Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
A bird flies near the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 25, 2025.
Will the Democrats risk a government shutdown?
Well, the old game of chicken over funding the US federal government is back on, as Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday his party would NOT vote for the six-month stopgap funding bill passed by the GOP in the House on Tuesday night.
Given the procedural details of this kind of funding bill, which requires 60 votes, the Dems can kill the bill despite holding just 45 seats.
Why’d the Dems do this? They say the six-month bill, which would keep current overall spending levels in place without earmarking specific outlays, would give the Trump administration, and quasi-official DOGE Czar Elon Musk, too much leeway to radically reshape the federal government.
Instead, the Dems prefer a 30-day stopgap, during which time they want to negotiate more specific tax and spend details with the GOP. Getting a new bill will be tough, as the House has already broken for a weeklong St Patrick’s Day recess.
The clock is ticking: Current funding for the Federal government expires just past midnight on Friday.
The political calculation: Although Democrats have in the past criticized Republicans for pushing the government towards a shutdown, they may be betting they’d face less blowback for a shutdown than they would for the perception that they failed to stop Donald Trump’s cost-cutting agenda, which could target key entitlements like Medicaid.
But is this just posturing? A report in The Hill early on Thursday suggested that in the end, enough centrist Democrats could in fact vote to pass the bill.
Then-President-elect Donald Trump and Elon Musk watch the launch of the sixth test flight of the SpaceX Starship rocket in Brownsville, Texas, in November 2024.
GZERO Explains: You’re Fired! “The Apprentice” comes to Washington
It’s not a reality TV show, but it sure feels like one. On Tuesday, the US government kickstarted a plan to slash the public service by offering a “deferred resignation program” to approximately two million civilian full-time federal employees. The offer came in the form of an email from the Office of Personnel Management, or OPM, with the subject line, “A Fork in the Road,” similar to one sent by X CEO Elon Musk to Twitter employees after he acquired the company in 2022. Musk was behind the effort, which reportedly blindsided some of President Donald Trump's advisers and budget officials.
What’s the deal? Employees who choose to resign by Feb. 6 would receive eight months of salary and benefits, remaining on the payroll until Sept. 30, possibly with reduced or eliminated responsibilities, and without having to work in person. Recipients were asked to respond to a government email address and type the word “Resign” if they accepted. They were also told that if they did not quit, there was no guarantee their job might not be eliminated in the future.
Who’s in the crosshairs? The OPM said the offer was available to “all full-time federal employees,” apart from those working in the post office, military, or on immigration or national security.
Why is this happening? During his campaign, Trump promised to radically cut the size of government and appointed Musk to head the Department for Government Efficiency. But Trump is also seeking to root out the “deep state” and remove opponents to his agenda within the civil service. The American Federation of Government Employees says the program pressures employees perceived as disloyal to leave.
In that vein, Trump also signed an executive order on his first day entitled “Schedule Career/Policy,” which reclassifies thousands of civil servants as political appointees, removing job security and making it easier to hire and fire them. Trump signed a similar order, Schedule F, late in his first term, but it was rescinded by Joe Biden when the former president took office.
Can Trump (or Musk) do this? As president, Trump has the authority to propose and implement workforce restructuring within the federal government. However, his actions must comply with federal laws and regulations. That includes standards enforced by the US Merit Systems Protection Board, which require managers to justify disciplinary actions like firings and give employees the right to respond before any action is taken.
But aren’t these “voluntary” resignations? The government is framing them this way and has various tools available. These include:
- Voluntary Early Retirement Authority: This allows employees to retire before meeting the standard age and service requirements, and is usually used during restructuring or downsizing, such as when an agency is eliminated.
- Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments: This policy offers lump-sum payments to incentivize employees to voluntarily “separate” from the civil service via resignation or retirement. Trump’s current “deferred resignation program” appears to be a form of VSIP, albeit with a twist, in that employees may not have to have to perform their duties.
This led Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to call the offer a trick, claiming the president would “stiff” workers. “The president has no authority to make that offer,” Kaine said. “There’s no budget line item to pay people who are not showing up for work.”
