What are the consequences of passing a continuing resolution instead of a budget appropriation bill?
Executive summary
Passing a continuing resolution (CR) instead of final appropriations keeps the government operating by extending prior funding levels for a set time, but it freezes priorities, creates uncertainty for agencies and contractors, and can undermine the regular appropriations process if used repeatedly [1] [2]. The trade-off is stability in the near term versus reduced flexibility, delayed new initiatives, and growing institutional incentives to rely on stopgap measures rather than negotiate full-year budgets [3] [4].
1. What a continuing resolution actually does, in practice
A CR is a stopgap law that provides temporary budget authority—typically at prior-year rates or specific limited modifications—so that federal operations do not lapse on October 1 when regular appropriations are not enacted, and it can run from days to a full fiscal year or be superseded by later regular bills [5] [2] [6]. CR language often ties funding to prior-year levels or other reference amounts and can include limited changes such as adjusting spending rates or extending expiring authorities, but it usually does not reallocate funds across new priorities the way a full appropriations act does [6] [2] [5].
2. Immediate operational consequences for agencies and programs
In the short term a CR prevents shutdowns and keeps essential services running, but it constrains agencies from starting new programs, awarding certain contracts, or implementing policy changes because funding is frozen and reprogramming rules vary by agency [1] [5] [3]. Some agencies with multiyear appropriations or built-in “anomalies” (notably Defense in recent CRs) may retain flexibility, but many programs face delays and uncertainty in hiring, procurement and planning under CR terms [3] [2].
3. Financial and policy consequences versus an appropriations bill
Unlike a finalized appropriations act, which sets specific dollar amounts, funding structures, and policy riders for the year, a CR typically perpetuates last year’s allocations and therefore can leave new priorities unfunded and continue older funding decisions that Congress or the administration might want to change [3] [1]. Repeated reliance on CRs impedes deliberate reassessment of resources and can mean that changing national needs are not met because appropriations never undergo the normal, granular negotiation an appropriations bill requires [7] [4].
4. Effects on contractors, acquisition programs and project timelines
Federal contractors and acquisition programs experience uncertainty under CRs: contract starts, awards and long-term program commitments are often delayed or restricted, and acquisition offices flag CRs as a major disruption that raises costs and slows delivery of capabilities—issues amplified when CRs stretch for months or an entire year [3] [5]. Those downstream impacts can increase program risk and reduce the efficiency of government spending relative to planning under a final appropriations schedule [7].
5. Political incentives, bargaining leverage and hidden agendas
CRs change the political dynamic: they remove the immediate pain of a shutdown and thus reduce pressure to resolve contentious policy fights, which can incentivize lawmakers or the White House to prefer stopgaps that preserve leverage or advance selected priorities outside the full appropriations process [8] [1]. Critics warn that normalizing CRs or making them automatic risks eroding Congress’s responsibility to allocate resources intentionally, and could advantage actors who want to freeze budgets or entrench past allocations [4] [7].
6. Trade-offs and pragmatic considerations for policymakers
The pragmatic defense of CRs is straightforward—they avert disruptive shutdowns and buy time for negotiation—but the cost is predictable: delayed initiatives, administrative uncertainty, potential inefficiency, and the risk that temporary funding becomes routine instead of exceptional [1] [7]. Policymakers must weigh the immediate operational stability CRs provide against longer-term damage to budget planning and accountability that final appropriations promote [2] [4].