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: What do continuing resolutions typically contain
Executive Summary
Continuing resolutions (CRs) are short-term funding measures Congress uses to prevent federal shutdowns by temporarily extending prior-year funding levels and procedural authorities; they typically maintain current spending levels while buying time for regular appropriations [1]. Recent legislative examples show two common approaches: a “clean” short-term extension that simply preserves existing funding and a more contested CR that includes policy riders or targeted funding changes; both serve the immediate purpose of keeping agencies open but differ sharply in political content and duration [2] [3].
1. What advocates and lawmakers claimed — a concise extraction of the main assertions
Analysts and lawmakers in the provided materials make three repeating claims: CRs prevent government shutdowns by continuing prior-year funding; they are usually short-term stopgaps measured in weeks or months; and CRs can be either “clean” extensions or vehicles for policy changes and political bargaining [1] [2]. One source describes a specific House-passed CR intended to fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2025, illustrating the practice of using CRs when appropriations are incomplete [3]. Another highlights committee work favoring a clean short-term bill to restore regular order [2].
2. How CRs are typically constructed — the nuts and bolts the sources emphasize
The sources emphasize that a typical CR carries very limited structural complexity: it replicates prior-year budget appropriations and extends agency authorities so payrolls, contracts, and programs continue without interruption [1]. A “clean” CR omits new policy directives or funding shifts, serving purely as fiscal glue, while other CRs can include explicit carve-outs, new temporary funding lines, or riders that change program rules. The materials show Congress uses CRs to preserve baseline spending yet leave unresolved the substantive allocation decisions that annual appropriations are meant to settle [2].
3. How variation shows up in practice — clean extensions versus policy-laden stopgaps
Practical differences arise when lawmakers attach policy riders or targeted funding changes to CRs. The documented House proposal aiming to fund through FY2025 demonstrates one end of the spectrum: a time-bound extension to keep agencies funded [3]. Committee descriptions of the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026, highlight the contrasting approach: a short, clean measure designed intentionally to avoid contentious riders and encourage a return to regular appropriations [2]. These choices reflect strategic trade-offs between short-term stability and leveraging funding authority for policy gains.
4. The timeline and duration choices — what the sources report about how long CRs last
The sources consistently note that CRs are short-term instruments, often lasting from a few weeks to several months, depending on political calculations and the urgency of completing appropriations [1]. The House example targeting the end of FY2025 indicates Congress sometimes sets longer, fiscal-year-spanning deadlines when negotiations are progressing or when leadership seeks a definitive stopgap date [3]. Committees pushing clean, short windows aim to force timely negotiations under looming deadlines rather than enable extended reliance on temporary funding [2].
5. Political dynamics and agendas — why CRs become battlegrounds
CRs are frequent venues for political leverage because they create high stakes—a shutdown’s immediate consequences—and therefore incentives to attach policy priorities. One source frames CRs as instruments that can either calm budget conflict through clean extensions or intensify it when riders are introduced [2]. The House passage described shows partisan maneuvering to set funding terms while the Senate’s prospects remained uncertain, illustrating how CR debates reflect broader inter-chamber and partisan strategy [3]. Committees advocating clean CRs signal an institutional push to restore regular order [2].
6. Consequences and omitted considerations the summaries hint at but don’t fully explore
While the summaries focus on mechanics and politics, they omit granular effects on agency planning, long-term budget certainty, and programmatic disruptions from repeated CR use. Repeated short CRs constrain agencies from launching multiyear initiatives, delay grant competitions, and complicate procurement. The provided materials also do not deeply address how CRs can interact with other tools—like rescissions authority—or how emergency appropriations and supplemental bills carve exceptions, leaving important operational and fiscal trade-offs underexamined [4] [1].
7. Bottom line, sources and dating — what to take away from the record and recent examples
The collective record across the cited items shows a consistent pattern: CRs generally continue prior funding levels to avert shutdowns, vary from clean short-term extensions to rider-laden stopgaps, and are shaped by strategic political calculation [1] [2]. Examples dated between September and December 2025 illustrate both committee-level preference for clean bills and House-level attempts at longer extensions into FY2025 [2] [3]. Readers should note the dates: committee statements from September 2025 and House actions in December 2025 reflect evolving tactical choices as deadlines approached.