Shutdown and Supreme Court: Trump's power - The President’s Path podcast, BBC World Service

Key Concepts

• Presidential Power Expansion: The current administration's efforts to broaden the scope of presidential authority, particularly over the federal workforce and military.
• Government Shutdown: A situation where non-essential government operations cease due to a failure to pass appropriation bills, used here as a political tool.
• Federal Workforce Reduction: The administration's stated goal and ongoing efforts to shrink the number of federal employees, including through buyouts and potential permanent layoffs during a shutdown.
• Project 2025: A conservative initiative aimed at preparing a detailed plan for a presidential transition, including significant changes to the federal government and workforce.
• Hatch Act: A U.S. federal law prohibiting employees in the executive branch from engaging in certain forms of political activity.
• "Never Waste a Crisis": A political maxim, attributed to Rahm Emanuel, suggesting that a crisis should be leveraged to implement significant changes.
• Brain Drain: The emigration or displacement of highly trained or intelligent people from a particular country or organization, in this context, from federal agencies.
• Warrior Ethos: A concept promoted by War Secretary Pete Hegseth, emphasizing a masculine, combat-ready military focused on war abroad.
• Posse Comitatus Act: A U.S. federal law that limits the use of the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement purposes without congressional approval.
• Politicization of Government: The increasing tendency for government functions, communications, and agencies to be overtly aligned with political party agendas.

The Government Shutdown and Presidential Power

The current government shutdown is framed as a significant demonstration of presidential power, with the administration actively expanding its influence to reshape the federal workforce. This is evident through the empowerment of Budget Chief Russ Vought, a known proponent of shrinking the federal workforce. The immediate impact includes many federal employees either having no job or working without pay due to the failure to agree on government funding.

A key aspect of the shutdown is the intense battle over messaging regarding responsibility. Democrats attribute the shutdown to Republicans, while Republicans, led by the White House, label it the "Democratic shutdown" or "Schumer shutdown." This politicization extends to government websites and internal communications to federal workers, with messages explicitly blaming Democrats, potentially violating the Hatch Act.

Democrats view this shutdown not merely as a funding dispute but as a crucial opportunity to push back against the president's expanding power. Senator Chuck Schumer described it as a "doorway" to resisting broader presidential actions, citing the need to continue tax subsidies for healthcare and roll back Medicaid cuts from the "One Big Beautiful Bill act." They argue that past compromises with Republicans (e.g., in March) only led to the president "usurping more power." Having previously "bailed out" Republicans multiple times, Democrats are now refusing to provide short-term funding solutions.

The administration, conversely, is leveraging the shutdown as an opportunity to further its agenda, echoing Rahm Emanuel's maxim, "never waste a crisis." There's an indication that furloughed federal workers deemed "unessential" may not be rehired, signaling a move towards permanent workforce reduction. This approach marks a departure from previous shutdowns where back pay was typical, suggesting a more aggressive strategy to pressure Democrats.

Impact of Workforce Reduction and Buyouts

The shutdown coincides with a significant exodus of federal employees who accepted buyouts earlier in the year as part of the "Department of Government Efficiency" (DOGE) program. This week alone, over 150,000 employees are coming off payrolls, marking the largest single-year departure of U.S. federal employees in almost 80 years. This "brain drain" results in a substantial loss of institutional knowledge across various agencies. Specific examples include:

• USDA: Losing 15,000 people.
• FDA: Losing 3,500 people.
• CDC: Losing 2,400 people.

While many perceive federal workers as concentrated in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area (DMV), only 15% are located there, with the vast majority spread across the country. Many of these workers are low-paid, with average starting salaries in the $30,000-$40,000 range, living paycheck to paycheck, making the impact of unpaid work or permanent layoffs particularly severe. The uncertainty surrounding job security and accumulating debt is creating a "shaky" and "unpleasant atmosphere."

