As the clock struck midnight on September 30, 2025, the United States government entered yet another shutdown, but this time, the blame game took a dramatic and highly public turn. Across a swath of federal agencies, employees and the American public were greeted with an unusually partisan message: Democrats, and specifically the so-called "radical left," were singled out as the culprits for the funding lapse that shuttered government operations. The messaging, blasted out via emails, banners, and even suggested out-of-office replies, marked a striking departure from the typically nonpartisan approach federal agencies have historically taken during shutdowns.
According to reports by HuffPost, MSNBC, and NBC News, federal workers at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Health and Human Services, Social Security Administration, Small Business Administration, Department of Interior, and Department of Labor all received nearly identical emails late Tuesday. The message was clear and unmistakable: “President Trump opposes a government shutdown, and strongly supports the enactment of H.R. 5371, which is a clean Continuing Resolution to fund the government through November 21,” the email read. “Unfortunately, Democrats are blocking this Continuing Resolution in the U.S. Senate due to unrelated policy demands.”
For many longtime civil servants, the tone and content of these communications were jarring. While it’s routine for agencies to prepare staff for the operational realities of a shutdown, using official channels to lay blame at the feet of one political party is, as ethics experts quickly pointed out, far from normal. The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch require impartiality and prohibit using government resources for political gain. The Hatch Act, a law on the books for nearly a century, strictly limits partisan activity by federal employees.
Yet, the Trump administration pressed ahead. The official White House website featured a banner declaring, “Democrats have shut down the government,” complete with a timer tracking the duration of the impasse. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) went even further, posting a banner on its homepage that stated, “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their $1.5 trillion wish list of demands. The Trump administration wants to keep the government open for the American people.” The same message, or variations of it, appeared on websites for the Treasury Department, the State Department, the Forest Service, and even in newsletters sent to veterans.
The reaction from ethics watchdogs was swift and severe. Donald Sherman, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told HuffPost, “It’s hard to imagine a worse message coming from a government agency than this, but this is certainly consistent with an administration that makes enemies lists.” Sherman emphasized that such messaging violates the ethical code requiring impartiality and could well breach the Hatch Act’s prohibition on official political activity.
Senators on Capitol Hill also weighed in. Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey, a Democrat and former federal civil servant, told MSNBC the language “clearly crosses the line. … It is abusing government taxpayer dollars for political purposes.” Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan echoed those concerns, labeling the messages “a violation of the Hatch Act.” On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana defended the administration’s approach, calling the agency language “completely accurate,” though he sidestepped questions about how he’d react if a Democratic administration used similar tactics against Republicans.
Not all Republicans were on board, however. Former Representative Justin Amash, who has shifted party affiliations multiple times but was running for Senate as a Republican, took to social media to criticize the partisan messaging on the Forest Service’s website, calling it “cringe” and even offering a grammar correction for good measure.
Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, minced no words in his assessment to NBC News: “What this administration is doing is unprecedented, illegal and flat-out wrong. I’ve been deeply engaged in our federal government for over 30 years and there is nothing that has come close.” Stier stressed that furloughed federal employees remain subject to the same legal and ethical rules as always, regardless of the shutdown’s circumstances.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups like Public Citizen and Democracy Defenders Fund filed complaints and called for investigations into HUD and other departments, arguing that turning government websites into partisan billboards was an abuse of power and a likely violation of federal law. Virginia Canter, ethics and anticorruption chief counsel at Democracy Defenders Fund, stated, “The Trump administration, however, turned a government agency website into a partisan billboard. It’s an abuse of power, a waste of taxpayer money, and appears to be a flat-out violation of the law.”
The HUD spokesperson, for their part, defended the site’s messaging, telling NBC News, “The Far Left is barreling our country toward a shut down, which will hurt all Americans. At HUD, we are working to keep critical services online and support our most vulnerable. Why is the media more focused on a banner than reporting on the impact of a shutdown on the American people?” Another HUD official claimed the language was carefully crafted to reference ideology rather than a specific party or politician, though most observers saw little distinction.
The shutdown itself was triggered by a familiar legislative standoff. While Republicans held the White House and congressional majorities, they lacked the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Democrats, for their part, demanded extensions for health care funding—particularly subsidies for Affordable Care Act recipients—and assurances that President Trump would not unilaterally withhold spending already directed by Congress. As a result, roughly 750,000 federal workers were furloughed without pay, even as the president and members of Congress continued to receive their paychecks.
The Trump administration’s messaging also extended to out-of-office email templates. The Department of Labor, for instance, suggested staff use a message that blamed Democratic Senators for blocking H.R. 5371, the continuing resolution that had passed the House on September 19. While some agencies like the CDC, FDA, and Justice Department refrained from such partisan guidance, the overall trend was clear: the administration was eager to shape the public narrative and pin the shutdown squarely on its political opponents.
In the broader context, this episode marks a significant escalation in the politicization of government communications. While past administrations have certainly sought to assign blame during shutdowns, rarely—if ever—have official channels been used so overtly for partisan messaging. The fallout, both legal and reputational, remains to be seen, but the events of September and October 2025 have already set a new precedent for how the machinery of government can be wielded in the nation’s political wars.
As the shutdown stretches on, federal employees and the public alike are left to navigate not just the loss of government services, but also the deepening divisions that now run through even the most basic functions of their government.
