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.
Are there proposed riders to strip funding from certain agencies in the 2025 continuing resolution?
Executive Summary
Yes — the materials show that the 2025 continuing resolution (CR) and related proposals contain multiple provisions and separate legislative efforts that would cut or rescind funding for specific agencies and programs. The evidence ranges from explicit line-item rescissions and net non-defense reductions in the enacted CR to standalone bills and political statements advocating targeted defunding of agencies like the CFPB, but the scope and fate of those riders vary across sources and contexts [1] [2] [3].
1. How the enacted CR reshapes agency budgets — clear cuts and rescissions that matter
The enacted FY25 continuing resolution includes explicit rescissions and program eliminations that reduce funding for particular accounts and programs, producing a net $13 billion reduction in non-defense discretionary spending while increasing defense by $6 billion. Key actions include a stated $20 billion rescission from IRS funds, specific rescissions impacting USDA research facilities, and a $537 million cut to NOAA Operations, Research and Facilities; smaller but targeted cuts hit Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service programs. The CR’s language rescinds or eliminates discrete line items (Sections 1201, 1301, 1501, 1601, 1801, 1908, 11108 and others) and requires an administration spending plan within 45 days, leaving program-level implementation to future internal decisions [1] [2]. These are not mere rhetorical riders; they are concrete budget actions that will alter agency operations and grant pipelines.
2. Proposed riders versus standalone defunding bills — two different paths to the same goal
Beyond the CR text, legislative efforts and political messaging show parallel strategies to strip agency funding. Separate bills explicitly aim to eliminate statutory funding streams — notably the Defund the CFPB Act proposing to drop the CFPB’s statutory cap to zero so it must seek appropriations — demonstrating a legislative route outside of routine CR language to defund an agency entirely. Political statements from the White House and congressional Republicans frame the ongoing negotiations as an opportunity to “close Democrat programs” and to pause projects via OMB or reorientation of Corps work, signaling an administrative and rhetorical complement to statutory riders. The existence of these bills and statements indicates multiple levers — riders in CRs, standalone appropriation measures, and executive pauses — that can be used to remove funding [3] [4] [5].
3. What advocates and unions say — pressure for clean funding and procedural objections
Stakeholders including unions and federal employee groups are urging passage of bipartisan appropriations without controversial riders, warning of the operational harm caused by stopgap measures and policy provisions in CRs. These groups emphasize that CRs which cut or alter congressional funding levels or allow unilateral presidential implementation undermine agency missions and worker protections. Their messaging frames riders as both a fiscal and procedural threat, arguing for maintenance of FY24 levels and opposing unilateral rescissions or reprogramming that would strip congressionally approved funding. That pressure highlights an advocacy counterweight to proposals that target agencies via the CR [6].
4. Political dynamics: shutdowns, leverage, and uncertain inclusion of riders
The debate over riders is intertwined with shutdown brinkmanship: some Republican appropriators and the administration view the CR negotiations as leverage to enact policy changes and rescissions, while Democrats and some appropriators frame obstruction as a tactic to extract concessions. Sources document that negotiating stalemates and administration pauses on projects have already affected funding flows, and that inclusion of riders is often a function of interparty bargaining and timing. The prospect of riders being included in CRs therefore depends less on a single document and more on the broader negotiation calculus — where stand-alone bills, political statements, and appropriations negotiations interplay to determine whether targeted defunding provisions survive to enactment [7] [4] [5].
5. Bottom line — riders exist in multiple forms, but outcomes differ by venue
In sum, the record shows both concrete rider-like rescissions inside the FY25 CR and separate legislative efforts aimed at stripping agency funding, with political actors openly advocating for cuts to specific programs and agencies. The CR itself contains explicit rescissions and program eliminations that will reduce funding for certain agencies, while separate bills and executive maneuvers seek to institutionalize defunding through other mechanisms. The operative distinction is venue and permanence: CR rescissions take immediate effect on specific accounts, whereas standalone bills and executive pauses may reorganize or eliminate funding streams over a longer legislative or administrative timeline [1] [2] [3] [4].