I do not see your arguments
US has worker protections, even if US government goes bancrupt, it has to pay its obligations. And if government refuses to pay, no worker, even if employed, is getting anything!
Also your last line is just bizarre. The US government can very much selectively pay some parties but not others during a shutdown. That's kind of the definition of a shutdown....
Plus this administration is already brazenly breaking laws. You think they won't violate worker protection laws? Sure, maybe the courts sort it out in a year or two, small comfort to the people who were relying on that income to pay their rent in the meantime.
If the government's offer is illegal, those who accepted it and performed their part of the contract may not be able to force the government to perform its part.
>And you think that an offer accepted by sending an email with "Resign" in the subject line is subject to these protections?
I'm saying that if you say "accept this agreement by sending 'Resign' in the subject line" and someone does so, that's a legally valid offer and acceptance of a contract. Are standards higher for the federal government on this?
Here's a quick blurb from a law firm blog, notice the "acts at its peril" language which is not the standard for private citizens contracting together:
"Authority Issues. Contract awards and contract modifications may be made on behalf of the government only by duly appointed contracting officers acting within the limits of both available funding and their delegated authority. This public policy principle of limited authority is strongly supported in the law. To the extent that a company incurs costs based upon the directions or promises of government persons without this essential authority, the company does so at its financial risk. Moreover, the contractor has the responsibility to know the scope of authority of the government official with whom it deals, and acts at its peril."
https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/publications/the-risks-a...
Even if the government exists, if Trump and Musk hold the payment system and you somehow get a judge to tell them to pay, they can just say no. Then what? Are you going to go Rambo? They hold a monopoly on violence and imprisonment.
This is why government's need to be set up with so many layers of indirect power and checks against direct power. this is why the military (should) have no role in governance.
Imagine Trump decided to offer a worker a trillion dollars. He writes a contract with the worker. It is irrelevant - the worker won't be paid because the executive branch is not allowed to spend money that hasn't been authorized by congress.
This is not the world being offered to them, so good luck doing anything but throwing money at lawyers.
everyone who thinks laws are just something you can invoke like magic should go sit down.