标签： North America

The ongoing US government shutdown has placed federal workers in a precarious position, with hundreds of thousands furloughed without pay. This disruption comes at a time when the federal workforce has already seen significant reductions, with over 300,000 jobs lost this year due to the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline government operations. While back pay is guaranteed, the immediate financial strain on employees is undeniable, and the long-term effects on morale and workforce stability are profound.

Research based on the 2013 shutdown reveals that such events have lasting negative impacts. Employees exposed to furloughs were 31% more likely to leave their jobs within a year, leading to a sustained decline in workforce numbers. This exodus forces agencies to rely on costly temporary workers, resulting in measurable declines in critical functions such as payment accuracy, legal enforcement, and patenting activity.

The loss of human capital is particularly pronounced among young, female, and highly educated professionals, who often have more external opportunities. Survey data from the 2018-2019 shutdown confirms that morale, rather than financial loss, drives these departures. Employees report diminished agency, control, and recognition, which significantly increases their likelihood of leaving.

Policy implications are significant. While some argue that shutdowns serve as a necessary reduction in government size, the evidence suggests otherwise. Agencies spend billions more on contractors to fill gaps, and government performance suffers, with inaccurate payments and reduced productivity costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Shutdowns are blunt instruments that demoralize the workforce and erode public trust in government efficiency. As the federal workforce faces another period of uncertainty, the broader implications for government accountability and service delivery remain a pressing concern.

The United States is bracing for its first government shutdown in nearly seven years, as Republicans and Democrats in Congress remain deadlocked over a new spending plan. The shutdown, which began on Wednesday, has triggered a bitter blame game between the two parties, with mass layoffs of federal workers expected within two days. Vice-President JD Vance, in a rare appearance at a White House briefing, accused Democrats of playing political games, while Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt warned of impending job cuts. Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have countered by accusing Republicans of attempting to ‘bully’ them into accepting their funding plan. The impasse centers on healthcare funding, with Democrats seeking guarantees for lower-income Americans, while Republicans advocate for a temporary stop-gap measure to keep the government open until mid-November. Essential workers, such as border agents and the military, may be forced to work without pay, while non-essential employees face temporary unpaid leave. Analysts predict this shutdown could be more severe than the 2018 episode, potentially affecting 750,000 federal workers. As both sides dig in, the economic and social repercussions of the shutdown loom large, with no immediate resolution in sight.

Female US Army veterans are refuting Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s assertion that combat role requirements will revert to the ‘highest male standard,’ emphasizing that standards have always been uniform regardless of gender. Speaking to hundreds of generals, Hegseth argued that previous adjustments to accommodate women had compromised military effectiveness and endangered personnel. He vowed to restore higher standards, even if it meant fewer women qualifying for combat roles. However, he clarified that women would not be entirely excluded from the armed forces. This announcement has sparked outrage among female veterans, who insist that combat standards have always been gender-neutral. Elisa Cardnell, a former US Navy officer, stated that assessments for combat roles have never considered gender or age. Combat standards vary by unit—special operations, infantry, armor, or pararescue—but all personnel must pass the same rigorous tests. Cardnell noted that while not all women meet these standards, neither do all men. Hegseth’s remarks have raised concerns about potential sweeping changes to military assessments, though details remain unclear. His critics, including Senator Tammy Duckworth, argue that his stance could harm recruitment and undermine women’s progress in the military. Duckworth, a combat pilot injured in Iraq, accused Hegseth of discrimination, given his own controversial confirmation as Defense Secretary. Despite the backlash, some female veterans and Republican lawmakers, such as Representative Sheri Biggs and Nancy Mace, support Hegseth’s efforts to prioritize excellence over diversity quotas. The debate underscores the ongoing tension between gender inclusivity and military readiness in the US armed forces.

The United States government has entered a shutdown in 2025, marking the first federal closure in nearly seven years. The crisis unfolded after the Senate failed to pass a spending bill, leaving federal operations severely curtailed. While the shutdown is expected to end eventually, the timeline remains uncertain, with public pressure and political maneuvering likely to play decisive roles in its resolution. Here are four potential scenarios for how the situation might unfold. Senate Democrats rejected a Republican-backed spending bill that would have funded the government until November. However, the vote revealed cracks in Democratic unity, as two Democrats and one independent aligned with the Republican majority. Among them was Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, who faces re-election in a state that has been trending Republican. Her vote, driven by concerns over the economic impact of the shutdown on Nevada, highlights the political risks for Democrats in battleground states. Other vulnerable Democrats in Georgia, Virginia, and Colorado may also feel the heat as the shutdown drags on. Republican Senate leader John Thune has signaled plans to hold additional funding votes to maintain pressure on Democrats. If five more Democrats defect, the shutdown could end regardless of the party’s broader stance. Meanwhile, the prolonged closure is already affecting government employees, who face delayed paychecks and potential job losses. The broader public will also feel the impact through reduced government services and economic disruption. Historically, the party seen as triggering the shutdown bears the brunt of public blame. In this case, Democrats may face criticism for their role in the impasse, potentially forcing them to reconsider their strategy. However, the party could find solace in highlighting Republican-backed cuts to health insurance subsidies for low-income Americans, a move that could resonate with voters. Republicans, emboldened by their perceived strength, are exploring ways to intensify pressure on Democrats. Yet, they risk overplaying their hand, as past shutdowns have often backfired on the party initiating them. A potential compromise could involve Republicans extending health insurance subsidies, a move that would benefit their own low-income constituents while defusing Democratic attacks. Despite the current acrimony, there may be room for negotiation. Both parties have engaged in heated rhetoric, with President Trump sharing AI-generated videos mocking opponents and Democrats responding with provocative imagery. The stakes are high, as the 2025 shutdown could surpass the record 35-day closure of 2018-2019, which ended only after air travel faced imminent disruption. This time, the consequences could be even more severe. If the shutdown persists, both parties may face public backlash, leading to electoral losses in the 2026 midterms. Such a scenario could further erode public trust in the political system, paving the way for new leaders promising to dismantle the status quo.

In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Lisa Cook can retain her position as a Federal Reserve governor, marking a setback for former President Donald Trump in his ongoing dispute with the central bank. The court, in an unsigned order, rejected Trump’s request to immediately remove Cook and scheduled arguments regarding her dismissal for January. Trump had announced in August his intention to fire Cook over allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has vehemently denied. Cook swiftly filed a lawsuit, arguing that her removal was unlawful and could pave the way for political interference in the traditionally independent Federal Reserve. Historically, no president has attempted to remove a Fed governor, as such actions can only be justified ‘for cause,’ a term that remains undefined in the law. A federal judge had previously placed a stay on her dismissal, a decision now upheld by the Supreme Court. Cook, appointed by President Biden, plays a crucial role on the board that sets the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate. The court’s ruling ensures she will participate in at least two more votes on potential rate cuts. Trump has accused Cook of falsifying a mortgage application prior to her appointment, but she contends that his real motive is her stance on monetary policy. The Federal Reserve recently announced its first rate cut in nearly a year, with Chair Jerome Powell emphasizing that the decision was driven by economic data rather than political pressure. The central bank’s ‘dual mandate’ focuses on controlling inflation and maximizing employment, with mortgage rates largely influenced by Treasury bond yields rather than direct Fed actions. Trump’s persistent criticism of the Fed and his unprecedented move to appoint White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to a temporary board vacancy underscore the ongoing tension between the administration and the central bank.