Fact check: What are the key differences between the current continuing resolution and the previous fiscal year's budget?

1. Why this CR reads like the prior year's spending but matters differently

The House-passed CR relies on spending levels that trace back through a chain of prior extensions—from the December 2024 CR to the September 2024 CR—effectively carrying forward the Biden administration’s baseline funding for most agencies and programs, which creates budgetary continuity and limits immediate disruption to government operations ^[1]. That continuity explains why the CR is often portrayed as “the same as last year,” yet the practical significance rests in the CR’s selective inclusions and exclusions: specific program provisions and temporary extensions are attached that were not part of the prior year’s permanent appropriations, making the CR both a funding bridge and a policy vehicle ^{[2] [6]}.

2. Health policy changes packed into a short-term funding measure

The CR and accompanying legislation diverge sharply from the previous fiscal year in health policy: new Medicaid work requirements, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, and other cost-control tactics are embedded that proponents say reduce federal Medicaid spending by large margins, while nonpartisan estimates forecast sizable coverage losses—nearly 12 million people could lose coverage under some provisions—a substantive policy shift compared with prior-year law focused on broader coverage protections ^{[3] [5]}. These health changes convert what might seem like a technical spending extension into a substantive policy reform with multi-decade fiscal and human impacts, shifting who gets covered and how states administer benefits.

3. Program-specific funding and social safety net trade-offs

Unlike the prior year’s budget, which was negotiated as a full appropriations package, the CR selectively funds departments and programs while adding or protecting certain priorities—community health centers, Medicare-dependent hospitals, and rental assistance vouchers receive explicit attention and extensions in the new CR text—reflecting targeted priorities and political bargaining ^{[2] [6]}. Democrats pushed to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits and prevent rescissions of previously appropriated funds, framing the CR as a defender of social services, while opponents sought stricter eligibility and spending limits, illustrating how the CR becomes a battleground for programmatic trade-offs absent a full-year agreement.

4. Political drivers and procedural context behind the differences

Congress’s chronic inability to pass a full set of appropriations bills on time—only achieved four times since the 1970s—has made CRs the default mechanism for funding, which explains why the current CR recycles prior levels yet incorporates contentious policy riders ^[7]. The 2025 government shutdown backdrop and executive branch contingency planning for layoffs underscore that the CR’s political posture matters: procedural reliance on CRs concentrates high-stakes bargaining into stopgap measures, amplifying the impact of riders and making temporary fixes the venue for permanent-seeming policy shifts ^[4].

5. Fiscal trajectory: short-term stability, long-term uncertainty

In the short term, the CR maintains fiscal stability by preserving appropriations at prior-year levels and avoiding immediate disruptions to most federal functions, but the inserted policy changes—particularly to Medicaid and healthcare subsidies—create projected federal savings and coverage losses over a decade that diverge from the prior year’s trajectory ^{[3] [5]}. Supporters frame those savings as deficit reduction and reining in program growth; critics emphasize the human cost of lost coverage and state administrative burden. The CR thus functions as a vehicle for reorienting long-term fiscal outcomes while providing near-term operational calm.

6. Competing narratives and likely downstream consequences

Advocates for the CR argue it preserves essential services and enacts needed reforms within a constrained political environment; opponents contend that embedding work requirements and eligibility tightening in a funding vehicle circumvents robust legislative debate and risks increasing uninsured rates and housing insecurity if voucher renewals lapse ^{[6] [5]}. The competing narratives signal possible litigation, state-level policy variation, and programmatic churn as states and providers respond to new federal rules, which could produce uneven effects across regions and amplify political stakes heading into subsequent budget cycles.

7. What to watch next: implementation, CBO scoring, and state responses

Key indicators to monitor are official budget-score updates and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates clarifying the CR’s fiscal and coverage impacts, executive branch implementation guidance on eligibility redeterminations and work requirements, and state-level actions to adapt to altered funding rules—each will reveal how theoretical savings translate into real-world outcomes ^{[3] [5] [4]}. The CR’s temporary nature means these elements will determine whether its provisions become de facto permanent policy through administrative practice or are reversed in later appropriations negotiations, making near-term administrative decisions crucial to the ultimate policy direction ^{[2] [6]}.