By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On the first day of the US government shutdown, employees at the Department of Education (DOE) discovered their automatic out-of-office email responses had been altered to include partisan language, blaming Senate Democrats for the shutdown. This change was made without employee consent, with some employees attempting to revert to neutral language only to have it changed back. The DOE’s human resources had originally provided employees with neutral out-of-office language, as did the Small Business Administration and, according to sources and screenshots reviewed by WIRED, the Department of Labor. The altered message explicitly placed blame on Senate Democrats.
Read the original article here
Government workers are reporting a disturbing trend: their out-of-office email replies were forcibly altered to blame Democrats for the government shutdown. This alleged act, which unfolded during the shutdown, has triggered concerns about compelled speech, Hatch Act violations, and the erosion of government employees’ rights.
The crux of the matter lies in how these automatic email responses were changed. Initially, many employees at the Department of Education, for instance, set their OOO messages to a neutral tone, informing recipients about the shutdown and their inability to respond promptly. However, sources say these messages were later manipulated, with the text being replaced by language explicitly assigning blame to Senate Democrats. This alteration, implemented without employee consent, has raised eyebrows and is being called a violation of individual rights.
The scale of the problem seems to be expanding, with reports suggesting that similar changes were observed in the Small Business Administration and the Department of Labor. Guidance provided by these agencies, which initially offered neutral or employee-friendly OOO message options, was also reportedly altered to assign blame to the Democrats. Some employees, upon noticing these changes, attempted to revert their messages back to their original state, only to have them changed again.
One particular version of the altered message read: “Thank you for contacting me. On September 19, 2025, the House of Representatives passed HR 5371, a clean continuing resolution. Unfortunately, Democrat Senators are blocking passage of HR 5371 in the Senate which has led to a lapse in appropriations. Due to the lapse in appropriations I am currently in furlough status. I will respond to emails once government functions resume.” This message leaves no doubt as to where the responsibility for the shutdown lies, and it’s an action that has angered many employees who find it a breach of trust.
The implications of these actions are significant. Critics argue that this alteration of official communications constitutes compelled speech, effectively forcing government employees to express a political viewpoint they may not agree with. Such behavior can be considered a violation of the First Amendment, and it’s certainly not consistent with the principles of neutrality and objectivity expected of government workers.
Furthermore, the alleged actions are bringing the Hatch Act into question. The Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities while on duty. Changing the content of government employees’ emails to include partisan language could be seen as a violation of this act, especially when it’s being used to influence the public’s perception of the reasons behind a political impasse.
Legal scholars and commentators have also weighed in, calling this a concerning development. The ability of the government to alter email communications without consent, they argue, sets a dangerous precedent. It could lead to a situation where any aspect of government communications could be fabricated. The alterations can potentially have implications that go far beyond out-of-office replies and could be seen as a manipulation of public records.
Those who have spoken out about the issue have called for investigations and accountability. There is a general sentiment that these actions could be an attempt to control the narrative of the shutdown and to deflect responsibility from those causing the issue. Many are also questioning the legality of these actions and whether a lawsuit would be a successful pursuit for the government employees involved.
The response to this situation has been varied, with some expressing outrage and others suggesting there is no recourse. Many critics note that the Trump administration has become known for behavior they see as lawless. They believe this is yet another example of its tactics to advance their own agenda.
The situation also opens the question of potential remedies. With the shutdown, any government employee who can oppose this kind of behavior can not work or be paid to do so. This presents a serious problem for government workers who seek to exercise their first amendment rights. Those who are in support of this type of manipulation are being compensated.
In conclusion, the reported alteration of government workers’ out-of-office email replies to blame Democrats for the shutdown has sparked a controversy that runs far deeper than simple office politics. It touches on the core values of free speech, government ethics, and the proper conduct of public officials. This is a matter that deserves scrutiny and demands swift resolution to restore confidence in the integrity of government communications.