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.
What parts of the 2025 budget compromise were included in appropriations bills versus CRs?
Executive Summary
The 2025 budget compromise was implemented largely through continuing resolutions (CRs) rather than a full slate of individual appropriations bills, with major elements and program extensions captured in full-year CRs like H.R.1968 and later continuing legislation H.R.5371 that extended funding into November 2025; several policy and funding specifics were carried at prior-year levels and enacted as CR provisions rather than new appropriations enactments [1] [2]. This approach preserved baseline funding and extended targeted programs—global health, community health centers, Medicare/Medicaid authorities—while leaving many new priorities constrained by CR terms and the Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps guiding FY2025 allocations [3] [4].
1. Why the Government Used CRs and What That Meant for the 2025 Deal
Congress resorted to CRs in 2025 to maintain existing funding levels and avoid a government shutdown while negotiations over discretionary caps and policy riders continued; the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, and subsequent continuing measures provided funding largely at FY2024 levels with specific exceptions, signaling that the compromise favored stability over new spending initiatives [1]. The practical consequence was that agencies received predictable but static funding streams, limiting Congress’s ability to fund new congressional priorities or increases beyond the set caps from the Fiscal Responsibility Act. The reliance on CRs also required departments to delay or scale back new program starts and complicated long-term planning for federal contractors, who faced uncertainty over the scope and duration of funding available under short-term authorities [5] [4]. This pattern shows Congress prioritized avoiding disruption while negotiating remaining appropriations details.
2. Which Specific Programs Were Folded Into CRs Rather Than Individual Bills
The full-year CRs explicitly extended and maintained funding for several high-profile programs instead of moving them through separate appropriations bills—global health programs were kept at $10.8 billion, with allocations split across State/USAID, CDC, and NIH and reporting requirements imposed on agencies for spending plans, which were all embedded in CR text rather than standalone appropriations acts [3]. The CRs also extended authorities for community health centers, Medicare, and Medicaid, aligning FY2025 funding largely to FY2024 appropriated levels while including statutory extensions and limited modifications in the CR language [1]. These inclusions indicate Congress used CR vehicles to lock in bipartisan, time-sensitive program funding while deferring granular policy and funding changes that typically occur in individual appropriations bills.
3. What the House and Senate Did Outside the CRs: Appropriations Activity That Didn’t Become Law
Despite the dominance of CRs in final funding, both chambers continued to draft and pass individual appropriations measures—the House passed defense and homeland security bills, and the Senate advanced its own appropriations, with committee 302(b) allocations reflecting the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s $1.606 trillion base discretionary cap split between defense and nondefense [4]. These committee actions show lawmakers attempted the regular process, but legislative friction and timing led to most enacted funding arriving via CRs. The existence of passed committee bills underscores the procedural divergence between chamber-level appropriations work and the reality of enactment: many bills did not reach final agreement and therefore did not supplant the CRs that became law.
4. How the Fiscal Responsibility Act Shaped What Could Be Included
The Fiscal Responsibility Act set the total base discretionary cap for FY2025 at $1.606 trillion—$895 billion for defense and $711 billion for nondefense—effectively constraining what appropriations bills could allocate and making CRs the easier instrument to hold spending at prior-year baselines while reconciling the capped totals [4]. With those caps in place, negotiators used CRs to preserve baseline programs and to ensure compliance with the statutory ceiling, rather than opening negotiations that might demand reallocation across subcommittees or new out-year commitments. This structural constraint explains why CRs included many of the compromise elements: they implemented the cap-compliant, baseline-preserving outcome Congress had agreed upon without forcing new discretionary choices that could breach the FRA limits.
5. Practical Effects and What Was Left Unresolved Going Forward
By embedding key parts of the compromise in CRs, Congress guaranteed continuity for essential services but deferred decisions on new priorities, program expansions, and detailed funding trade-offs, leaving agency leaders and stakeholders with limited visibility into longer-term resource commitments [5] [1]. The CR approach required reporting and short-term compliance mechanisms that preserved existing programs—such as global health, community health centers, and Medicare/Medicaid authorities—but postponed substantive fiscal rebalancing that annual appropriations bills normally accomplish. The net effect was a stable but constrained funding environment for FY2025, with outstanding policy and budget choices pushed into future negotiations as lawmakers continued to reconcile appropriations bills with FRA-imposed caps [4] [2].