Introduction: beyond a disagreement over funding
Since 1 October 2025, the United States has been experiencing a partial shutdown of federal government activities. Congress has still not approved the finance bills for the new fiscal year, causing serious disruption: hundreds of thousands of federal employees are on forced leave or working without pay, essential government data is being withheld and important programmes are being cut back.
But this is not just a budget battle. The shutdown is increasingly turning into a test of institutional resilience: a test for American governance, which is eroding public confidence and damaging the country’s reputation abroad. In this article, I argue that the 2025 shutdown is not an isolated incident, but a structural warning that calls for national reflection and international scrutiny.
The political anatomy of the shutdown
From deadlock to exploitation
The immediate cause is well known: Congress failed to agree on appropriations before the start of the fiscal year. Republicans insisted that any temporary resolution exclude rider provisions and delay certain elements of subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), while Democrats refused to approve a reopening without those subsidies.
The difference between the 2025 shutdown and previous ones lies in the controversial way in which it unfolded. The Trump administration froze $26 billion in funding for infrastructure and green energy, including $18 billion for public transport in New York and $8 billion for programmes in traditionally Democratic states.
More importantly, the White House asked agencies to submit reduction-in-force (RIF) plans, i.e., permanent reductions in federal staff in programmes that do not receive other appropriations.
Such planning is not a passing phenomenon: it signals an intention to restructure governance capacity under the guise of a financial emergency.
Legal and institutional tensions
Under the US Antideficiency Act, appropriations do not allow agencies to commit funds. However, the vagueness surrounding the notion of ‘essential’ gives the executive branch some leeway in applying the rule. OMB guidelines are pushing agencies to send RIF notices even to exempt or otherwise exempted staff, which would be unprecedented in previous shutdown procedures.
Judicial intervention may be required if mass layoffs target protected groups or violate federal labour law. Unions and Democratic lawmakers have already filed lawsuits to block mass layoffs.
Although constitutional checks exist, the growing use of shutdowns as a political strategy threatens the system of checks and balances: budgetary control is supposed to be an executive check, but the executive branch is using funding interruptions to coerce Congress. This reversal perverts the institutional design and sets a dangerous precedent.
Economic and social repercussions: daily costs mount
Macroeconomic tension and market anxiety
The economic shock is immediate and severe. The White House estimates that each week of shutdown costs the US GDP $15 billion. Markets are also concerned: the dollar fell ahead of the shutdown, and investors are anticipating delayed employment reports and economic uncertainty.
Even more insidious is the lack of data. Institutions such as the Bureau of Labour Statistics, the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Census Bureau have delayed the release of their flagship reports. This leaves investors and policymakers in the dark, particularly in an uncertain global environment.
Furthermore, investor uncertainty is having repercussions: risk premiums are rising, credit spreads are widening and growth forecasts for 2025 are being revised downwards.
Services, security and social vulnerabilities
While “essential” programmes such as social security, health insurance and defence continue, regulatory, public health, education and subsidy programmes are being severely cut back. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) contingency plan calls for the furlough of approximately 42,000 employees (half of its workforce). Some food assistance programmes, including the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programme, will continue temporarily, but could be depleted if the shutdown lasts more than a week.
Within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), more than 41 per cent of employees have been notified that they will be furloughed, threatening disease surveillance, scientific research, and public health activities.
Layoffs have also begun. Approximately 4,200 federal employees working in agencies such as the Treasury, Education, and Homeland Security have received layoff notices.
It is important to note that the majority of layoffs proportionally affect programmes supporting students with disabilities, civil rights enforcement, public housing inspections, and environmental law enforcement.
Traffic management and transportation systems are under strain: approximately 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA agents are required to report to work without pay, leading to increased tensions and absenteeism. Some flights have been delayed, and the Secretary of Transportation has even threatened to fire some controllers for failing to report to work.
