Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
Explainer: What you should know about the 2018 partial government shutdown
Explainer: What you should know about the 2018 partial government shutdown
Dec 3, 2025 11:56 AM

What just happened?

On Friday the federal government entered a partial shutdown after the Senate failed to pass a spending bill that includes border wall funding. President Trump refuses to sign any additional funding that does not include $5.1 billion in additional money to pay for an extension of the border wall, allowing him to fulfill his primary campaign promise.

What is a partial government shutdown?

A government shutdown occurs either when Congress fails to pass funding bills or when the president refuses to sign a funding bill before the current appropriations expire.

A partial government shutdown occurs when many or most government government agencies have already been funded by other legislation but there remains some areas that still need funding.

What parts of the federal government are affected by the shutdown?

Several government agencies were already funded for fiscal year 2019. But another funding bill was needed to cover several agencies for about seven weeks. Nine out of 15 federal departments, dozens of agencies, and several programs will be closed or reduce operations:

Department of CommerceDepartment of Homeland SecurityDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of InteriorDepartment of JusticeDepartment of StateDepartment of TransportationEnvironment Protection Agency (EPA)Federal Drug Administration (FDA)United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Programs related to science, financial services, and other agenciesThe National Flood Insurance ProgramThe Violence Against Women ActThe Pesticide Registration Improvement ActTemporary Assistance for Needy FamiliesImmigration extensions (EB-5, E-Verify, Conrad 30 program for international medical school graduates, Special Immigrant Religious Workers program, and H2B returning worker authority for DHS)The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards ActTwo expiring provisions of the Pandemic All-Hazards Preparedness ActMedicaid Money-Follows-the-Person and Spousal Impoverishment, through March 31

Will federal law enforcement be affected?

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, more than 41,000 federal law enforcement and correctional officers will be affected, including:

2,614 ATF agents16,742 Bureau of Prisons correctional officers13,709 FBI agents3,600 deputy U.S. Marshals4,399 DEA agents54,000 Customs and Border Protection agents and customs officers42,000 Coast Guard employee

Why don’t government agencies just ignore the shutdown?

Under a federal law known as the Anti-Deficiency Act, it can be a felony to spend taxpayer money without an appropriation from Congress.

Why does Congress have to vote to keep funding the government?

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to allocate all funds collected through taxes (“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”). Most government spending is mandatory spending, which means Congress has passed a law requiring monies to be used for specific purposes. Examples of mandatory spending are Medicare and Medicaid, Social security, and unemployment benefits.

Approximately 35 percent of government spending, though, is non-discretionary spending. This type of spending includes spending on such things as defense, homeland security, and education. For the federal agencies to receive this funding Congress has to authorize this spending. In December Congress passed the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1370) which provides non-discretionary funding through January 19, 2018.

The entire government doesn’t actually shut down during a government shutdown, does it?

No. Even in a full, rather than partial, shutdown, programs deemed “essential”—which includes, among other agencies and services, the military, air traffic control, food inspections, etc.—would continue as normal. “Non-essential” programs and services such as national parks and federal museums would be closed. Federal workers deemed non-essential are also furloughed.

Are government benefit checks affected by a shutdown?

Not directly. Benefits like Social Security, Medicare, and retirement for veterans are mandatory spending so they are unaffected. However, if the workers who mail the checks are considered “non-essential” it may result in delays in the checks being sent out.

How do lawmakers work if the Capitol is shut down and their workers are furloughed?

Congress is exempted from the furloughs and the Capitol building will stay open, so lawmakers aren’t really affected. Several types of executive branch officials and employees are also not subject to furlough. These include the president, presidential appointees, and federal employees deemed excepted by the Office of Public Management.

Will I still get mail during the shutdown?

Yes. The United States Postal Service is exempt from the federal government shutdown because it does not receive it’s budget from annual appropriations from Congress.

Will government workers still get paid?

Federal workers placed on furlough will not get paid during a shutdown. However, after past shutdowns, Congress has always voted to pay furloughed workers retroactively.

Will the shutdown save the government money?

Not if past shutdowns are any indication. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reports that estimates vary widely, but “evidence suggests that shutdowns tend to cost, not save, money.” A recent shutdown cost the government $1.4 billion, according to an estimate by the Office of Management and Budget.

So we’ve had such shutdowns before?

Since 1976, there have been almost two dozen shutdowns—including three under President Trump. However, before the 1980s the government continued operating at reduced levels without furloughing workers. The two shutdowns in 2018 lasted mere days while the shutdown in 2013 lasted 16 days.

Prior to that was the longest shutdown of modern history—a 21 day shutdown in December 1995 that came soon after a five-day shutdown that lasted from November 13-19. Those shutdowns were sparked by a disagreement over tax cuts between then-President Bill Clinton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Since the Republicans have a majority in the House and Senate, why can’t they just pass the spending bill?

Because the spending bill requires a filibuster proof majority to pass in the Senate, Republicans need several Democrats to support the funding proposal that includes border wall funding.

Who gets blamed for government shutdowns?

