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.
How do continuing resolutions affect federal government operations?
Executive Summary
Continuing resolutions (CRs) temporarily fund federal agencies when Congress fails to enact regular appropriations, enabling operations to continue but creating funding uncertainty, administrative rigidity, and service disruptions across the federal government. While CRs prevent immediate shutdowns and maintain core mandatory programs, they compel agencies to operate on prior-year funding levels, delay hiring and contracting, and force stopgap management decisions that reduce flexibility and raise long-term costs [1] [2] [3].
1. Why CRs keep the lights on but choke agency planning
Continuing resolutions function as stopgap funding measures that typically maintain agencies at the previous fiscal year’s spending levels, ensuring continuity of operations while final appropriations are negotiated. This mechanism averts immediate shutdowns for many essential and mandatory programs—Social Security and Medicare continue, and core public safety functions often proceed—yet the stopgap nature of CRs undermines multi-year planning and program development because agencies lack enacted, specific budget authority for new initiatives. The GAO and budget analysts describe how agencies face limits on launching new projects, issuing multi-year contracts, or committing to long-term grant cycles under CR constraints, producing a cascade of delayed procurements and postponed programmatic decisions that degrade effectiveness and responsiveness [1] [4] [3].
2. How CRs increase operational inefficiency and cost risk
Operating under CRs forces agencies into conservative spending postures—delaying hiring, pausing salary adjustments, and restricting travel and training—which in turn creates inefficiencies and sometimes higher costs down the line. Agencies report compressed spending once final appropriations are enacted, leading to fiscal “sprint” behavior that can waste funds or produce poor contracting outcomes. The Government Accountability Office highlights administrative burdens and constrained management options that come with recurring CRs, and researchers document that extended CRs leave agencies operating with outdated funding assumptions that fail to match current mission needs, exacerbating risks and reducing overall return on taxpayer dollars [1] [5] [6].
3. Service disruptions, program delays, and employee impacts tied to CR cycles
Even when a CR prevents a full shutdown, federal services and program delivery suffer. CRs frequently delay grant awards, slow regulatory and oversight functions like environmental or food inspections, and limit discretionary program expansions—public-facing services degrade in scope or timeliness. The contingency planning tied to potential shutdowns also changes workforce management: some employees are furloughed, others work without pay, and morale and recruitment suffer when hiring freezes persist. Historical patterns show reliance on CRs since the late 1990s has meaningfully hindered agencies’ ability to provide steady, predictable services to the public [4] [3] [6].
4. Political incentives, procedural shortcuts, and the erosion of regular budgeting
Lawmakers often use CRs as tactical devices to buy time or extract concessions, which creates perverse incentives that weaken the regular appropriations process. Since FY1998 lawmakers enacted 138 CRs through FY2025, reflecting systemic reliance on stopgap measures rather than timely agreement on funding priorities. That dependency undermines the congressional role in detailed annual budgeting and shifts power toward last-minute negotiations and omnibus packages. Analysts warn that habitual use of CRs reduces transparency and strategic tradeoffs in budgeting, making it harder for Congress and the public to assess program priorities and fiscal impacts [3] [2].
5. Agency coping strategies and the longer-term consequences for governance
Agencies have adapted by using available flexibilities—issuing conditional grant announcements, reallocating unobligated balances, or stretching contract periods—to mitigate CR impacts, but these fixes are stopgap and uneven. Repeated short-term CRs leave agencies less able to respond to emergent needs, hamstring long-term investments, and compress oversight cycles, which can increase programmatic risk. Oversight bodies like the GAO document that while CRs are sometimes necessary, prolonged dependence on them erodes institutional capacity and heightens costs; policymakers face a tradeoff between short-term crisis avoidance and long-term governance damage unless Congress restores a regular, predictable appropriations calendar [1] [5] [6].