That concern is echoed by researcher Natasha Gaither of Eurasia Group, “The offer is structured in such a way that it will probably withstand legal scrutiny, as it purports to make use of the funds that would otherwise go to paying workers' salaries,” she says. But, she adds, “this arrangement relies on the tacit assumption that Congress will appropriate funds to cover all the currently eligible federal workers when the continuing resolution expires in March.”
“Basically, federal workers who take the buyout now will be placing their faith in GOP congressmen (and the Trump administration) that they will continue to receive deposits through September.”
What could the impact be? That depends on who accepts the offer. The broad range of employees affected means that anyone – from food inspectors to frontline health workers – could stop work and stay home, potentially impacting thousands of departments and services. For example, if statisticians at the FDA who oversee clinical trials quit, there would likely be an immediate slowdown in drug approvals. Losing medical staff at Veterans Affairs would undermine the functioning of hospitals and clinics and possibly force veterans to turn elsewhere.
One senior administration official estimated that 5-10% of federal workers might resign, saving the government $100 billion – but punching a big hole in the capacity of the civil service at the same time.Biden pushes forward on AI
Joe Biden is starting to walk the talk on artificial intelligence. Federal agencies have until December to get a handle on how to use — and minimize the risks from — AI, thanks to new instructions from the White House Office of Management and Budget. The policies mark the next step along the path laid out by Biden’s October AI executive order, adding specific goals after a period of evaluation.
What’s new
Federal agencies will need to “assess, test, and monitor” the impact of AI, “mitigate the risks of algorithmic discrimination,” and provide “transparency into how the government uses AI.”
It’s unclear to what extent AI currently factors into government work. The Defense Department already has key AI investments, while other agencies may only be toying with the new technology. Under Biden’s new rules, agencies seeking to use AI must create an “impact assessment” for the tools they use, conduct real-world testing before deployment, obtain independent evaluation from an oversight board or another body, do regular monitoring and risk-assessment, and work to mitigate any associated risks.
Adam Conner, vice president of technology policy at the Center for American Progress, says that the OMB guidance is “an important step in articulating that AI should be used by federal agencies in a responsible way.”
The OMB policy isn’t solely aimed at protecting against AI’s harms. It mandates that federal agencies name a Chief AI Officer charged with implementing the new standards. These new government AI czars are meant to work across agencies, coordinate the administration’s AI goals, and remove barriers to innovation within government.
What it means
Dev Saxena, director of Eurasia Group's geo-technology practice, said the policies are “precedent-setting,” especially in the absence of comprehensive artificial intelligence legislation like the one the European Union recently passed.
Saxena noted that the policies will move the government further along than industry in terms of safety and transparency standards for AI since there’s no federal law governing this technology specifically. While many industry leaders have cooperated with the Biden administration and signed a voluntary pledge to manage the risks of AI, the new OMB policies could also serve as a form of “soft law” to force higher standards of testing, risk-assessment, and transparency for the private sector if they want to sell their technology and services to the federal government.
However, there’s a notable carveout for the national security and defense agencies, which could be targets for the most dangerous and insidious uses of AI. We’ve previously written about America’s AI militarization and goal of maintaining a strategic advantage over rivals such as China. While they’re exempted from these new rules, a separate track of defense and national-security guidelines are expected to come later this year.
Fears and concerns
Still, public interest groups are concerned about the ways in which the citizens’ liberties could be curtailed when the government uses AI. The American Civil Liberties Union called on governments to do more to protect citizens from AI. “OMB has taken an important step, but only a step, in protecting us from abuses by AI. Federal uses of AI should not be permitted to undermine rights and safety, but harmful and discriminatory uses of AI by national security agencies, state governments, and more remain largely unchecked,” wrote Cody Venzke, ACLU senior policy counsel, in a statement.
Of course, the biggest risk to the implementation of these policies is the upcoming presidential election. Former President Donald Trump, if reelected, might keep some of the policies aimed at China and other political adversaries, Saxena says, but could significantly pull back from the rights- and safety-focused protections.
Beyond the uncertainty of election season, the Biden administration has a real challenge going from zero to full speed. “The administration should be commended on its work so far,” Conner says, “but now comes the hard part: implementation.”