On December 11, President Trump told two Democratic leaders of Congress, “I am proud to shut down the government for border security . . . I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I’m not going to blame you for it.”

The President has backtracked, though, and attempted to avoid blame. On Friday he tweeted, “The Democrats now own the shutdown!”

However long the shutdown lasts, the GOP will likely be considered at fault. Since the 1990s, polls show that Republicans are the party most blamed for government shutdowns.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
Is Capitalism Really A Dangerous Idea?
Over at MercatorNet, there is a discussion taking place on the “world’s most dangerous idea.” Entries include the idea that human beings are no more dignified than animals, that the cheap, abundant information found on the Internet is a good thing, and that the holding of dogmas is only for the narrow-minded. But the one “dangerous idea” most interesting to PowerBlog readers may that “capitalism is the most ethical form economics.” This last es from Prof. Jeffrey Langan, chairman of...
Do We Need Pro-Family Tax Policies?
Last month, in “Europe’s Choice: Populate or Perish,” Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg observed: At a deeper level … Europe’s declining birth-rate may also reflect a change in intellectual horizons. A cultural outlook focused upon the present and disinterested in the future is more likely to view children as a burden rather than a gift to be cared for in quite un-self-interested ways. Individuals and societies that have lost a sense of connection to their past and have no particular...
Carbon Regulation: Ecological Utopia or Economic Nightmare?
In this week’s Acton Commentary, I discuss whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s planned regulation of carbon emissions can be justified from a Christian perspective. The EPA has found that carbon emissions endanger “public health and welfare,” and it is on track to begin regulating vehicle and power plant emissions. Environmentalists claim that policies targeting carbon emissions, such as EPA regulation or a cap-and-trade program, will stimulate the economy by creating green jobs. Unfortunately, this is not the case – the...
The Superiority of Christian Hospitals
Thomson Reuters has issued a new report that shows church-run hospitals provide better quality care more efficiently than other secular hospitals. Jean Chenoweth, senior vice president for performance improvement and 100 Top Hospitals programs at Thomson Reuters, says, “Our data suggest that the leadership of health systems owned by churches may be the most active in aligning quality goals and monitoring achievement of mission across the system.” It is certainly true that Christian engagement of issues surrounding health care are...
Audio: Rev. Sirico on ‘The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service to the Poor’
On the new Reclaiming the Culture radio show, host Dolores Meehan recently interviewed Acton President Rev. Robert A. Sirico on the subject of “The Principle of Subsidiarity and the Service to the Poor.” Here’s how Meehan describes the show’s mission: Bay Area Catholics are some of the strongest Catholics in the country. Reclaiming the Culture grew out of the desire to show that the Catholic Church in the Bay Area has the resources to confront the prevailing secular culture. Our...
Abela: Will Teaching Business Ethics Make Business More Ethical?
On the National Catholic Register, Andrew Abela confesses to a “nagging suspicion that teaching business ethics in a university is not delivering on what is expected of it.” The question is both concrete and academic: Abela is the chairman of the Department of Business and Economics at The Catholic University of America and an associate professor of marketing. He was awarded the Acton Institute’s Novak Award in 2009. Here, he explains the problem with “amoral” business attitudes: … we often...
Rev. Sirico: The Cultural and Moral Failures that Precipitated the Crash
The Italian online daily Ilsussidiario.net recently turned to Rev. Robert A. Sirico with a a couple of key questions about the financial crisis: “So what went wrong with our culture that turned up so badly in our markets? Or were the cause and effect reversed: something went wrong in our markets that turned up badly in our culture?” Here’s part of the exchange: Have moral or cultural causes contributed to the financial crisis? If so, what are they? One could...
Audio: Subsidiarity Over Social Justice
In an mentary produced for Ave Maria Radio and Catholic Exchange, Paul Kengor says it is “incumbent among Catholics to learn more about this blessed concept of subsidiarity.” As part of this education, he mends “The Principle of Subsidiarity” by David A. Bosnich in Acton’s Religion & Liberty quarterly. Here’s some of what Kengor, a professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College, had to say: I’m convinced, from study...
Rev. Sirico: Free markets, not aid, will help poor nations best
The Detroit News published a new column today by Acton president and co-founder Rev. Robert A. Sirico: Faith and Policy: Free markets, not aid, will help poor nations best Rev. Robert Sirico At the recent G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto, a hue and cry was raised by nongovernmental organizations and other activists about the failure of industrialized countries to make good on promises to raise aid to the developing world. Instead, the activists should have called for a summit...
The Economist, Catholicism, and Europe
When es to the sophistication of its coverage of religious affairs, the Economist is better than most other British publications (admittedly not a high standard) which generally insist on trying to read religion through an ideologically-secularist lens. Normally the Economist tries to present religion as a slightly plex matter than “stick-in-the-mud-conservatives”-versus-“open-minded-enlightened-progressivists”, though it usually slips in one of the usual secularist bromides, as if to reassure its audiences that it’s keeping a critical distance. A good example of this is...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved