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.
How does a continuing resolution (CR) work and why do they fail?
Executive Summary
A continuing resolution (CR) is Congress’s short-term funding stopgap that preserves prior-year spending levels to keep the government operating when regular appropriations are not enacted; Congress has relied on CRs repeatedly, enacting 138 from FY1998 through FY2025 and averaging about five per year [1] [2]. CRs prevent immediate shutdowns but create budgetary uncertainty and operational friction across federal agencies — disrupting hiring, contracting, program starts, and the ability to respond to inflation or new priorities — and can themselves become political flashpoints that fail when parties or factions refuse compromise [3] [4].
1. Why the Stopgap Exists — The Anatomy of a CR and What It Actually Does
A continuing resolution functions as a temporary appropriation that typically funds federal programs at the prior fiscal year’s levels until Congress passes full appropriations or another CR; it can be short-term, cover selected agencies, or, on occasion, run a full fiscal year [5] [3]. By design, a CR avoids the immediate consequences of a lapse in appropriations — it keeps paychecks and basic operations flowing — but it freezes discretionary agencies at previous funding and policy settings, limiting the government’s ability to adjust to inflation, changing mission needs, or new priorities. The near-constant reliance on CRs since the late 1990s has normalized stopgap funding as a feature of the annual budget calendar rather than an exception [1] [3].
2. How CRs Harm Operations — The Cost of Certainty That Isn’t
Operating under a CR produces real, measurable disruptions: deferred hiring, delayed contracts and grants, postponed program starts, and constrained military and social services, including effects on recruiting, childcare for military families, and nutrition programs when funding patterns are constrained across a year [3] [2]. The Government Accountability Office and analysts cited in the sources document how these inefficiencies add administrative costs and impede mission delivery, making CRs operationally costly despite their political convenience. Long CRs leave agencies essentially running on autopilot, unable to reallocate or expand resources in response to emergent needs — a problem magnified when inflation erodes purchasing power relative to enacted budgets.
3. Why CRs Fail Politically — Stalemate, Riders, and Senate Math
CRs fail when Congress cannot resolve underlying policy disputes or when chamber dynamics and procedural thresholds block passage. The 2025 shutdown illustrates this dynamic: repeated Senate votes failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to advance House-passed CRs, as competing versions and policy riders divided parties and factions [4] [6]. Failure stems from strategic bargaining, intraparty divisions, and use of CR votes to press unrelated priorities — Democrats seeking healthcare policy changes and Republicans pushing for spending constraints or longer-term CRs. When neither side yields, the stopgap instrument designed to buy negotiation time becomes the arena of the dispute itself.
4. Two Narratives on CRs — Necessary Evil Versus Bad Budgeting
Observers advance contrasting views: some present CRs as the pragmatic alternative to government shutdowns, a lesser-evil instrument that preserves continuity while negotiators continue work [5]. Others argue CRs reflect a broken appropriations process that encourages short-termism and can mask deep spending retrenchment when used serially; critics warn successive CRs or year-long CRs can amount to de facto spending cuts and undermine long-term planning [7] [2]. Both narratives are grounded in evidence: CRs avoid immediate operational collapse but repeatedly impose systemic inefficiencies and policy rigidity when used as default practice.
5. What the 2025 Experience Reveals — Cross-Party Gridlock and Real-World Consequences
The 2025 episode, described as surpassing previous shutdowns in duration, shows how failure to pass CRs produces tangible hardships: furloughs, halts or interruptions to SNAP and other programs, and broader economic and service impacts as agencies curtail operations while negotiations stall [8] [4]. The impasse also highlights procedural realities — the need for supermajority support in the Senate for many motions and the leverage of House factions advocating full-year or policy-laden fixes — making resolution contingent more on political calculations than purely budgetary concerns. Lawmakers face pressure to either restore a predictable appropriations rhythm or accept reforms to reduce CR reliance; the 2025 case underscores the costs of inaction and the political drivers that make CRs both common and combustible [3] [6].