Why HUD Changed Its Language in 2025

There has been a significant shift in how HUD is framing its contingency planning in 2025 compared to its 2023 approach. While much of the plan’s content remains consistent across both years, the change in terminology from “shutdown” to “lapse in appropriations” reflects a broader shift in legal framing, internal audience, and strategic positioning.  

HUD’s 2025 contingency plan replaces the word “shutdown” with “lapse” in most instances and removes several staff-facing sections that were present in 2023. The word “shutdown” appeared 420 times in the 2023 plan but only 26 times in 2025. In contrast, the word “lapse” increased from 156 instances to 349. While “lapse in appropriation” and “government shutdown” are often used interchangeably, the terms refer to separate and distinct concepts.  

This change reflects a pivot toward compliance language aligned with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and Department of Justice (DOJ) legal opinions. It may also influence how furloughs are interpreted by courts and how unions frame employee protections.  

1. Legal Framework: The Anti-Deficiency Act and OMB Guidance

Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, federal agencies are prohibited from obligating funds once appropriations lapse. OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare and submit a “lapse plan.” While “shutdown” is commonly used in public and staff-facing documents, it does not appear in any statute. DOJ legal opinions from 1980, 1981, and 1995 confirm that “lapse in appropriations” is the legally binding term.  

HUD’s 2025 contingency plan follows this legal framing more closely than its 2023 plan. The move toward the term “lapse” supports statutory compliance and positions the plan as a legal document rather than a communications tool.  

2. Audience Shift: From Staff-Facing to Legal-Focused

The 2023 plan was written for staff, grantees, and the public. It included plain language explanations, reassurance about furlough procedures, and public-facing FAQs. The frequent use of “shutdown” helped clarify that services would pause and that employees would be temporarily furloughed.  

The 2025 plan appears to target a different audience. Its tone is legalistic and precise, written more for internal reviewers at OMB and other oversight bodies. It avoids emotionally charged or dramatic terms and frames the lapse as a matter of legal inevitability rather than organizational crisis.  

3. What Was Removed from the 2025 Plan

The most notable change between the 2023 and 2025 plans is the removal of key sections: “Shutdown Process,” “FAQs,” and “Internal and External Communications Plans”. These sections accounted for a large portion of the “shutdown” language in 2023 and were designed to help staff, stakeholders, and grantees understand what to expect.  

4. Courts and Unions: Why Terminology Matters 

Courts favor “lapse” because it anchors agency action in statute. Under the Anti-Deficiency Act, agencies are required to cease certain operations when appropriations are not available. When a contingency plan uses the term “lapse in appropriations,” it frames the agency’s decisions as legally mandated rather than discretionary. Courts are more likely to defer to those decisions as required by law, which limits the scope for challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act.  

Unions favor “shutdown” because it implies disruption caused by political actors, not legal obligation. During the 2019 funding gap, unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) filed lawsuits on behalf of excepted employees required to work without pay. They consistently described the event as a “shutdown,” emphasizing the hardship imposed and arguing for back pay and immediate reinstatement. While the courts did not base their rulings on the word choice itself, the framing helped unions present the closure as a temporary crisis that justified relief.  

In contrast, the use of “lapse” suggests a longer and more uncertain disruption. It implies statutory enforcement and shifts focus away from political accountability. This may reduce the effectiveness of arguments that furloughs must end promptly or that all employees are entitled to reinstatement. The more legally grounded tone of “lapse” also supports the government’s ability to defend its actions in court and may offer stronger footing if future workforce reductions are pursued. 

5. Reductions in Force: The Legal Implications  

Calling the event a “shutdown” creates an expectation of recall and return to normal operations once funding resumes. Framing it as a “lapse in appropriations” allows agencies to treat the funding gap as a statutory condition that may persist. This framing may strengthen the legal justification for staffing reductions if the lapse is prolonged or if budgets are restructured.  

Recent internal OMB memoranda have discussed the need to prepare for the possibility of reductions in force under the legal conditions of a lapse. This aligns with broader conversations about long-term agency restructuring currently under review in Congress.  

This policy shift does not mean that reductions in force will occur, but the language used may make it easier for agencies to defend such actions if they are pursued.  

6. Political and Policy Context  

The change in terminology aligns HUD’s 2025 plan with current federal messaging priorities. Using “lapse” shifts responsibility to Congress for failing to appropriate funds and lowers the public visibility of disruption. The removal of FAQs and staff communication templates reduces the material available to unions, employees, and the media when raising concerns about hardship or uncertainty.  

This approach reflects a broader strategy to emphasize compliance with legal obligations and reduce political liability for operational consequences.  

7. Key Insights for PHAs  

• The word “shutdown” appeared 420 times in HUD’s 2023 plan. In 2025, it appears only 26 times.  

• The word “lapse” appeared 156 times in 2023. In 2025, it appears 349 times.  

• “Lapse” is the statutory term used in the Anti-Deficiency Act. “Shutdown” carries no legal authority.  

• The 2025 plan removed several public-facing sections, including FAQs and communications plans.  

• The change in language supports legal defensibility for prolonged furloughs or reductions in force.  

• Unions and advocacy groups may have fewer communications tools to push back on staffing decisions.  

• Courts are more likely to defer to agency actions framed as compliance with law, not internal discretion.  

Implications for PHA Leadership  

While this change in terminology does not alter immediate funding mechanics for PHAs, it signals a shift in how federal agencies may manage workforce, communications, and stakeholder engagement in future lapses. PHA leadership should prepare for less staff-facing guidance from HUD during this and future lapses. You should also understand the evolving legal framing that may influence how federal decisions are challenged, justified, or enforced.