White House officials have begun mapping out an aggressive contingency plan to dismiss hundreds, perhaps thousands, of federal workers if Congress allows a government shutdown to unfold, according to people familiar with the discussions. The prospect of mass firings — distinct from the standard furloughs that accompany funding gaps — has alarmed Democrats, career civil servants and legal scholars who say such a move would test the limits of presidential authority and the protections of the federal merit system.

Administration aides framed the effort as a blunt contingency: if appropriations lapse, the executive would not merely pause operations but selectively eliminate positions to reshape the federal workforce. Critics say the strategy would weaponize a routine budgetary standoff to pursue political ends, undermining the nonpartisan civil service that administers everything from food safety inspections to veterans’ benefits.

Compounding those domestic concerns, Pete Hegseth, a former Army Ranger turned conservative media figure and White House ally, summoned an unusually large meeting of active-duty generals and admirals in what participants described as a rare and urgent gathering. The session — which included scores of senior officers — prompted unease among defense officials and lawmakers who invoked longstanding norms that separate partisan politics from military leadership.

A former senior Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the meeting as “a troubling conflation of political objectives and military stature.” Legal experts warn that while senior officers can and do interact with civilian leaders, coordinated efforts to marshal military figures around a partisan agenda risk eroding the apolitical standing essential to U.S. civil-military relations.

Internationally, President Trump’s reception of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in the White House this week injected further complexity. The summit underscored Washington’s transactional view of alliances: Erdoğan sought reassurances on trade, defense procurement and U.S. posture in Syria even as human-rights groups pressed for tougher stances on Ankara’s domestic repression.

For NATO partners, the optics were difficult. Turkey remains a pivotal member bordering Russia and the Middle East, and Erdoğan’s outreach to Washington amid remarks that appeared to downplay democratic backsliding unsettled European capitals. “America’s treatment of allied leaders sends signals beyond bilateral deals,” a European diplomat said. “When U.S. domestic politics begin to blend with foreign policy choreography, allies recalibrate.”

Legal scholars and former government officials say the combination of domestic purge planning and the politicization of military leaders could have long-term consequences for governance. “The robustness of U.S. institutions depends on predictable, nonpartisan administration of government and on clear boundaries between civilian political objectives and the military,” one constitutional scholar said.

As lawmakers prepare for renewed budget battles, congressional Democrats have promised oversight and, if necessary, litigation to block any mass firings. Meanwhile, allies will be watching whether the United States’ internal political maneuvers alter its reliability on the world stage. The convergence of domestic contingency planning, high-level military engagement and a high-profile visit by an allied strongman has produced a rare moment in which internal strategy and foreign policy appear dangerously intertwined.