HUD blames radical left for government shutdown

On October 1, 2025, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development prominently displayed a message on its website blaming the radical left in Congress for a government shutdown that was imminent. This banner was posted just hours before the shutdown was set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Following the failure of the Senate to pass a short-term funding bill, lawmakers from both sides have been exchanging blame regarding the shutdown. The House had already passed a funding bill, and the dispute primarily centers around additional policy demands raised by Democrats. The banner claimed that unless the radical left received $1.5 trillion in demands, they would inflict severe consequences on the American public. The language used in the message drew heavy criticism; anti-partisan ethics group Public Citizen called it a blatant violation of the Hatch Act, which restricts certain political activities of government employees to maintain nonpartisan administration of federal programs. Craig Holman, an expert with Public Citizen, emphasized the partisan nature of this messaging and raised concerns regarding its implications for ethics in governmental communications. Holman proceeded to file a formal complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, arguing that the message on HUD's homepage was not only inappropriate but also aimed to idolize the Trump administration without imparting any responsibility for the shutdown on the current party in power. Ethicists argue that such communications damage the credibility of federal agencies by injecting political rhetoric into their operations. Additionally, this incident is part of a broader trend as similar partisan messaging has emerged across various federal agencies. Emails circulated among different departments have echoed similar themes, attributing the shutdown to the Democrats' unwillingness to negotiate. The guidance for these communications was said to have come from the White House Office of Management and Budget. The ethics of such communications are under scrutiny as critics argue they undermine the basis for impartial governance and accountability in federal services.