The bill adds a new subsection to 31 U.S.C. §1341 to create a statutory reimbursement program for individuals and States harmed by gaps in appropriations. It defines covered individuals (furloughed employees, excepted employees who worked without pay, and contractor employees put on unpaid leave), defines “shutdown costs” to include loan and credit-card fees, fines, and interest caused by lost pay, and sets claim, documentation, and payment rules.
The measure is significant because it shifts some direct financial consequences of federal shutdowns onto an express, federally administered claims process and a named Reserve Fund. That changes both the immediate relief available to affected workers and the practical fiscal and administrative burden Congress and Treasury would face after multi-week shutdowns.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 31 U.S.C. §1341 by adding a new subsection that: (1) defines covered employees and shutdown costs; (2) requires Treasury to reimburse eligible shutdown costs for the October 1, 2025 lapse (subject to subsequent appropriations) and for future lapses of 14 days or longer; (3) reimburses States for certain assistance payments within 90 days; and (4) establishes a Reserve Fund for Employees Affected By Government Shutdowns, funded only by subsequent appropriations.
Who It Affects
Directly affected parties are furloughed federal employees, excepted employees required to work, employees of federal contractors placed on unpaid leave, District of Columbia public-employer employees, and States/territories (including tribes) that front federally funded assistance during shutdowns. Treasury (and whoever it delegates to) would administer claims and documentation review.
Why It Matters
The bill creates an explicit federal pathway to compensate shutdown-related non-wage losses and to reimburse state cash outlays, reducing the immediate financial exposure of workers and some governments. At the same time it creates a new contingent fiscal exposure requiring future appropriations and an administrative apparatus for claims and verification.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The statute adds a new subsection to the federal anti-deficiency framework that recognizes two categories of beneficiaries and two categories of payments. First, individual ‘‘covered employees’’—defined to include furloughed federal workers, District of Columbia public-employer staff, excepted employees who worked during a lapse, and employees of federal contractors placed on unpaid leave—may submit claims for ‘‘shutdown costs.’u2019 The bill specifies those costs broadly to include expenses tied to loans and credit cards and associated fees, fines, or interest that arise because the employee could not make payments due to unpaid time because of a lapse in appropriations.
For the specific lapse beginning on or about October 1, 2025, the bill directs that covered employees be paid at the earliest date practicable after enactment, but explicitly conditions payments on the later enactment of appropriations acts that end the lapse. For future lapses it sets a materiality threshold: reimbursement eligibility attaches only to lapses lasting 14 days or longer, and payments are conditioned on the availability of appropriations after the lapse ends.The bill also creates a mechanism for States and territories (the statute’s ‘‘State’’ definition is expansive and includes territories and Indian Tribes) to recover certain expenditures they made for assistance programs that the Federal Government would otherwise have provided.
Those State claims must be paid no later than 90 days after the lapse ends, unless the State is already reimbursed under another law (for example, an existing federal unemployment compensation program). Both individual and State claimants must apply to the Secretary of the Treasury within one year after the lapse ends; the Secretary decides what documentation will be required to verify claimed costs.To make these reimbursements administratively visible, the bill establishes a named Reserve Fund in the general fund of the Treasury—the Reserve Fund for Employees Affected By Government Shutdowns—but it expressly makes access to payments subject to amounts appropriated into that Fund.
The practical effect is that the statute creates an entitlement-like claim process but does not itself appropriate money; actual payments depend on later congressional appropriations and Treasury administration of claims and documentation requirements.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a “covered employee” to include furloughed federal or D.C. public-employer workers, excepted employees who were required to work during a lapse, and employees of federal contractors placed on unpaid leave.
“Shutdown cost” is defined to cover direct costs from a lapse in appropriations, explicitly naming loan and credit‑card expenses and fees, fines, or interest caused by inability to make payments due to lost salary.
It applies retroactively to the lapse beginning on or about October 1, 2025—payments for that lapse are to be made as soon as practicable after enactment but remain subject to enactment of appropriations ending the lapse.
For future lapses, the statute only triggers reimbursements for lapses of 14 days or longer; States’ expenditures for fronting assistance are reimbursable within 90 days after the lapse ends, unless reimbursed under other law.
The bill establishes a Treasury Reserve Fund for Employees Affected By Government Shutdowns to receive appropriations for payments and requires claimants to apply to the Secretary of the Treasury within one year, with Treasury setting documentation standards.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — who is covered and what counts as a shutdown cost
This opening paragraph supplies the core definitions the program uses. It identifies three distinct classes of covered employees (furloughed federal/D.C. public-employer employees, excepted employees who worked, and contractor employees placed on unpaid leave) and defines “shutdown cost” narrowly around financial harms directly caused by loss of pay—loan/credit‑card charges and resultant fees, fines, or interest. The statute also adopts an expansive definition of “State” that includes territories and Indian Tribes, ensuring broad geographic reach.
