrying on activity for political, not constitutional, reasons. A government shutdown offers a rare forcing mechanism. Congress either acts or it concedes that not all programs are equally deserving of survival. By demanding that agencies draw up RIF plans, Vought is imposing discipline on Washington’s usual tendency toward incremental drift.

Some will denounce this as “cruel” and “reckless.” But in a government of limited powers, the truly cruel thing is to expect American taxpayers to underwrite every initiative favored by interest groups. The alternative is creeping paralysis: rising debt and a federal workforce bloated with priority-less – and, in many cases, unconstitutional – missions.

Moreover, the memo wisely instructs that once appropriations are restored, agencies should revise their RIFs to retain “the minimal number of employees necessary to carry out statutory functions.” The clause guards against permanent overcutting while emphasizing that the baseline should be the statute, not bloated tradition or administrative inertia.

The logic is straightforward:

First, not all federal tasks are equally vital. The Constitution does not demand federal meddling in every niche domain; in fact, the Constitution protects against much of that meddling. A selective RIF process forces agencies to prioritize what the administration deems essential and shed peripheral or overlapping functions.

Second, shutdowns should not be cost-free for every program. If a program cannot show statutory backing or alignment with presidential objectives, it is fair to assume it would survive a budget fight only on political inertia.

Third, a one-time pruning can reset expectations. Once Congress sees that the administration is serious about shedding unwanted responsibilities, the political calculus will shift – forcing interest groups who once enjoyed protection to justify their presence rather than taking it for granted.

Of course, the devil lies in execution. The RIF process is legally complex. Agencies must consider a variety of factors, including performance, seniority, veterans’ preference, appeal rights, and retention registers under civil-service law. Still, if only a subset of proposals survives legal or logistical barriers, the signal will matter.

Opponents will charge this is a political hostage tactic. But politics is the business of government. Congress has repeatedly refused to address the unsustainable growth of federal agencies. If a sustained shutdown becomes inevitable, the president should seize the opportunity and wield it with purpose.

Some softening from the memo may occur in practice, but that is acceptable. A disciplined reset does not require maximum carnage. Over time, the administration could refine and defend its choices rather than retreat entirely. Viewed correctly, the threatened RIFs are not simply punishing agencies or employees, they are a tool of realignment and accountability.

In the coming days, members of Congress should face this stark question: do they wish a full-throated defense of Washington’s floor of agencies, or do they accept what priorities – border enforcement, economic growth, defense – must come first? If Democrats refuse to fund the government without defending every interest, Republicans should be prepared to let lapse the funding of the nonessential. The Vought memo gives them a structure to do so responsibly.

In short, a government shutdown, when handled shrewdly, is not merely a crisis to avoid – it is a rare mechanism of choice. Vought’s directive opens the door for the Trump administration to choose which functions matter and which have outlived their justification (if they ever had one to begin with). If implemented with discipline and legal care, this shutdown could be one of the Trump administration’s more consequential moves in shrinking the administrative state and reimposing executive coherence. Let the next few days or even weeks be the crucible in which Washington priorities are set, not shuffled.

Jenny Beth Martin is Honorary Chairman of Tea Party Patriots Action. 

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.