As the federal government grapples with the complexities of shutdowns and employee compensation, we turn to Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader at Government Curated, for his expert insights. With decades of experience in policy and legislation, Donald has been a guiding voice on matters of federal labor law and government operations. In this interview, we explore the recent controversial decision by the Office of Management and Budget to revise shutdown guidance, the implications for furloughed workers, and the broader legal and political ramifications of this change.
Can you walk us through the recent decision by the Office of Management and Budget to remove references to the 2019 Government Employees Fair Treatment Act from their shutdown guidance?
Certainly. On October 3rd, the OMB updated its Frequently Asked Questions document related to lapses in appropriations, and in doing so, they quietly stripped out any mention of the 2019 law that guarantees backpay to furloughed federal workers. This law, signed by President Trump after the longest shutdown in history, was a landmark measure to ensure workers—both furloughed and excepted—would be compensated retroactively once funding was restored. The removal of this reference is significant because it signals a potential shift in how the current administration views its obligations to federal employees during a shutdown. It’s a subtle but deliberate edit that raises questions about intent and interpretation of existing law.
What do you think was the rationale behind making this change, especially at this particular moment in time?
The timing of the update, just as a new shutdown loomed, suggests it wasn’t coincidental. While OMB hasn’t publicly detailed their reasoning, one can infer they might be testing a new legal interpretation—possibly arguing that the 2019 law was specific to that year’s shutdown rather than a blanket guarantee for future lapses. There’s also the possibility of internal policy shifts or pressure to manage budget expectations differently. Without direct statements from OMB, we’re left to speculate, but the move aligns with broader discussions within some administration circles about reinterpreting statutory obligations to federal workers during funding lapses.
How might this revised guidance impact the over 620,000 federal employees currently furloughed due to the ongoing shutdown?
The impact could be profound, especially on a financial and emotional level. These employees are already in a precarious position, working without pay or being sidelined entirely. The 2019 law was a safety net, promising retroactive compensation once the shutdown ends. Removing references to it from official guidance creates uncertainty—workers might worry they won’t be paid at all, or that payment could be delayed indefinitely. This kind of ambiguity can erode trust in the government as an employer and create real hardship for families relying on those paychecks to cover bills and essentials.
There’s been strong pushback from lawmakers who argue that the 2019 law is clear in guaranteeing backpay for all shutdowns after December 2018. How do you see this tension between OMB’s actions and the legislative intent playing out?
This is shaping up to be a classic clash between executive interpretation and legislative clarity. Lawmakers who crafted the 2019 Act, like Senator Chris Van Hollen, insist the language is unambiguous—it applies to any lapse in appropriations after a specific date. OMB’s decision to omit it from guidance could be seen as an attempt to sidestep or reinterpret that mandate, which naturally provokes frustration from Congress. This tension often leads to public statements, hearings, or even legal challenges to force compliance. It’s a power struggle over who gets to define what the law means in practice, and it’s unlikely to be resolved without significant dialogue or intervention.
Some critics have called OMB’s move “highly suspicious,” suggesting it undermines a bipartisan law. What’s your take on the perception that this change reflects a disregard for federal workers?
The suspicion stems from the opacity of the decision—there’s no clear explanation from OMB about why the reference was removed, which fuels distrust. When you have a law that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and was signed by a president from the same party now in question, it’s easy to see why people feel this is less about legal nuance and more about devaluing the federal workforce. Perception matters as much as policy here; even if OMB has a defensible reason, the lack of transparency makes it look like they’re playing games with people’s livelihoods, which is a dangerous narrative during a shutdown.
With threats of legal action from lawmakers over this reinterpretation, how prepared do you think OMB is to defend their stance if this issue ends up in court?
Legal challenges are a real possibility, especially given the strong language from senators like Tim Kaine. I suspect OMB has consulted with legal advisors to anticipate such pushback—any agency making a move this controversial would be remiss not to. However, defending a position that appears to contradict the plain text of a law is an uphill battle. Courts often defer to clear statutory language, and the 2019 Act explicitly covers shutdowns after a certain date. OMB would need a compelling argument, perhaps rooted in administrative authority or specific contextual limitations, to sway a judge. Whether they’re prepared or not, a courtroom fight would further politicize an already contentious issue.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for how this situation with federal employee backpay and shutdown guidance might evolve in the coming months?
I think we’re in for a prolonged standoff. If the shutdown drags on, pressure will mount on OMB to clarify their position or reinstate the reference to the 2019 law. Lawmakers will likely keep pushing, potentially through oversight hearings or new legislation to reaffirm the backpay guarantee. Legal action, if pursued, could set a precedent but would take time to resolve. Meanwhile, federal workers remain caught in the middle, facing uncertainty that could impact recruitment and retention long-term. My forecast is cautious—without a swift resolution, this issue could become a flashpoint in broader debates about government accountability and worker rights.