Payment timing and threshold rules for individuals
This paragraph creates two timing rules: it directs Treasury to pay eligible costs for the October 1, 2025 lapse as soon as possible after enactment (but still conditioned on passage of appropriations that end the lapse), and it limits future individual reimbursements to lapses lasting 14 days or more, with payments subject to available appropriations. Practically, that means eligibility is automatic in statute but actual cash flow depends on later appropriation action and Treasury’s administrative schedule.
State reimbursements for front‑facing assistance
This provision requires reimbursement to States (broadly defined) for State funds spent providing programs the federal government would otherwise have provided during a qualifying lapse; payments must be made within 90 days after the lapse ends. There is a built‑in exclusion for State expenditures that are already reimbursed under other federal law (for example, where unemployment compensation or another program already covers the cost).
Claims, documentation, and deadlines
Claimants—individuals and States—must apply to the Secretary of the Treasury within one year after the lapse ends. Treasury has discretion to prescribe claim forms and to set documentation requirements to verify shutdown costs or State expenditures. Once the Secretary approves a claim, reimbursement follows subject to the statutory conditions (notably availability of appropriations). This delegates substantial administrative discretion to Treasury.
Reserve Fund for Employees Affected By Government Shutdowns
The bill creates a named Reserve Fund in the general fund to hold amounts appropriated after enactment for the purpose of paying covered shutdown costs in future qualifying lapses. The Fund is a receptacle for appropriations only; the statute does not itself appropriate money into it. That design separates the statutory entitlement pathway from the political decision to actually fund payments.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Furloughed federal and D.C. public‑employer employees: they can seek reimbursement for out‑of‑pocket costs (late fees, interest) caused by unpaid furloughs, reducing personal financial harm from multi‑week shutdowns.
- Excepted employees required to work during shutdowns: these workers can claim direct financial harms incurred while working without pay, aligning relief with people who face both lost wages and operational obligations.
- Employees of federal contractors placed on unpaid leave: the bill extends protection beyond direct federal employees to contractor workforces who often lack the same union or leave protections.
- State, territorial, and tribal governments: States that front federally funded assistance during qualifying lapses may recover certain expenditures (subject to exclusions), easing short‑term local budget pressure.
- Workers’ creditors and lenders (indirectly): by enabling reimbursement of fees and interest, the bill can reduce the long‑term default risk tied to shutdown‑related missed payments, preserving workers’ credit trajectories.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (Congress/Taxpayers): actual cash payments require subsequent appropriations into the Reserve Fund, creating potential new outlays tied to shutdown events.
- Department of the Treasury: Treasury must build or expand claims processing, set documentation standards, adjudicate claims, and manage payments, adding administrative workload and potential litigation risk.
- Federal contractors and their payroll departments: contractors will continue to front payroll or bear employee cash‑flow impacts until reimbursement is processed and may have to assist employees with documentation.
- State and local governments: while ultimately reimbursable, States must front assistance payments and compile claim documentation within tight timelines (one‑year filing, 90‑day payment target), creating short‑term cash and administrative burdens.
- Congressional appropriations committees and OMB: lawmakers will face new pressures to allocate funds for reimbursements post‑shutdown and to assess long‑term fiscal exposure created by the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize shielding workers and state programs from the concrete financial harms of shutdowns—by creating a federal reimbursement mechanism—or to preserve the political and fiscal deterrents that make shutdowns costly for the government as a bargaining tool; the bill mitigates individual harms but shifts uncertain fiscal and administrative burdens onto future appropriations and Treasury administration.
The bill creates a statutory right to reimbursement but couples that right to subsequent appropriations and Treasury administration. That structure produces two operational tensions: claimants have a statutory pathway to relief, but actual payment timing and certainty depend on later political decisions about funding the Reserve Fund.
Treasury’s discretion over documentation and claim approval is wide; without clear, standardized proof requirements the program could produce inconsistent outcomes across claimants and create significant administrative backlogs.
The 14‑day threshold for future lapses reduces the number of small interruptions that trigger claims, but it also raises questions about proportionality (a 13‑day lapse can still inflict severe financial harm on individuals). The statute excludes State reimbursements that are covered by other federal law, which avoids double recovery but creates complexity in applying overlapping programs (for example, when unemployment benefits cover some but not all costs claimed).
Including contractor employees broadens coverage but invites disputes over whether employers or the federal government are the appropriate payor for interim costs, and whether contractor payroll practices satisfy documentation requirements.
Finally, the Reserve Fund’s existence does not guarantee funding; Congress must appropriate funds into it. That means the bill reduces immediate personal hardship only to the extent Congress follows through with appropriations and Treasury delivers timely administration.
The combination of retroactive application to a recent lapse, a one‑year claim deadline, and the Secretary’s discretion on proof creates a high risk of administrative bottlenecks, contested claims, and litigation over what costs are ‘‘direct’’ results of a lapse.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.