Tempers flared in Washington this week as a White House memo suggested that federal workers furloughed during the ongoing government shutdown might not receive back pay—a dramatic departure from decades of precedent. The memo, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on October 6, 2025, quickly became a lightning rod for outrage and debate on both sides of the aisle, plunging Congress and the Trump administration into a pitched battle over what the law actually requires and what is fair for federal employees caught in the crossfire.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wasted no time making his position clear. Speaking to reporters at the Capitol on October 7, he declared, “The law is clear: Every single furloughed federal employee is entitled to back pay. Period. Full stop.” Jeffries vowed that Democrats would fight to ensure those payments are made, underscoring what he characterized as a straightforward legal obligation. “The law is clear, and we will make sure that that law is followed,” he insisted, according to The Hill.
The OMB memo, however, argued that the government is under no obligation to pay federal workers furloughed during the shutdown. This stance marks a sharp departure from previous shutdowns, when Congress and the White House have ultimately agreed to compensate affected employees for lost time. The memo’s legal rationale hinges on language in the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019, which states that compensation for furloughed workers is “subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.” In plain English, the OMB says back pay is only guaranteed if Congress passes a bill providing it.
This interpretation has not gone over well with many lawmakers or legal experts. Labor attorney Nekeisha Campbell, speaking to Axios, argued that “there is no legal authority” to support the OMB’s reading of the statute. “It would only be upheld in court if Congress passed a new law contradicting that provision,” she said. Sam Berger, a senior fellow at the Center for Policy and Budget Priorities, echoed that view: “The law here is quite clear. The caveat is, if you follow the law.”
Democrats have been nearly unanimous in their condemnation of the OMB’s position. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) told Axios by phone, “The law is simply not on the side of Trump’s threats to withhold pay from federal employees that he somehow disfavors.” Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Va.), whose district includes more than 55,000 federal workers, accused the White House of “throwing attention grabbing headlines out there to distract from the fact that they shut down the government.” Vindman reassured his constituents, “The over 55,000 federal workers in my District, who know the truth that they will be paid, won’t take the bait.”
Republican responses have been more varied, reflecting the party’s ideological diversity and political calculations. Some, like Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), dismissed the threat as hollow. “Congress will make this call,” Bacon told Axios. “We will pay the workers. It is not their fault that [Senate Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer is catering to the AOCs of their party.” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) was similarly critical, calling the move “bad strategy” and “probably not a good message to send right now to people who are not being paid.”
Yet not all Republicans were so quick to side with the workers. Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisc.), for example, believes the government should have no nonessential employees at all. His spokesperson, Sarah Kim, explained to Axios, “just as a private company wouldn’t pay for staff it doesn’t need,” the government shouldn’t either.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) struck a more cautious tone. At a press conference, Johnson said, “I don’t know the details, I just saw the headline ... but there are some legal analysts who are saying that that may not be appropriate or necessary in terms of the law requiring that back pay be provided.” Still, he added, “I hope that the furloughed workers receive back pay, of course. We have some extraordinary Americans who serve in the federal government.” Johnson also noted that in previous shutdowns, “many or most of them have been paid for the time that they were furloughed,” but left open the possibility that things could be different this time if the White House so decides.
The OMB’s memo is widely seen as a pressure tactic aimed at Senate Democrats, hoping to push them toward supporting a short-term GOP spending bill. That bill, however, failed on the Senate floor for the fifth time on October 6, leaving the impasse unresolved and federal workers in limbo.
President Trump himself weighed in from the Oval Office on October 7, but his comments only muddied the waters further. “For the most part, we’re going to take care of our people,” Trump said. “There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of. And we’ll take care of them in a different way.” When pressed about the legal requirements under GEFTA, Trump demurred: “I follow the law and what the law says is correct.” But he offered no specifics on how his administration would determine who gets paid and who doesn’t.
According to Axios, the OMB memo is still a draft and does not yet constitute official policy as of October 7. That uncertainty has left many in Congress, and across the federal workforce, anxiously awaiting clarity. Some Democrats have warned that, despite their confidence in the law, the administration’s “incorrigible defiance” of legal norms means the issue can’t be shrugged off. “We do have to take it seriously,” Rep. Raskin cautioned.
The legal and political stakes are high. The Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 was passed in the aftermath of the record-breaking shutdown that year, specifically to ensure that federal employees would not be left in financial jeopardy if political brinkmanship led to another government closure. The current dispute over its interpretation has become a microcosm of the broader partisan standoff over government funding, worker rights, and the rule of law.
For now, the fate of thousands of federal workers hangs in the balance—caught between a Congress that can’t agree on a funding bill and a White House willing to test the limits of statutory language. The coming days will reveal whether lawmakers can find common ground, or whether the shutdown’s collateral damage will extend even further.
As the nation watches, the question remains: Will the law’s promise to federal workers be honored, or will political maneuvering leave them empty-handed?
