The IRS’s sudden reversal on back pay for furloughed workers has sparked confusion and raised serious questions about federal employee rights during government shutdowns. Initially, the IRS had assured furloughed employees that they would receive back pay for the period they were forced to stop working due to the shutdown — but then quickly pulled back that statement, directing the matter to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clarification.
On Thursday, the IRS issued a statement on X (formerly known as Twitter), acknowledging that a previous memo they circulated contained incorrect information about the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019 and its implications for compensation during non-duty, non-pay status. Instead of directly guaranteeing back pay, the agency now said that an office under the president—the OMB—will release updated guidance, leaving employees uncertain about their financial protection.
The IRS’s statement said, “An earlier memo circulated on furlough guidance incorrectly stated the nature of the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 as it relates to compensation for non-pay and non-duty status.” They added, “OMB will provide further guidance on this issue, you will be updated accordingly.”
Neither the IRS nor the OMB responded to requests for further comment on this evolving situation. However, this announcement follows a leaked draft memo from the OMB which indicated that furloughed federal workers might not be entitled to back pay during a government shutdown. This raised eyebrows because it challenges the widely held assumption that GEFTA automatically secures pay for workers who are involuntarily furloughed.
The draft memo, first brought to public attention by Axios on Tuesday, suggests that any back pay owed to furloughed employees depends on Congress passing appropriations that cover the shutdown period. In other words, paychecks might be delayed or even denied if appropriations bills are stalled. This contradicts earlier IRS guidance issued on Wednesday, which stated clearly that GEFTA "requires" federal employees to be paid for the time they are furloughed or asked to work during a lapse in government funding.
According to the IRS’s Wednesday notice, "Although you will be placed in non-pay and non-duty status during the furlough, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019 requires employees of the federal government who are furloughed or required to work during a lapse in appropriations to be compensated for the period of the lapse." The notice further emphasized that payment must be made “at the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates,” and additionally indicated that employees who work during the shutdown could use leave.
Curiously, employees reported that by Thursday, this Wednesday guidance was removed from their inboxes automatically, adding more fuel to the uncertainty around how these policies will be enforced.
For context, the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act was enacted during the first Trump administration following the protracted 35-day shutdown at the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019, aiming to guarantee compensation to affected federal workers. Yet this new back-and-forth reveals cracks in the clear understanding of the law’s reach and enforcement.
Adding to the controversy, President Trump recently implied that while many furloughed workers would receive back pay, some might not. His comment, “But for the most part, we’re going to take care of our people,” paired with the cryptic, “There are some people that really don’t deserve to be taken care of. And we’ll take care of them in a different way,” leaves room for interpretation—and debate—about who qualifies for compensation and who might be excluded.
This evolving situation begs the question: Should all federal employees automatically be guaranteed back pay during shutdowns, or should discretion be applied? Are current laws and memos protecting workers’ rights adequately, or are they leaving too much open to interpretation and political maneuvering?
The debate is far from settled, and as further clarification from OMB looms, federal employees and the public alike are watching closely to see how this plays out. What do you think? Should back pay be guaranteed without question, or is there a valid argument for selective compensation based on circumstances? Share your thoughts below—this is one conversation that deserves a closer look.
