The government is shut down, and once again Washington is testing the boundaries of just how dysfunctional it can be. But this time, it's not just about furloughs and closed parks. The Trump administration is floating a plan to fire thousands of federal workers outright in the middle of the shutdown. 

There's just one small problem. It may be illegal. 

The Anti-Deficiency Act (ADA)—one of those dry, century-old laws that rarely gets a headline—says the government can't spend money it doesn't have. It's the reason agencies lock their doors when Congress fails to pass a budget. If there's no appropriation, they can't legally pay staff, sign contracts, or make new commitments. No money, no spending. 

That makes mass firings during a shutdown more than a human resources nightmare. Firing people costs money—severance pay, unemployment benefits, the administrative costs of processing layoffs, even litigation if workers fight back. Without an appropriation, all of that is off limits. 

This isn't the first time Trump has tested the ADA. During the record-long 2018–2019 shutdown, his administration ordered the IRS to keep paying tax refunds. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan arm of Congress, said that violated the law, because the government had no funding to process them. Interior kept national parks open by raiding entrance fees—another move GAO later ruled illegal. This time, parks are already being kept partly open again—roads, trails, and open-air memorials remain accessible despite massive staffing cuts. Each time, the administration stretched the rules to dodge the political fallout of a shutdown, and taxpayers ended up footing the bill when the dust settled. 

Now, the proposal to fire thousands of career staff pushes the envelope even further. It's not hard to imagine the lawsuits. Employees demanding the separation payments they're owed, courts forcing agencies to cough up money they don't legally have. Taxpayers pay twice—first for the shutdown's lost services, then for the litigation and settlements that follow. 

There's also the matter of precedent. If a president can use a shutdown to purge the civil service, future administrations might take the cue. That politicizes the very workforce meant to serve all Americans, regardless of party. (Remember Schedule F?) Think of it as the government equivalent of deciding you can't pay the electric bill, so you burn down the house instead. 

Of course, some may shrug and say the bureaucracy is bloated anyway. But ask yourself: who processes your Social Security check, inspects your food, or keeps planes from colliding? These aren't abstract jobs. They're the basic machinery of government, and taxpayers depend on them working. 

The Anti-Deficiency Act exists for a reason. It's there to make sure the government can't run up the credit card without Congress signing off. Presidents don't get to wave it away because it's inconvenient. And taxpayers shouldn't have to watch their money wasted on costly stunts that collapse in court. 

If the administration is serious about firing thousands of federal employees during a funding lapse, Congress and the courts will have to stop it. Otherwise, the Anti-Deficiency Act may turn out to be just another rule broken in Washington—with taxpayers left holding the bag. 

Assuming Congress restores some or most of the funding, the problems won't end there. Agencies would still be legally bound to spend those dollars as Congress intended—paying the people performing the work. But if those employees are gone because the administration fired them mid-shutdown, the money can't be spent as intended. And … we're back into impoundment territory again—the president can't simply sit on appropriated funds or ignore Congress's directions. It would be nearly impossible for the administration to rebuild the workforce fast enough to carry out appropriations laws passed by Congress.  

Shutdowns are already a lousy deal. They waste money, sap productivity, and destroy public confidence. Turning them into a weapon for mass firings doesn't just raise the stakes. It crosses the line.