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.
Fact check: Can a continuing resolution be used to fund specific programs or agencies during a shutdown?
Executive Summary
A continuing resolution (CR) can be and is routinely used to temporarily fund specific federal programs and agencies during funding gaps, but the scope and conditions vary by the CR’s language and political bargaining [1] [2]. Recent 2025 examples show CRs that both provided blanket stopgap funding and included targeted provisions for particular programs — reflecting competing agendas among House statements, committee releases, and legal text [3] [4] [2]. The practical effects depend on duration, funding rates, and explicit anomalies or exceptions written into each CR [1] [5].
1. The Short Answer That Lawmakers Use When They Need a Fast Fix
Congress uses CRs as a legal mechanism to keep agencies running at prior-year levels until full appropriations pass, and that mechanism can include targeted funding language for chosen programs or agencies. Analyses of H.R. 5371 show it provided continuing FY2026 appropriations to agencies through November 21, 2025, and specifically named categories such as security, veterans’ healthcare, and flood insurance as funded items, demonstrating how a CR can be drafted to fund specific priorities [2] [4]. House committee and advocacy releases framed similar CRs as tools to restore regular order or protect key services, revealing political motives behind which programs receive carve-outs [3] [6].
2. How CRs Typically Work — The Mechanics That Matter
Continuing resolutions generally extend funding at previous fiscal-year rates, with agencies allowed to operate “at the current rate of operations,” and most CR language prohibits new starts or activities not previously funded, which limits fresh initiatives [5] [1]. CRs include six main features — coverage, duration, funding rate, new activities, anomalies, and legislative provisions — and each feature shapes what specific programs can continue; anomalies are the tool used to depart from blanket funding and target particular programs [1]. The legal text of each CR therefore determines whether an agency or program receives specific, continued appropriations or only implicit authority to spend.
3. Recent 2025 Examples Show Both Blanket and Targeted Funding Approaches
In 2025, lawmakers passed CR language that illustrates both approaches: a clean continuing resolution maintained level funding through November 21 without major policy riders, while H.R. 5371 specifically enumerated funding for certain programs including public health and cybersecurity, showing that CRs can be tailored for selective funding [6] [2]. Statements from House Republicans and individual members framed such targeted language as necessary to protect veterans and critical services, reflecting an agenda to prioritize particular constituencies during a funding impasse [3] [4]. These contrasting approaches underline how political bargaining determines CR content.
4. Who Wins and Who Loses Under Targeted CRs — Practical Impacts on Agencies
A CR that includes anomalies for specific programs benefits those agencies by preserving operations and avoiding furloughs, while agencies without explicit mention may face limits on new initiatives, capital investment, and contractor operations because CRs typically freeze spending at prior levels and restrict new starts [7] [5]. Government affairs analyses warn that recurring short CRs hinder long-term planning and can disrupt grant cycles for entities like the National Science Foundation or NIH unless specific funding is carved out, so targeted CRs mitigate some harms but create uneven outcomes across the federal landscape [7] [8].
5. Political Narratives Shape How CRs Are Presented to the Public
Committee press releases and member statements present CRs as tools to “restore regular order” or “protect key services,” revealing political framing that aligns CR content with partisan goals [3] [4]. Advocacy groups and associations hailed clean CRs for maintaining continuity, while lawmakers emphasized targeted inclusions to claim credit for protecting constituents; these narratives can obscure trade-offs like delayed appropriations work or the imposition of short-term funding uncertainty [6] [9]. Readers should note these agendas when evaluating claims about what a CR “does” in practice.
6. Legal Ambiguities and Agency Interpretation Create Operational Gray Areas
Although CRs typically avoid specifying new dollar amounts, the law permits agencies to interpret “current rate of operations,” which creates agency-by-agency variability in how programs operate under a CR [5]. Agencies may continue ongoing activities but face constraints on launching new projects; explicit anomalies eliminate ambiguity, but where a CR is silent, administrative decisions and OMB guidance determine permissible actions. This legal gray area means that whether a specific program is effectively funded during a shutdown can hinge on both statutory text and administrative interpretation [5] [1].
7. Bottom Line: CRs Are Flexible Tools Shaped by Politics and Text
Continuing resolutions are a legally established stopgap mechanism that can be written either to apply broadly across government or to fund specific programs and agencies, depending on political negotiations and the CR’s anomalous provisions [1] [2]. Recent 2025 instances demonstrate both clean CRs that maintained level funding and hybrid CRs that named particular programs, reflecting divergent agendas from appropriations committees and individual lawmakers [6] [4]. Evaluating any claim about CRs requires reading the specific bill text and recognizing the political incentives behind targeted inclusions [2] [3].