Which federal agencies had full‑year FY2026 appropriations versus CR coverage, and how does that change shutdown impacts?
Executive summary
Congress ended the November 2025 shutdown by enacting a mixed funding package: three appropriations titles received full‑year FY2026 appropriations (Agriculture; Military Construction and Veterans Affairs; and the Legislative Branch), while most other agencies were kept on a continuing resolution (CR) that ran through January 30, 2026 (or until enactment of the applicable full‑year bill) [1] [2] [3]. Subsequent action in January 2026 produced additional full‑year laws for Commerce‑Justice‑Science, Energy and Water, and Interior and Environment, and the House passed measures to fund other clusters, leaving the federal government “partially appropriated” and altering which programs face shutdown risk and which do not [1] [4].
1. Which agencies received full‑year FY2026 appropriations and why that matters
Congress explicitly enacted full‑year FY2026 appropriations for Agriculture (including USDA and related agencies), Military Construction‑Veterans Affairs (MilCon‑VA), and the Legislative Branch as part of the November package that ended the shutdown, guaranteeing funding for those programs through September 30, 2026 [1] [3]; later January legislation extended full‑year status to the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) cluster, Energy and Water, and Interior and Environment, moving those agencies off the immediate CR cliff [1]. Full‑year laws matter because they remove furlough and contingency limbo for agencies, allow multi‑year planning (e.g., multiyear contracts, grant disbursements, hiring), and often include programmatic changes—whereas CRs typically freeze funding at prior levels and constrain discretionary flexibility [3] [5].
2. Which agencies remained on CR coverage and the practical limits of that status
At the time the CR was enacted in November 2025, nine of the 12 appropriations bills were funded through a CR that kept most agencies at FY2025 levels through January 30, 2026, covering large swaths of civilian agencies including international affairs, health programs, and many Justice/agency line items not later enacted into full laws [2] [6]. The CR is not a full fix: it funds broadly at prior rates but carries exceptions, account‑specific anomalies, and administrative provisos that can reduce, shift, or temporarily expand authorities for certain programs, meaning CR coverage can still change operational details even absent a shutdown [2] [3].
3. How the split funding picture changes shutdown impacts on operations
When some agencies are fully appropriated and others are on a short‑term CR, a future lapse would create asymmetrical outcomes: fully appropriated agencies continue normal operations through the fiscal year, while CR‑covered agencies would face the standard shutdown mechanics—possible furloughs, constraints on new grants and contracts, and reduced discretionary activity—unless specific statutory exceptions apply [2] [3]. That “partial funding” state reduces the scope of immediate disruption compared with an all‑agency lapse but concentrates political pressure on continuing‑funded departments and their stakeholders, raising the stakes for whichever appropriations clusters remain unresolved [2] [7].
4. Which programs remain uniquely exposed even under a CR
CR language often contains targeted exceptions and anomalies—such as special authority for disaster response, cybersecurity protections, or caps on agency fees—that either preserve critical functions or restrict activity compared with a regular appropriation; CRS and committee summaries catalog these account‑specific provisions, underscoring that CR coverage is not equivalent to normal appropriations for many line items [2] [8]. For example, the CR preserved certain disaster relief and cybersecurity authorizations for DHS and allowed apportioned funding rules intended to prevent furloughs during the short CR period, but agencies still could not accelerate grant obligations without specific allowances [9] [8].
5. Politics, timing, and hidden agendas shaping which agencies were spared
Legislative choices about which bills to finish reflect politics: agriculture and veterans programs historically draw bipartisan support and were prioritized to blunt coalition pressure, while complex or contentious clusters—LHHS, State/Foreign Operations, and certain national security funding—remained on CRs as leverage in inter‑chamber negotiations, a point CRS and policy trackers note as the process unfolded [1] [4]. Advocacy groups and fiscal wonks interpret these splits through competing lenses—some argue full‑year bills lock in needed program increases, others see them as bargaining chips or opportunities to enact policy riders—so the selection of bills for full enactment reveals both pragmatic governance choices and partisan strategy [4] [10].
6. What to watch next and the practical takeaways
Because the CR that ended the shutdown explicitly set an early 2026 expiration and Congress followed with additional full‑year enactments in January, the near‑term risk shifted: agencies already enacted into law are insulated for FY2026, while the remaining CR‑covered agencies remain vulnerable to operational disruptions if Congress cannot finish the remaining bills or a stopgap extension [1] [2]. Absent new information beyond these sources, it is not possible here to catalog every remaining account‑level exposure; CRS and appropriations status tables remain the authoritative, updating references for which specific programs remain under CR constraints [11] [2].