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.
Which federal programs would see funding increases or cuts under the clean CR compared to the 2025 proposal?
Executive Summary
A clean continuing resolution (CR) generally preserves most federal programs at prior-year (FY2025) funding levels but includes targeted exceptions and short-term extensions that can increase funding for specific priorities such as security and certain expiring health and veterans authorities; the available texts and reporting show the clean CR largely maintains FY2025 baseline spending while carving out extra funding for security and selected programs [1] [2]. Independent analyses and advocacy groups highlight competing visions: Republican-authored measures emphasize holding spending at 2025 levels with modest defense increases, while Democratic proposals seek targeted expansions (notably in healthcare) and reversals of prior cuts, creating sharp differences over which programs would see increases or cuts under competing approaches [2] [3].
1. What the clean CR actually does: “Mostly status quo, with a few add-ons”
The statutory language attached to the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act for FY2026 shows the core mechanism of a clean CR is to fund agencies at FY2025 levels, pausing new appropriations and preserving existing budgetary directives while including limited exceptions and expirations extended through the short-term funding window. That text explicitly continues most programs at prior-year rates but authorizes extra funding for security for federal officials and extends several expiring public health, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans, and cybersecurity authorities, reflecting Congress’s pragmatic choices to avert service disruptions rather than enact broad new priorities [1]. This approach reduces the immediate risk of programmatic cuts but leaves agencies without new increases sought in FY2026 appropriations debates.
2. Where increases are most likely: security, select health and veterans items
Across reporting and the CR language, the clearest increases or special extensions appear for security-related spending and discrete public-health and veterans authorities. Both Republican and Democratic CR versions included additional funding for security for federal officials, a politically salient item during shutdown negotiations. The CR extends expiring public-health authorities and Medicare/Medicaid provisions and preserves funding for certain veteran programs and cybersecurity efforts—items that practical governance and bipartisan priorities push to maintain. Advocacy groups and party leaders framed these add-ons differently: Democrats argue some add-ons restore prior cuts or support vulnerable populations, while Republicans emphasize minimal, targeted increases rather than broad program expansions [1] [2].
3. What would be cut or constrained: discretionary priorities and program expansions
A clean CR’s default effect is to prevent year-over-year program expansions and cement prior reductions, so any FY2026 initiatives (new housing vouchers, expanded NIH or CDC programs, education or environmental increases) proposed in the 2025 appropriations effort would not receive funding increases under the CR. Analyses warn that a year-long or multi-month CR can constrain military recruitment, block renewal of housing vouchers, and stall health and social program adjustments, effectively functioning as a freeze that disadvantages programs needing growing resources or new policy direction. Critics note that the CR cedes policymaking primacy to prior-year baselines and can delay or reduce services for veterans, low-income families, and public-health responses when new needs arise [4] [5].
4. Competing political narratives: “clean CR as stability” vs “clean CR as a hidden cut”
Republican and business groups have portrayed the clean CR as a necessary step to reopen government and avoid economic harm, arguing that maintaining FY2025 levels offers certainty for agencies and markets. Opponents—some Democratic lawmakers and policy groups—frame a CR as effectively a cut relative to planned FY2026 priorities, because it blocks appropriations that would expand or restore programs. Conservative groups have also attacked Democratic proposals that include new healthcare spending as partisan largesse, while Democratic-aligned organizations emphasize protecting public-health, housing, and social safety-net provisions. These competing framings show how the same fiscal mechanics—baseline freezes plus limited exceptions—can be presented as stability or as austerity depending on political aims [6] [2] [3].
5. Bottom line for policymakers and affected programs
For most federal programs, the clean CR means no immediate increases compared with FY2025 and continued operations at those levels, with targeted exceptions for security, expiring public-health authorities, Medicare/Medicaid tweaks, veterans programs, and cybersecurity. Programs that had been slated for expansion in FY2026—housing voucher renewals, certain health research and public-health initiatives, and education/environmental increases—would not see new funding under the CR and may effectively be cut relative to enacted FY2026 proposals. Stakeholders should track final CR text and parallel full-year appropriations negotiations: the short-term CR buys time but does not resolve disputes over priorities that determine which programs will receive increases or face cuts in the full FY2026 budget process [1] [3] [4].