Can a continuing resolution be passed without bipartisan support in the House of Representatives?

1. Why the House can act alone — and why that doesn’t end the story

The House operates on a simple-majority voting rule, so a majority party can pass a continuing resolution without any votes from the minority; historical and recent votes demonstrate that Republicans have enacted CRs on near party-line margins ^{[1] [6]}. That procedural reality means the House can “pass” funding bills or temporary measures as a political statement or bargaining position. But passage in the House is only half the constitutional and practical pathway to funding: for a CR to fund the government it must either be accepted by the Senate or be reconciled through a conference or amended House vote, which brings the Senate’s rules and the president’s signature into play. The functional consequence is that House passages without bipartisan Senate buy-in routinely fail to end shutdowns ^{[1] [3]}.

2. The Senate’s filibuster and the 60‑vote hurdle that matters

The Senate’s regular practice of requiring 60 votes to overcome a filibuster for most bills means that a House-passed CR that is partisan will normally stall unless it secures bipartisan Senate support or is structured to avoid filibuster constraints ^{[4] [3]}. Recent late‑2025 votes underscore this: several House-backed CRs cleared the House but were defeated or blocked in the Senate where 60 votes were needed to advance the measure; roll call tallies and public briefings show Senate Republicans and Democrats split along party lines, producing repeated failures to reach cloture ^{[4] [3]}. The upshot is that Senate procedure—not House rules—usually determines whether a partisan CR becomes law.

3. When partisan House CRs have worked — and when they haven’t

There are occasions when the Senate has accepted House measures that originated as partisan initiatives, either because moderates crossed party lines or because Senators attached changes that secured broader support; a full-year appropriations-type CR passed in mid‑2025 did carry bipartisan votes in both chambers, illustrating that bipartisan support remains the reliable path to enactment ^[7]. Conversely, the wave of House party-line CRs in fall 2025 repeatedly failed to end the shutdown because the Senate refused to advance them without concessions or extensions, demonstrating that partisan House victories often translate into gridlock rather than governance ^{[1] [8]}.

4. Tactical workarounds and their limits — rescissions, reconciliation, and amendments

Congressional actors sometimes try procedural workarounds: attaching funding to other vehicles, using rescissions that may bypass cloture norms, or pursuing reconciliation where applicable for budget-related items that meet strict rules ^{[2] [4]}. These tactics can sometimes reduce the number of votes required or change the debate, but they come with constraints: reconciliation is limited to budgetary changes and rescissions have narrow scope and political costs. The 2025 debates show lawmakers exploring later expiration dates, package deals, and attachments to boost Senate appeal, but none of these guaranteed that a partisan House CR would clear the upper chamber without actual bipartisan buy-in ^{[5] [2]}.

5. Bottom line for lawmakers, the public, and media coverage

Procedurally, the House can pass a continuing resolution without bipartisan support because of its simple-majority rule; politically and practically, that alone rarely ends a shutdown because the Senate’s 60‑vote practice and presidential action matter most for final enactment ^{[1] [4]}. Coverage from November 2025 shows negotiators still pursuing cross‑party compromise and senators expressing guarded optimism that a deal could be struck — underscoring that bipartisan agreement in the Senate or a bipartisan bill remains the likeliest route to actually reopen the government, even when the House acts unilaterally ^{[5] [3]}.