What specific policy riders are House Republicans demanding in the 2025 continuing resolution?

1. Why the CR looks “clean” but still carries political riders — and what that means for passage

House Republican leaders framed an early CR as largely clean to keep appropriations moving and avoid an immediate shutdown, yet multiple accounts show embedded priorities that function as riders in practice. One account describes the House measure as “relatively clean” except for added security funding for leaders and retention of statutory language constraining agency negotiating rates, while also noting the absence of an ACA subsidy extension Democrats demand ^[1]. Conversely, internal Republican proposals and staff briefings presented simultaneous demands to rescind IRS funding, boost ICE and defense spending, and add targeted increases for veterans and WIC, which operate as policy riders because they change program funding and conditions midstream ^{[4] [2]}. This split reflects a tactical balancing act: portray a stopgap as minimal while using the CR to advance substantive policy shifts that would be harder to pass as standalone bills.

2. The concrete fiscal and programmatic riders Republicans pressed in House drafts

Several documents identify specific fiscal priorities Republicans pressed to include in their CR drafts: a $13 billion cut to nondefense discretionary spending, a $6 billion defense increase, rescissions of IRS funding, higher ICE and veterans’ health allocations, and targeted boosts like $500 million for WIC and $6 billion for a Toxic Exposures Fund ^{[2] [4]}. Another Republican-crafted yearlong CR would grant the administration discretion to zero out programs, affecting areas from CDC and medical research to tribal and rural development, and would remove congressional direction for many earmarks and community projects ^[3]. These items are framed as budget-saving or re-prioritizing riders by GOP proponents but are described by critics as broad delegations of authority that could hollow out congressional appropriations power ^[3].

3. Democratic and Senate responses: ACA subsidies and filibuster mathematics

Senate Democrats have insisted that any CR incorporate an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits, a nonstarter for many House conservatives, making that a central point of contention ^{[1] [5]}. Sources show senators discussing votes and trades — including promising votes for the ACA credit extension in exchange for other concessions — but the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold complicates passage of a House-shaped CR without bipartisan support ^{[1] [6]}. The legislative math forces negotiations: some Senate Republicans and GOP leadership signaled willingness to negotiate appropriations or consider different funding expiration dates to avoid a year-end omnibus, which would shift leverage and potentially change which riders survive ^{[7] [6]}.

4. How the proposals would reshape executive discretion and congressional oversight

A recurrent theme across Republican drafts is granting the executive branch expanded discretion to reprogram, reduce, or eliminate line items — effectively turning the CR into a mechanism for administrative retrenchment rather than merely temporary funding ^[3]. Advocates argue this flexibility allows urgent national-security and veterans priorities to be funded quickly; critics warn it could permit broad program eliminations without the usual congressional markup and transparency, weakening legislative oversight and shifting policy-making authority to the White House ^{[3] [2]}. The tension reveals competing institutional agendas: House conservatives seek policy wins via funding mechanics, while institutionalists and Democrats push to preserve appropriations as Congress’s core power.

5. What’s missing, the likely outcomes, and where the fight will continue

Available analyses show important omissions in public reporting and drafts: precise line-item lists vary by document, some Republican factions prefer a short January extension while others push for longer deadlines or yearlong CRs, and several potential riders remain unnamed or are described only in broad categories ^{[8] [7] [3]}. Given the Senate’s filibuster and Democratic insistence on ACA credits, the most likely near-term outcome is continued negotiation and piecemeal deals — short-term CRs or extensions tied to narrow concessions — rather than wholesale adoption of the House’s expansive rider agenda. The fight will focus on ACA subsidies, IRS funding rescissions, defense increases, and the scope of administrative discretion — the clearest levers shaping whether the CR becomes a vehicle for lasting policy change or a narrow stopgap. ^{[1] [2] [5]}