admin
The federal government officially entered a funding lapse on October 1, 2025, and the White House moved quickly to turn what used to be a temporary political headache into an audacious opportunity to right-size Washington. Rather than the usual furlough notices, the Office of Management and Budget instructed agencies to draft reduction-in-force plans that could permanently eliminate positions tied to programs the administration deems outside its priorities. Conservatives who have long argued that the federal bureaucracy is bloated should welcome a president willing to use every legal lever to cut waste and restore accountability to the people who actually pay the bills.
The OMB memo was explicit about how this will work: agencies were told to identify programs whose discretionary funding lapses on October 1, that lack alternative funding, and that are “not consistent with the President’s priorities” — and to issue RIF notices accordingly. That language puts real teeth into a fight over spending that previous administrations only threatened in rhetoric, not action. For too long Congress has punted on hard budget choices and left taxpayers carrying the tab for pet projects and endlessly expanding bureaucracies; this memo forces a reckoning.
Russ Vought, who has long championed aggressive reductions in government, is steering this effort and sees the shutdown as a chance to finish what annual appropriations should have done: eliminate programs that were never meant to be permanent. Vought’s approach reflects a conservative strategy of shrinking the administrative state and redirecting resources to core national priorities like defense and border security. Opponents will scream about cruelty, but there is nothing compassionate about a system that siphons generational wealth away from families and small businesses to fund sprawling, ineffective federal programs.
Of course, the left’s reaction was predictable — outrage, threats of lawsuits, and claims that mass firings are illegal — and federal unions are already gearing up for litigation. Legal questions will be fought in the courts, but lawmakers who refuse to pass meaningful appropriations shouldn’t be surprised if White House officials use the tools at their disposal to implement a conservative agenda. The broader economic stakes are real: hundreds of thousands of federal workers face furloughs, and the daily costs from stalled paychecks and interrupted services will be felt in towns and small businesses across the country.
Democrats in the Senate blocked a short-term funding bill, insisting on wedges like expanded subsidies that Republicans rightly view as bailouts for special interests and open-border policies. When Congress shirks its duty, the executive branch reclaiming discretion over which programs survive is not a betrayal of democracy — it is a forced hand to prevent permanent expansion of the administrative state. If this administration can use a shutdown to defund demonstrably failed programs and stop taxpayer-funded experiments, that’s governance, not theatrics.
This standoff is, at its core, a test of political will. Lawmakers who prefer the comfort of endless spending and bureaucratic growth are betting that voters will flinch at decisive action; conservatives who have been patient for decades should see this as their moment to demand permanent change. Whatever the immediate headlines, using a shutdown to push structural reforms and hold power-hungry agencies accountable is a bold, unapologetic answer to a broken status quo — and those who cherish limited government should not apologize for supporting it.
