Today marks the 22nd day of the ongoing federal government shutdown. It’s quite interesting, though, unless you’re directly involved in the situation, you might not feel its impact. Yet, in media circles and among policymakers in Washington, it’s dominating the conversation.
On one side, Democrats are insisting on their demands, threatening to keep the government closed otherwise. Meanwhile, Republicans are reluctant to engage in any discussions until Democrats agree to reopen operations. It’s a bit reminiscent of the conflict unfolding in Mexico.
But there’s a way out. President Trump holds the power to resolve this political stalemate by simply directing that the funds be released.
Interestingly, prior to 1980, there was never an actual government shutdown. Although there were instances of funding authorization falling through, the government continued to run smoothly because there was a mutual understanding on both sides that bills would be settled.
Everything changed in 1980 when a Maryland Congressman posed a question about whether the government could function without a renewed charter, resulting in the U.S. Attorney General discovering an 1870 law mandating a shutdown.
According to a Washington Post article from November 23, 1981, Attorney General Benjamin R. Civiletti stated that the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits any federal agency from assuming obligations without lawful funding, except under certain circumstances.
Additionally, he mentioned hefty penalties, including $5,000 fines and potential prison time, for agency heads violating these rules. The Justice Department pledged to pursue prosecution for these breaches.
Since then, every administration, including Reagan’s, has adhered to this precedent. However, if the government hadn’t opted for a shutdown purely for political leverage, it could have simply asked the Attorney General to reinterpret the law, returning to operating methods practiced for decades.
It’s certainly within President Trump’s capability to do this. He could request Attorney General Pam Bondi to reassess the situation and provide an opinion that would allow payments for military and essential personnel.
This would, no doubt, frustrate the left. Yet, it would leave Democrats in a perplexing position: either challenge this in court, arguing against payments for essential workers, or let it pass. From a political standpoint, can Democrats really afford to deny pay for active military and air traffic controllers? The potential backlash, in terms of public reaction, would be significant. It’s worth remembering how serious the stakes are; after all, there was a civil war started over individuals being paid for their work.
On another note, the funds are available for these payments. The IRS continues to gather tax revenue. What’s holding things back is an interpretation of an old law from 45 years ago. Those interpretations can be revised, just like any statute.
All President Trump would need to do is ask Bondi to retract Civiletti’s opinion, which many government lawyers at the time deemed excessively strict.
Ultimately, Trump should instruct that essential workers are compensated for the work they are being compelled to do, effectively neutralizing the current administration’s shutdown threats. If Democrats want to take it to court, they could do so and let the chips fall where they may.
