As the federal government grapples with yet another shutdown, leaving countless workers without pay, questions about fairness, policy, and congressional responsibility take center stage. Today, we’re joined by Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader at Government Curated, whose deep expertise in U.S. government operations and legislative policy offers unparalleled insight into the complexities of federal funding and shutdown dynamics. In this conversation, we’ll explore how members of Congress handle their own pay during these crises, the stark contrast with federal workers’ experiences, and the legal and historical underpinnings of these contentious issues.
How do members of Congress decide what to do with their pay during a government shutdown?
Members of Congress have a few options when it comes to their salaries during a shutdown. They can choose to receive their pay as usual, donate it to charity, return it to the Treasury, or request that their checks be withheld until the shutdown ends. This flexibility stands in sharp contrast to most federal workers, who don’t have a choice and often go without pay until a resolution is reached.
What motivates some lawmakers to push for withholding their salaries during these funding lapses?
For many, it’s a matter of principle. Take Senator Jon Husted, for example. He and others believe that if federal workers are going without pay, Congress shouldn’t be getting paid on time either. It’s a way to show solidarity and acknowledge the hardship faced by government employees who are either furloughed or working without compensation during a shutdown.
Can you walk us through the process a lawmaker follows to have their paycheck withheld until the shutdown is over?
It’s fairly straightforward but depends on the chamber. In the House, members can request the Chief Administrative Officer to hold their pay until the funding lapse ends. In the Senate, a lawmaker can ask the Financial Clerk to withhold their check, sometimes transitioning from direct deposit to a physical check that they simply don’t pick up until the government is funded again. However, they can request the withheld pay at any time if they change their mind.
Are there any legal hurdles to stopping a member of Congress’s salary during a shutdown?
Yes, there are significant legal considerations. The Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 6, guarantees that senators and representatives receive compensation for their services, paid out of the U.S. Treasury. Additionally, the 27th Amendment prevents any law changing their pay from taking effect until after the next election. Reports from the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office also note that their salaries are mandatory spending, fixed by statute, so they can’t be waived without specific legal authority.
How does this constitutional protection impact the debate over congressional pay during shutdowns?
It creates a real tension. While the Constitution ensures lawmakers get paid, even during a funding lapse, it doesn’t stop them from voluntarily withholding or donating their salaries. But any attempt to legally mandate a pay stoppage for Congress during a shutdown has failed in the past because of these protections. It’s why bills to withhold salaries have been introduced over the years but never became law—they often hit a constitutional wall.
How does the situation for federal workers differ from that of Congress during a shutdown?
The contrast is stark. While Congress has options and guaranteed pay, about 2 million civilian federal employees and legislative staffers often go without their paychecks until the shutdown ends. Workers deemed essential—like those handling national security or protecting life and property—must keep working without pay, while non-essential employees are furloughed and sent home, also without income. It’s a much tougher reality with no immediate recourse.
What’s the distinction between exempt and furloughed federal workers, and why does it matter?
Exempt workers are those whose roles are critical to national security or public safety, so they’re required to keep working during a shutdown, even without pay. Furloughed workers, on the other hand, are non-essential and are told not to work until funding is restored. This matters because it splits the workforce into two groups facing financial strain in different ways—one group works unpaid, the other doesn’t work at all but still misses income. Both are supposed to get back pay once the government reopens, though there’s uncertainty about whether that will happen for everyone.
How has the military’s pay been handled during this shutdown, and what challenges lie ahead?
Active-duty military members were at risk of missing paychecks, but the Defense Department managed to reprogram $8 billion earlier this month to cover their salaries for now. However, it’s unclear if they can pull that off again for the next pay date around October 31, or if there’s enough funding left. If the shutdown drags on, there’s a real possibility that troops could face delayed pay, which adds another layer of urgency to resolving the funding crisis.
What efforts have been made in the Senate to address federal worker pay during this shutdown, and why haven’t they succeeded?
The Senate recently tried to advance several bills that would provide salaries to some federal employees and contractors during the shutdown, but those efforts stalled. The lack of bipartisan agreement and broader gridlock over funding priorities have kept these measures from moving forward. Without new congressional action, workers remain in limbo, relying on the promise of back pay once the government reopens—though even that has been questioned by some administration officials.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for how shutdowns and the issue of congressional pay will play out in future funding disputes?
I think we’re going to see this debate resurface with every shutdown. Public frustration over Congress getting paid while federal workers struggle will likely push more lawmakers to voluntarily withhold their salaries as a symbolic gesture. But legally mandating a pay stoppage will remain a tough sell due to constitutional barriers. On a broader scale, unless there’s a significant shift in how Congress approaches budget negotiations, these funding lapses will continue to disrupt lives, with federal workers and military families bearing the brunt. I expect growing pressure for systemic reforms, but whether that translates into action remains to be seen.
