Which major programs (DoD, HHS, DHS) are affected by the 2025 continuing resolution?

1. Why the CR preserves FY2024 money but still rearranges priorities

The CR’s headline effect is to hold appropriations at FY2024 levels for most accounts, so nominal agency budgets carry forward into FY2025 under the same authorities and conditions unless the statute lists exceptions; that general rule is explicit in the section-by-section summary of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2025 (Division A of P.L. 119-4), which was published April 25, 2025 ^[1]. The measure includes a number of “anomalies” that deviate from that baseline, such as targeted increases or restrictions; those anomalies are what produce concrete program-level changes rather than a simple freeze. Advocates for a full-year CR warned that leaving appropriations at prior-year levels surrenders Congress’s annual priorities to executive implementation, while proponents argued it provides stability and prevents abrupt service interruptions ^{[5] [6]}.

2. DoD: production and procurement clamps that matter to weapons and readiness

The CR explicitly prevents the Department of Defense from using funds to initiate certain new or accelerated production activities and some multi-year procurements, a restriction that experts say can slow acquisition timelines and disrupt industrial base planning ^[2]. The CR also included a modest $6 billion increase in overall defense topline compared with non-defense cuts, but the procurement limitations create a practical ceiling on how fast programs can move even where topline allows more activity ^[6]. Defense analysts warn that while essential operations continue, delays to contract starts, shipbuilding schedules, and critical supplier volume commitments can have cascading effects into future years; supporters of the CR counter that the limits protect against unvetted pivoting by the executive branch during the interim funding period ^{[2] [7]}.

3. HHS: mixed extensions, furloughs, and program disruptions—Head Start and health extenders highlighted

HHS saw a complex mix of preserved authorities and immediate operational stress: the CR continued many program authorities but left some extenders expired, prompted contingency plans and large portions of staff furloughs, and disrupted scheduled funding for Head Start in over 40 states starting November 1, 2025 ^{[2] [3] [4]}. HHS internal planning in early October projected significant furloughs—roughly 41 percent overall and 47 percent for non-CMS offices—while CMS retained staff to run core entitlement functions if possible ^[4]. The CR also included specific extensions for programs such as autism and rare pediatric disease provisions and temporary Medicaid funding for the Northern Mariana Islands, yet advocacy groups and early-childhood providers documented immediate cash-flow problems for grantees when timely payments stopped, fueling urgent calls for stopgap legislation or appropriations ^{[2] [3]}.

4. DHS: temporary authorities preserved but gaps remain in aviation, cybersecurity, and task forces

For the Department of Homeland Security, the CR preserved a package of temporary authorities and continuations—including language covering unmanned aircraft system operations, continuance of certain joint task force functions, and interim cybersecurity support—but those provisions are patchwork and time-limited ^[2]. DHS operations classified as essential continued, but program executives reported that contract starts, grant disbursements, and longer-term investments in border and cyber capabilities were jeopardized by funding uncertainty; some nonessential staff were subject to furlough or reassignment to maintain core missions. Security analysts note that while the CR staves off an immediate operational collapse, it increases risk to multi-year modernization projects and grants that require multi-year commitments, consistent with DoD procurement concerns ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Competing narratives: stability versus neglect, and who bears responsibility

Supporters of the CR framed it as a pragmatic tool to maintain continuity and avoid abrupt service stoppages while Congress completed appropriations; critics argued that a full-year CR cedes policymaking authority, underfunds priority programs, and jeopardizes services that need growth rather than a freeze ^{[5] [1]}. As the October–November 2025 funding lapse produced immediate operational outcomes—furloughs, missed payments to Head Start, and litigation over SNAP contingency funds—the political debate hardened around whether Congress’s reliance on a CR and subsequent shutdown reflected strategic prudence or legislative failure. Observers on both sides have institutional incentives—agency leaders and advocacy groups emphasize operational harms, while budget hawks stress fiscal control—so readers should weigh those agendas when interpreting claims about program impacts ^{[3] [5]}.

Sources: Section-by-section CR summary and analyses of impacts ^{[1] [2]}, fiscal analyses and defense-focused commentary ^{[6] [7] [5]}, and contemporaneous reporting on HHS operations and Head Start disruptions during the October–November 2025 funding lapse ^{[8] [3] [4]}.