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 are common policy riders added to short-term funding bills in recent years (e.g., 2018–2024)?
Executive Summary
Short-term federal funding measures from 2018–2024 repeatedly carried policy riders that ranged from social policy restrictions to substantive funding shifts, and they have been a vehicle for both bipartisan compromise and sharp partisan fights. Observers identify common riders on immigration and border security, health-care funding limits (including insurer payments and abortion-related restrictions), and ideological provisions targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion or LGBT and reproductive health policies; these riders were used by both chambers at different times and provoked legal and political disputes [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How lawmakers weaponize must-pass bills to lock in policy wins
Congressional actors regularly attach non-germane riders to continuing resolutions and appropriations to force policy changes that could not pass as standalone laws. Analysts note that must-pass vehicles like CRs, defense bills, and spending measures are favored because the absence of a line-item veto means the president must accept the entire package or risk a shutdown, which increases leverage for riders [4]. This strategy has been used by both parties across the period: examples cited include riders that effectively defunded aspects of the Affordable Care Act’s risk-corridor program and other health-care payment mechanisms via appropriations language in 2015–2017, a dispute that rose to the Supreme Court in 2019 [2]. Policy riders thus function as pragmatic tools to circumvent standalone debate and to impose urgent policy preferences when broader consensus is lacking [4] [2].
2. Immigration and border provisions kept recurring as sticking points
Immigration-related riders are repeatedly mentioned as frequent inclusions in short-term funding bills between 2018 and 2024, often tied to border security funding, wall construction, or limitations on refugee and asylum processing. Observers record that border measures and immigration riders were part of both bipartisan spending agreements and highly partisan 2019–2020 negotiations, reflecting a persistent legislative focus on migration even within stopgap funding measures [1] [5]. These riders produced mixed outcomes: some secured additional enforcement or funding for border programs, while others were rejected or became bargaining chips in broader appropriations talks. The recurrence of immigration riders shows how domestic political salience drives the content of temporary funding instruments and shapes shutdown brinkmanship [1] [5].
3. Health, reproductive policy, and insurer payments—quiet but consequential riders
Health-policy riders have appeared across multiple funding measures, with tangible fiscal consequences. A noted example saw riders preventing $12 billion in insurer payments tied to the ACA’s risk-corridor program, effectively altering program implementation without repealing statute and prompting litigation culminating in Supreme Court scrutiny [2]. Appropriations also carried riders restricting abortion-related funding and actions around FDA decisions, creating policy effects that outlast single fiscal years and complicate program administration. These health riders illustrate how appropriations language can be used to reshape enacted policy and budget flows, affecting beneficiaries and regulated entities even when enactment of substantive legislation is politically infeasible [2] [3].
4. Ideological culture-war riders—DEI, CRT, and LGBT provisions increasingly visible
From 2023 into 2024, House-level appropriations proposals frequently included riders aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, bans on critical race theory training, and restrictions targeting gender-affirming care and LGBTQ-focused initiatives, according to contemporaneous reporting on partisan House bills. These riders were described as explicitly partisan attempts to recalibrate federal policy priorities and to restrict agency practices, and they generated sharp disagreement with the Senate’s comparatively rider-free, bipartisan approaches to funding [3]. Such culture-war riders underscore how appropriations are used not only for material fiscal choices but also for symbolic policy signaling, producing legislative friction and complicating bipartisan agreement [3].
5. Mixed motives, legal battles, and the strategic landscape going forward
The record from 2018–2024 shows that riders serve multiple strategic purposes: policy change, leverage in negotiations, and signaling to political bases. Some riders emerged from bipartisan deals that blended competing priorities—pay raises, census funding, and pensions—while others were overtly partisan and provoked litigation or impasse [1] [2]. Observers flagged the judicial and administrative consequences of riders, as when appropriations language effectively altered program payments and produced court challenges [2]. Moving forward, the evidence suggests that riders will remain central to short-term funding politics, with their frequency and content reflecting partisan control of the House, Senate, and White House as well as the tactical choices of lawmakers seeking immediate policy victories [4] [3].