What remaining FY2026 appropriations bills were unresolved as of January 24, 2026 and what were Congress’s contingency plans for the January 30 deadline?
Executive summary
As of January 24, 2026, nine of the 12 regular FY2026 appropriations bills remained covered only by a temporary continuing resolution that runs through January 30, 2026, meaning Congress had not enacted full-year funding for most agencies and programs [1] [2] [3]. Lawmakers’ contingency plans centered on short-term stopgaps (the CR), packaging remaining bills into minibuses for floor votes, or—in the event of failure—extending a year‑long CR or stitching unresolved bills into another omnibus, with partisan fights over toplines and policy riders driving the calendar [4] [5] [6].
1. Which appropriations remained unresolved: the nine bills held by the CR
Congress had enacted three full-year measures—Agriculture, Military Construction‑Veterans Affairs, and the Legislative Branch—but the remaining nine regular appropriations bills were not passed into law and instead were covered by the continuing resolution that extended funding only through January 30, 2026 [2] [7] [1]. Reporting and committee materials repeatedly describe that the CR provided temporary FY2026 funding for those nine bills and that agencies tied to those bills were operating under CR rules or contingency plans until the end of January [3] [8].
2. Which specific bills were in play and where the fights were happening
Observers and appropriations staff repeatedly flagged certain bills as the most contentious going into the January 30 deadline—Energy and Water, Interior/Environment, Commerce‑Justice‑Science, Transportation‑HUD, Labor‑HHS‑Education, Homeland Security, State/Foreign Operations, Financial Services & General Government (FSGG), and sometimes Commerce and Justice are grouped together in coverage—because of big House‑Senate funding gaps and policy disputes [9] [5] [8]. The Senate was discussing bundling several committee‑approved measures (including FSGG and State) into a single package for floor consideration while House appropriators pushed full‑year bills they had reported out of committee [10] [11].
3. The immediate contingency: the continuing resolution through January 30
The principal contingency already in place was the continuing resolution enacted in November, which ended the prior shutdown and provided stopgap funding through January 30, 2026 [2] [4] [3]. That CR explicitly funded most agencies at prior levels until January 30 or until an applicable appropriations act was enacted earlier, and it included language directing agencies on how to charge expenditures once final bills passed [2] [3].
4. Short-term tactical options on the table for Jan. 30
Congressional leaders and appropriators were pursuing three overlapping tactics to avoid another lapse after January 30: negotiate and pass remaining bills (or a multi‑bill minibus) before the deadline; pass another short extension/CR if floor action stalled; or package unresolved bills into a larger year‑long CR or omnibus if agreement on full‑year numbers proved impossible [5] [6]. Senate leaders were eyeing a limited package that could clear the floor quickly—Senate Appropriations had already moved some text and the Majority touted a three‑bill package to reopen government earlier in the cycle—while House leaders signaled willingness to press full‑year bills even as some conservatives proposed extending the CR for longer [4] [11] [6].
5. The politics undercutting those contingency plans
The impasse was not just arithmetic but political: disputes over topline discretionary limits after the Fiscal Responsibility Act caps expired, defense vs. nondefense splits, and ideological fights over program cuts and riders made knocking down a clean, single‑bill solution difficult [7] [5]. Fiscal hawks and groups like the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget pushed for cuts and one‑year freezes, implicitly pressuring negotiators toward package‑level concessions, while appropriators publicly argued that a negotiated minibus or piecemeal floor strategy was more viable than a year‑long CR [7] [10].
6. What reporters and analysts could not confirm as of Jan. 24
Public sources tracked floor votes, CR text, committee plans and public statements, but they did not definitively show which exact combination of remaining bills Congress intended to fold into a final floor package after January 24, nor whether leaders had a guaranteed floor vote majority for any particular minibus; those tactical details were being negotiated behind closed doors and were not resolved in the reporting reviewed here [5] [10].