How does the 2025 continuing resolution affect military and veterans’ spending versus domestic programs?

1. Why the Continuing Resolution Freezes Spending and What That Means for the Pentagon

The continuing resolution (CR) approach funds accounts at FY2024 enacted levels or at specified formulas, which means the Department of Defense largely operates under a status-quo budget instead of the Biden administration’s FY2025 request; independent analyses indicate the CR leaves defense near FY2024 amounts and is about $10 billion below the administration’s ask, effectively constraining new procurement starts and production ramps ^{[3] [1]}. The CR mechanism protects ongoing operations and personnel pay but creates risk for program schedules because contractors and program offices cannot assume additional funding for expansions, modernization efforts, or increases in procurement that the administration sought for FY2025 ^[3]. Republican legislative summaries, however, report a variant that increases defense by $6 billion relative to FY2024 while cutting many nondefense accounts, signaling an override of the pure freeze model in favor of higher near-term military funding for committee priorities ^[2].

2. Where Veterans’ Funding Lands: Maintenance, Benefits, and Constraints

Appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies are financed under the CR framework with mixed outcomes: committee-level numbers show a sizable discretionary allocation — for instance, a reported $129.563 billion total for VA and related agencies in one FY25 committee bill — but the CR generally locks funding at FY2024 enacted levels rather than the administration’s requested increases, meaning benefit programs and health services maintain baseline operations but see limited room for new initiatives ^{[4] [1]}. Because many veterans’ programs also rely on mandatory and trust-fund accounts not subject to CR limits, front-line veterans’ benefits continue, yet capital projects, facility modernizations, and new program expansions face delays or flat funding that can compound upkeep backlogs and postpone planned improvements ^{[4] [1]}. The tension is political: Republican CR presentations emphasize constraining nondefense discretionary growth even as veterans’ health and construction accounts appear funded at committee allocations ^[2].

3. The Domestic Programs Trade-Off: Cuts, Extensions, and Political Choices

Across analyses, the CR is associated with reductions or freezes for nondefense domestic programs, with one Republican description citing $13 billion in cuts to nondefense discretionary programs compared with FY2024 enacted levels, a policy choice that shifts scarce discretionary room toward defense priorities or deficit restraint ^[2]. The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act text primarily extends FY2024 levels for many domestic agencies, preserving essential services but preventing expansions sought in the FY2025 budget, including in health, education, and social services; that creates a de facto prioritization where only preexisting program baselines persist and new legislative priorities stall ^[1]. The practical result is predictable: domestic program administrators face flat ceilings during the fiscal year, while congressional maneuvers can reallocate marginal increases to defense in politically driven package variants ^[2].

4. Shutdown Risks, Personnel Impacts, and Contingency Realities

A continuing resolution reduces shutdown risk by funding agencies, but the analyses note ongoing shutdown dynamics elsewhere in 2025 that illustrate vulnerabilities: military personnel remain obligated to work during lapses while many civilian employees face furloughs, and a CR that ultimately fails or is followed by a lapse would recreate those harms ^{[5] [6]}. The CR’s practical benefit is continuity for service members and veterans, but because the CR typically prohibits new program starts, defense modernization and nondefense program expansions are deferred, and a protracted or repeated reliance on CRs intensifies planning uncertainty across federal agencies and contractors ^{[3] [7]}. Political actors use CR terms to advance agendas — Republican authors emphasize defense increases and nondefense cuts, while administration materials underscore the shortfall relative to requested increases — so contingency planning must factor in that appropriations are as much political instruments as budgetary tools ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Bottom Line: A Status-Quo Year That Privileges Political Priorities Over New Spending

The 2025 CR creates a fiscal year of stability without growth, preserving defense and veterans’ core functions at FY2024 baselines while constraining the administration’s FY2025 expansion plans; committee-level Republican accounts portray an intentional tilt toward defense via modest increases and nondefense cuts, reflecting competing priorities that shape final allocations ^{[1] [2] [4]}. The net effect is that military readiness and veterans’ benefits avoid immediate collapse, but both defense modernization and domestic program enhancements suffer delays due to frozen budgets and selective reallocation pressures, making FY2025 a year of deferred investment and intensified political trade-offs rather than substantive programmatic change ^{[3] [1]}.