Fact check: What are the most contentious policy riders in the current continuing resolution?

1. Why vanished earmarks are setting off local ire and budget fights

Congressional action to strip nearly $11 billion in earmarked grants from agency accounts has produced immediate pushback from local governments and project sponsors who see tangible projects at risk; proponents argue the cuts eliminate unnecessary pork and free funds for higher priorities ^[1]. The removal affects a broad mix of programs — housing, highways, health clinics — and critics warn that once projects lose momentum, returning to prior funding levels will be politically and administratively difficult. Supporters in the House, led by appropriators like Rep. Tom Cole in commentary tied to the move, assert these funds were not essential and can be reallocated, highlighting a fundamental policy trade-off between centralized fiscal discipline and distributed local investment ^{[1] [2]}.

2. How appropriators’ aversion to ‘bad earmarks’ shapes attached restrictions

House GOP appropriators have signaled a desire to avoid “bad earmarks” on bills like Labor-HHS, suggesting continued use of policy riders and restrictions to prevent controversial spending items from returning ^[2]. That posture drives both process and content: committees are likely to maintain or add riders that block specific agency actions or programs, using CRs as leverage. This stance reflects an ideological emphasis on limiting Congress-directed spending while also giving majority leaders a tool to extract concessions; opponents frame the approach as sacrificing local priorities and programmatic flexibility for procedural control, creating a recurring source of contention during stopgap funding debates ^[2].

3. CBO numbers put a price tag on health-related riders — and political claims

The Congressional Budget Office estimates show stark fiscal and coverage impacts tied to health-policy riders under consideration: a permanent expansion of the premium tax credit would raise deficits by $349.8 billion from 2026–2035 while increasing insurance coverage by 3.8 million people in 2035, whereas nullifying a final marketplace rule would add $40.3 billion in deficits and 300,000 newly insured in 2035 ^[3]. These figures give each party ammunition: Democrats use the coverage gains to press for permanence of subsidies, while fiscal hawks cite the deficit increases to argue against embedding long-term entitlement-like changes in stopgap legislation. The CBO estimates thus convert policy trade-offs into quantifiable lines for both sides’ messaging ^[3].

4. Competing budget blueprints escalate the stakes for CR riders

Broader budget proposals shape the CR fight: a House GOP resolution that pushes a $4 trillion debt-limit increase, extended tax cuts, and bigger defense and border spending heightens pressure to include offsets or cuts — sometimes via riders — that could target Medicaid and other programs ^[5]. Conversely, legislative outcomes like the Fiscal Responsibility Act — which suspended the debt ceiling until 2025 and asserted savings over a decade without major structural tax changes — set precedents opponents invoke when debating what riders are appropriate during a CR ^[6]. These competing blueprints turn a short-term funding vehicle into a proxy battlefield for larger fiscal priorities and partisan narratives ^{[5] [6]}.

5. The September 2025 91-page CR shows how detailed riders can be

A September 2025 91-page continuing resolution kept government funding at current levels through Nov. 21 but illustrated how a CR can include sector-specific language without headline-grabbing changes — for instance, ambiguous treatments of IRS or Treasury enforcement funding and carryover provisions from previous spending laws ^[7]. The document’s scope demonstrates that riders need not be dramatic to be consequential: targeted clauses can preserve past restrictions or quietly reverse enforcement authority, shaping agency behavior through short-term law. This tactic amplifies the strategic value of CRs, allowing lawmakers to embed operational controls while avoiding the optics of broad program cuts ^[7].

6. Democrats’ counterproposal elevates the fight with large-scale policy reversals

Democrats introduced a short-term continuing resolution filled with partisan policy riders estimated to cost around $1.4 trillion, aimed at reversing cost-cutting healthcare changes and permanently extending temporary COVID-era premium tax credits ^[4]. The counterproposal also seeks to nullify a congressional rule that allowed the Senate to rescind previously appropriated funds, signaling a broader institutional dispute over how rescissions and budgetary control are exercised. By packaging permanent or expansive changes into a CR, Democrats force a direct choice between immediate coverage gains and long-term fiscal implications, challenging Republicans to either accept costly riders or risk a shutdown fight ^[4].

7. What this means politically — leverage, agendas, and negotiating posture

These riders serve dual functions: they enact policy and act as bargaining chips. Republicans leverage earmark eliminations and spending constraints to push fiscal discipline and process control, while Democrats frame expansions of premium tax credits and reversals of cuts as protective measures for healthcare and households. Each side’s proposals bear clear agendas: GOP riders prioritize restraint and reallocation, Democratic riders prioritize coverage expansion and institutional protections. The result is a CR process where policy, procedure, and partisanship are tightly intertwined, turning temporary funding into a vehicle for enduring programmatic change ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.

8. The bottom line for observers tracking the next votes

Watch for three flashpoints: earmark language and project funding, health subsidy and marketplace-rule riders backed by CBO numbers, and procedural clauses affecting agency enforcement or rescission authorities. Outcomes will hinge on which party can credibly threaten to withhold votes or force a shutdown, and on how lawmakers respond to CBO cost estimates and local pushback over lost earmarks. These dynamics ensure the continuing resolution debate will remain a concentrated mix of fiscal arithmetic, local politics, and institutional power plays through the coming weeks ^{[1] [3] [4]}.