What bill was finally introduced that caused the government shutdown to end?

1. A short‑term stopgap became the climactic bill that broke the stalemate

Reporting converges on the finding that the measure introduced to end the shutdown was a hybrid continuing resolution combined with select appropriations — often framed as a continuing‑resolution funding package through January 30, 2026, plus a three‑bill minibus funding several agencies. Multiple analyses describe the bill as the operative compromise that advanced in the Senate and was the immediate cause of the shutdown’s end ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Coverage repeatedly calls it a bipartisan vehicle rather than a full, long‑term omnibus, signaling its role as a bridge to later negotiations and separate votes on disputed items like health‑care subsidies ^{[5] [4]}.

2. What the bill actually funded and what it guaranteed for workers

The introduced package combined a short‑term CR for most federal operations with three full‑year appropriations covering specific areas and explicit provisions to undo federal worker firings and provide retroactive pay to furloughed staff. Sources emphasize these worker protections as central to the bill’s political selling points and as a practical remedy to immediate harms caused by the shutdown ^{[1] [3]}. The measure also funded a set of agencies for a set period rather than resolving all FY2026 appropriations, which positioned it as a partial, time‑limited solution and not a permanent settlement.

3. The legislative mechanics: how the bill moved through Congress

Senators introduced and then advanced the continuing‑resolution package, clearing a cloture or procedural hurdle — described in reporting as a 60‑40 vote to advance the deal in the Senate — before sending it to the House for final approval and ultimately to the president for signature ^{[2] [6] [7]}. Sources indicate the Senate vote was portrayed as a bipartisan breakthrough that technically ended the shutdown by providing immediate funding, but the bill’s ultimate effect depended on House passage and presidential enactment, leaving a short window of uncertainty until final signatures were secured ^{[5] [8]}.

4. The big omission: healthcare subsidies and the December promise

Every analysis highlights that the compromise did not include an extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits Democrats sought. Instead, the package withheld subsidy extensions but guaranteed a separate promised vote in December on a Democratic‑picked bill to address the subsidies. That tradeoff was central to conservative Democratic and centrist Republican calculations: funding the government now in exchange for a later standalone vote on the politically charged health‑care matter ^{[1] [4] [3]}. The omission fueled criticism from both sides: Democrats objected to delay, while some conservatives opposed any separate subsidy extension.

5. Political narratives and competing agendas around the deal

Coverage frames the bill as a political compromise driven by pragmatic pressure — back pay and restored jobs for federal employees, immediate agency funding — while also reflecting competing agendas. Democrats emphasized worker protections and the promise of a future subsidy vote; Republicans emphasized fiscal restraint by limiting funding extensions and excluding broader policy riders ^{[1] [6]}. Observers noted tactical motivations: Senate negotiators seeking to avoid further economic disruption, House conservatives testing patience, and the White House balancing political optics with the need to end the shutdown quickly ^{[7] [5]}.

6. Remaining uncertainties and the likely path forward after enactment

Though the introduced continuing‑resolution package ended the shutdown in practice, it left substantive questions: whether the promised December vote would pass, how remaining appropriations talks would proceed, and whether excluded elements would return as leverage in future negotiations. Sources stress that passage in the Senate was only the first legislative step; the House had to act and the president sign the bill to make the funding effective ^{[2] [3]}. The deal’s short‑term nature means fiscal and policy disputes are deferred, not resolved, making further legislative fights likely as the January 30 funding expiration approaches ^{[4] [3]}.