Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do continuing resolutions with amendments affect the federal budget deficit?
Executive summary
Continuing resolutions (CRs) with amendments can raise the federal deficit by locking in temporary funding levels, adding new spending or revenue changes, and creating inefficiencies that increase program costs; the net effect depends on the size and permanence of the amendments and how agencies respond. Recent legislative examples and budget projections show CRs sometimes substitute for full appropriations, can carry large, one-time cost additions (including proposals that would add up to $1.5 trillion), and create uncertainty that raises administrative costs and complicates deficit forecasting [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. What advocates and critics actually claimed — a concise map of assertions that matter
Analysts and lawmakers claim three related effects from CRs with amendments: first, that CRs maintain funding continuity but delay strategic allocation of resources, which alters outlays and program timing [1] [6]. Second, that amendments can directly change the deficit by adding substantive new authorizations or enhanced subsidies that increase outlays or reduce revenues — sometimes by very large amounts if enacted [2] [3]. Third, watchdogs and budget analysts argue CRs create administrative inefficiency and uncertainty that can increase costs and reduce value for money, indirectly widening deficits relative to on-time appropriations [5]. These three claims appear across the record: legal text and appropriations acts document funding changes, budget resolutions set broader fiscal baselines, and oversight reports highlight process-driven cost risks [1] [6] [5].
2. The mechanics: how a stopgap can become a deficit driver
A CR preserves prior-year or negotiated funding levels until full appropriations are passed but permits amendments that alter spending or revenue rules, creating the direct path to deficit impact [1] [2]. When an amendment authorizes expanded benefits or extends subsidies, those changes increase outlays immediately and in projected years; if not offset by revenue increases or spending cuts, the full amount flows into deficit projections [2] [3]. Indirectly, CRs can force agencies into short-term contracting, hiring freezes, or stop-start programs that raise operational costs and delay service delivery, shifting and sometimes increasing outlays relative to a well-timed appropriations cycle [5]. The net fiscal effect therefore mixes direct statutory cost changes and second-order operational inefficiencies that are harder to quantify.
3. What projections and oversight have found — the numbers and their limits
Budget scorekeepers and auditors offer partial but telling estimates. The Congressional Budget Office’s aggregate figures frame the backdrop — a $1.8 trillion deficit in fiscal 2025 with revenues and outlays moving in different directions — showing that CRs operate inside a larger fiscal trend where modest policy changes can matter [4]. GAO and CRS analyses emphasize process costs and uncertainty rather than a uniform, predictable deficit increase from CRs, noting that effects vary by agency and amendment content [5] [7]. Recent appropriations acts and reconciliation proposals demonstrate the range: some CR amendments are modest stopgaps, while other measures proposed in reopening bills could represent unprecedented, large-scale additions to deficits if enacted [1] [2] [3].
4. Politics, process, and the hidden fiscal consequences lawmakers ignore
Chronic reliance on CRs reflects political impasses and systemic failure to pass timely appropriations, which itself shifts fiscal outcomes [8] [5]. Parties use CRs as leverage: one side frames amendments as necessary program extensions, the other warns of fiscal excess; both strategic choices shape the eventual deficit outcome [2] [3]. This political calculus can produce large reopening packages—some proposals would add major long-term costs—while simultaneously reducing transparency and difficult trade-offs that full appropriations would force into public debate [3] [6]. The agenda-setting power of amendment riders means deficit impact often reflects bargaining priorities rather than a neutral budgeting process.
5. Uncertainties policymakers and analysts must monitor
Estimating the deficit impact of a particular CR with amendments requires tracking three moving parts: the explicit dollar cost of amendments, the degree to which they are permanent versus temporary, and the operational effects on agencies that change outlay timing or program efficiency [2] [5]. Long-term budget baselines and reconciliation processes can magnify or mitigate initial effects: a one-year subsidy extension may lower near-term revenues or raise outlays, and if extended it compounds across budget windows [4] [6]. Oversight reports caution that average measures hide distributional and programmatic variance; some CRs impose heavy costs on specific programs while producing little net change elsewhere [5].
6. Bottom line: what the evidence supports and what to watch next
The evidence supports a clear conditional conclusion: CRs with amendments do not automatically nor uniformly increase the deficit, but when amendments add substantive spending or reduce revenues without offsets, they raise projected deficits materially, and chronic CR usage compounds fiscal friction and uncertainty [1] [2] [4] [5]. Watch two signals going forward: official scorekeeping by the CBO and enacted amendment cost estimates, and oversight reports documenting agency inefficiencies from stopgap funding. Those measures together will show whether a particular CR is a temporary budgeting convenience or a driver of larger, lasting deficit increases [4] [5].