Culturally and symbolically, institutions such as the Smithsonian museums and the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. have closed their doors, underscoring the importance of these places.
In short, what began as a pause in spending is gradually turning into a cancer that is weakening the system.
Media framing and public legitimacy: the narratives that construct reality
Competitive framing vs. crisis framing
Media reports vary in how they frame the shutdown. Some present it as a political melodrama: who holds power, who gives in, who makes mistakes. Others emphasise institutional failure: a government unable to perform its essential functions.
This is important. Presenting it as an elitist melodrama shifts responsibility. Presenting it as a crisis prompts citizens to question the legitimacy of the government.
Public opinion: shared responsibility and frustration
In a Reuters/Ipsos poll, Americans assign responsibility almost equally: 67% blame Republicans a lot or somewhat; 63% blame Democrats just as much. 63% also blame President Trump himself.
This equal distribution of responsibility reflects growing disillusionment: citizens are dissatisfied not only with the parties, but with the system as a whole. As a Reuters article published in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia notes, residents fear that the political stalemate will affect their livelihoods more than ideological demands.
The blame game, fuelled by media coverage, matters. If citizens perceive the shutdown as normal in politics, they will lose interest. If they perceive it as a structural failure, the demand for reform will arise.
International perspective: credibility at risk
Internationally, the media has portrayed the United States as incapable of governing itself. The shutdown erodes moral authority in promoting the rule of law, democratic norms and governance at the international level.
In foreign capitals, this situation is prompting comparisons. If Washington is unable to provide vaccines, prescribe regulatory regimes or pay its bills, how can it reliably exert pressure on its partners or take multilateral action?
The governance vacuum: legitimacy, erosion and democratic risk
Erosion of trust, institutional fatigue
Repeated shutdowns normalise dysfunction. Institutions, already stretched to the limit, internalise the crisis as a normal situation, and citizens lower their expectations. Gradually, the notion of a reliably functioning state fades away.
Democracy does not usually collapse all at once, but erodes as a result of prolonged and cumulative failures. As civic trust wanes, elites are encouraged to overreach their powers, and political incentives favour short-term victories at the expense of long-term institutional sustainability.
The budget as a sword, not a shield
In the past, congressional control of the budget served to limit abuses by the executive branch. Now that shutdowns are being used as a tool, this control has been rendered meaningless. The executive branch’s ability to freeze funds for political purposes encroaches on legislative authority.
If this trend continues, future Congresses will be even more limited, leading the government towards executive domination. This threatens the separation of powers, which is, hopefully, the foundation of American constitutional democracy.
Lessons for the world: democracies under fire
No system is immune
The American experience confirms that there is no perfect model. Everywhere, academics, reformers and civil society must ensure internal strength and not assume that strong democracies are invincible.
The importance of structural safeguards
New democracies should adopt provisions that make essential services non-negotiable in the event of political deadlock (independent funding for health, public safety, and the functioning of the judiciary) so that politics does not paralyse government.
Media and public vigilance
The media must go beyond simply covering verbal jousting. They must expose institutional failures, document human costs, and hold actors accountable not only for what they say, but also for what they do to the state apparatus.
Institutional diffusion as a buffer
The distribution of key functions among subnational or autonomous units (state, district, region) can make a government more resilient to shocks. If federal institutions fail, local institutions will function.
Conclusion: between reopening and settling scores
The 2025 US government shutdown is more than just a budget dispute. It is a betrayal of trust between citizens and the state, a dysfunction in the functioning of government, and a blow to the reputation of the United States abroad.
If the United States simply reopens without getting its act together, the next shutdown will come sooner, and confidence in the system will erode further. The task is not only to restore funding, but also to restore legitimacy: clear rules for deadlock, protections for the public good, and a stronger link between responsibility and obligation.
The world is witnessing not only a drama, but also an example, once considered untouchable, that is faltering under pressure. The question is whether this moment will lead to reform or accelerate decline.