Project 2025 and Russ Vought's Influence

Russ Vought is identified as a central figure driving the federal workforce reduction, being one of the architects of Project 2025. Initially, President Trump denied knowledge of or attachment to Project 2025 during his campaign. However, he recently acknowledged Vought's role and Project 2025 on Truth Social, stating he had a meeting with Vought and recommending cuts to "Democrat agencies." Trump's post further politicized the situation, framing the shutdown as an "unprecedented opportunity" given by "radical left Democrats" to "quietly and quickly Make America Great Again!" This demonstrates an escalation of political rhetoric, with Trump consistently referring to Democrats as the "radical left."

Political Repercussions and Democratic Strategy

Democratic leaders, including Jeffries and Schumer, are holding firm on their stance, despite immediate repercussions. For instance, War Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the cancellation of $18 billion in infrastructure projects in New York, the home state of both Democratic leaders, including a major subway expansion and tunnel project.

Republicans on Capitol Hill are reportedly attempting to "peel off" some Senate Democrats, but this is seen as a significant gamble given their current unpopularity and lack of a unifying message. The Democrats' resolve to stick to their message, particularly regarding healthcare subsidies, will be tested in the coming weeks as the shutdown potentially lengthens.

Military and Domestic Deployments

A significant discussion point revolves around the president's efforts to extend his power over the military, particularly concerning domestic deployments. At a hastily arranged gathering of generals in Virginia, President Trump spoke of "the war within, the enemy within," and suggested using American cities as "training grounds for the military."

This contrasts with War Secretary Pete Hegseth's remarks, which focused on reinstating a "warrior ethos" – a more masculine, combat-oriented military designed for "war abroad," not for policing U.S. streets. Hegseth's vision, detailed in his book, includes removing equality programs, making promotions harder, and ending "woke" policies, potentially reintroducing practices previously considered bullying or hazing.

Military personnel, both active and retired, reportedly left the meeting "bamboozled," feeling it was a waste of time and resources. They expressed concern about the contradiction between Trump's domestic deployment rhetoric and their oath to the Constitution, which implies defending the nation, not acting against fellow citizens. Hegseth's statement, "if you don't like it, you can leave," raised fears that many might resign if ordered to perform duties they deem inappropriate.

Historically, presidents have used the military in crises (e.g., Lyndon B. Johnson during the Civil Rights Act of 1965). However, experts argue that the current situation lacks a comparable crisis to warrant such deployments. The normalization of National Guard presence in cities like Washington, Chicago, and potentially Portland, raises critical questions about increased presidential power, emergency powers, and the long-term impact on U.S. democracy, especially concerning future elections.

Legal Checks and the Supreme Court

The courts have emerged as a crucial check on presidential power. A federal judge, for example, ruled that the decision to send federal troops into Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars federal troops from domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. Oregon is also suing the administration over similar issues.

The administration has frequently appealed these rulings, hoping they reach the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is set to begin its next term on October 6th and is expected to issue rulings on controversial policies such as tariffs, ending birthright citizenship, and the president's ability to fire heads of independent agencies.

The shutdown's impact on the judiciary is also a concern. Lower-level courts are already only hearing criminal cases, not civil ones. There's uncertainty about how the shutdown will affect Supreme Court operations, particularly regarding which staff are deemed "essential" and whether it will slow down the court's actions, potentially impacting the administration's policy implementation.

Synthesis/Conclusion

The current political landscape is characterized by an aggressive expansion of presidential power, utilizing the government shutdown as a strategic tool to reshape the federal workforce and push a specific ideological agenda. This is deeply intertwined with the influence of figures like Russ Vought and initiatives like Project 2025, aiming for a permanent reduction and politicization of government agencies. The rhetoric has become increasingly confrontational, with the administration openly blaming and targeting "radical left Democrats." Simultaneously, the president's vision for the military, suggesting domestic deployments and using cities as "training grounds," clashes with the War Secretary's focus on a combat-ready force for foreign conflicts, causing unease within military ranks and raising significant constitutional questions. While the courts provide a check on some of these actions, the administration's strategy of appeals and the upcoming Supreme Court term highlight the ongoing legal battles. The long-term implications for federal workers, institutional knowledge, and the fundamental balance of power in U.S. democracy remain uncertain and are a source of growing anxiety.