The illusion that government shutdowns don't really matter

When the most visible services continue, the incentives tilt toward brinkmanship

By Chris Lu

With the federal government reopened – at least until January 30 – it’s worth reflecting on why shutdowns have become an increasingly routine feature of American politics.

A central reason is the practice of exempting “essential” federal services from a shutdown. On the surface, maintaining core functions like national security, air traffic control, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, and Social Security payments seems entirely justified. In practice, however, this approach makes shutdowns more likely and obscures the everyday value of government, deepening public misunderstanding and distrust.

By law, agencies must separate “excepted” work – functions that protect life or property – from other federal services during a funding lapse. Unfortunately, this creates the mistaken impression that most federal work is optional or peripheral. If planes still fly, borders stay guarded, and Medicare benefits continue, how bad could a shutdown be? That illusion softens the immediate costs, making it easier for politicians to tolerate – or even weaponize – the threat of a shutdown. With the most visible services continuing during a shutdown, the incentives tilt toward brinkmanship rather than compromise.

This false distinction between essential and non-essential services also distorts public understanding of what the federal government actually does. The average person might barely notice a shutdown unless they were planning a trip to a Smithsonian museum or a national park. Meanwhile, the government work that is halted or delayed – scientific research; economic data collection; loan processing for farmers, home buyers and small businesses; environmental monitoring; routine food safety and workplace safety inspections – rarely generates instant outrage. Yet these functions form the foundations of economic stability and public well-being. Their absence exposes how deeply government supports daily life, from clean water and safe workplaces to reliable markets and innovation.

It’s no wonder that many Americans remain skeptical of the value of government or lack even a basic awareness of how much government does every day. A May 2024 Pew survey found only 22 percent trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time.” A 2024 survey by the Partnership for Public Service found that only 31 percent of respondents said the federal government has a positive impact, down from 42 percent in 2022. In the same survey, 66 percent said the federal government was incompetent, up from 56 percent in 2022.

That gap in public understanding is reinforced during shutdowns. Because the most prominent services continue, many people assume government isn’t doing much – or that interruptions don’t matter – when in reality, the damage accumulates quietly but decisively: stalled research, missing economic data, delayed permitting and licensing, and weakened health and safety protections. This invisibility makes shutdowns easier to trigger and harder to end.

One of the factors that finally pushed lawmakers to resolve the most recent shutdown was the looming suspension of SNAP benefits, a program that feeds 41 million Americans. Only when a widely used, tangible benefit was at risk did the political urgency shift.

A healthier approach would acknowledge that federal services are interconnected and that the line between “essential” and “non-essential” is artificial. Recognizing the full scope of what government does – and the full cost of interrupting it – would reduce the appeal of shutdown brinkmanship and help Americans understand how much they rely on a functioning federal workforce every day.

Chris Lu, a former U.S. ambassador and deputy secretary of labor, is the James R. Schlesinger Distinguished Professor at the Miller Center.