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: How have previous government shutdowns been resolved through continuing resolutions?
Executive Summary
Previous U.S. government shutdowns have most commonly been ended by Congress passing short-term funding measures called continuing resolutions (CRs), which extend prior-year funding levels while lawmakers negotiate appropriations [1] [2]. However, CRs are a stopgap that frequently leave underlying disputes unresolved and can create operational challenges for agencies and federal employees [3] [2].
1. Why “temporary fixes” become the norm: Congress leans on continuing resolutions
Congress has routinely used continuing resolutions to avert prolonged shutdowns by extending existing funding formulas instead of finalizing new appropriations. Historical accounts and government summaries show every shutdown since 1990 has ended with a CR or similar short-term funding action, making CRs the default instrument to reopen the government and resume pay for federal employees [1]. The practice accelerated in recent decades; the Government Accountability Office counted dozens of CRs between FY2010 and FY2022, demonstrating a pattern where lawmakers prioritize immediate operations over negotiated, year-long spending packages [2]. Commentators documenting the 2018–2019 shutdown emphasize that a CR was the mechanism that ended the 35-day shutdown, underscoring the CR’s role as the practical remedy when appropriations deadlock [4].
2. How continuing resolutions work in practice: hold the line on funding
A continuing resolution typically continues prior-year funding levels and maintains existing programmatic authorities, allowing agency operations to continue at status-quo spending until Congress enacts full appropriations or another CR [2]. CRs can be tailored for short windows—weeks—or extended for months or the remainder of a fiscal year, giving negotiators breathing room while preventing immediate service disruptions [5]. Analysts note that while CRs preserve baseline funding, they defer policy choices and fresh investments, effectively freezing agency priorities and complicating multi-year planning and hiring [2]. The Brookings analysis highlights the structural tradeoff: CRs keep the lights on but do not resolve the root political fights that caused the shutdown [6].
3. When CRs end a shutdown: recent examples and patterns
Recent examples demonstrate the typical arc: a shutdown begins when appropriations lapse; mounting pressure—public, economic, and administrative—pushes Congress to pass a CR to reopen government; negotiations over contested issues continue afterward. The December 2018–January 2019 shutdown is illustrative: after 35 days, lawmakers approved a CR to resume funding while talks on border funding resumed [4] [7]. Reporting across 2025 also reinforces that CRs remained the immediate remedy for past closures, even as commentators debated whether CRs satisfy demands of the minority party or the president [7] [3]. This recurrence shows CRs function as crisis-management tools rather than durable reforms.
4. Limits of continuing resolutions: operational and political downsides
CRs impose practical burdens on agencies: stopgap funding reduces flexibility, delays new programs, and complicates hiring and contracting decisions. The Government Accountability Office cataloged numerous instances where repeated CRs hindered agency operations between 2010 and 2022 [2]. Policy analysts and think tanks argue CRs can also produce perverse incentives: political actors may tacitly prefer CRs because they avoid making politically costly spending decisions, perpetuating a cycle of short-term fixes [6]. Some contemporary commentary in 2025 cautioned that while CRs end shutdowns, they may not placate negotiating parties or produce long-term budget compromise, leaving underlying disputes to resurface [3].
5. Competing perspectives and potential agendas: who benefits from CR reliance?
Proponents of CRs emphasize stability and employee protections, arguing that temporary measures prevent economic harm and resume essential services quickly [1] [7]. Critics—including policy researchers—portray CRs as symptomatic of dysfunction, privileging short-term continuity over responsible budgeting and reform. Think tanks advocating automatic continuing resolutions push for structural fixes to remove shutdown brinksmanship, while political actors who gain leverage from repeated short-term funding may resist such automaticity [6]. Media summaries in late 2025 show divergent framing: some outlets present CRs as practical and inevitable, others portray them as politically expedient and insufficient—a split that reflects differing institutional and partisan incentives [3] [8].
6. What the record shows and what it omits: reliable facts and open questions
The documentary record is clear: CRs have been the dominant method to end shutdowns since at least 1990, and specific shutdowns—most notably the 35-day 2018–2019 closure—ended via CRs [1] [4] [7]. The data also show consequential costs: agencies struggle under repeated CRs, and shutdowns have measurable economic impacts [2] [6]. What the record omits is an easy solution: debates in 2025 about automatic CRs or other reforms reflect competing tradeoffs between removing political leverage and preserving fiscal accountability, and no consensus institutional fix has supplanted CRs as the short-term remedy [6] [3]. The practical takeaway is that CRs reliably end shutdowns, but they are an imperfect tool that defers, rather than settles, fundamental budget conflicts [1] [2].