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.
Key differences between the 2025 CR and previous resolutions
Executive Summary
The 2025 Continuing Resolution (CR) and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act replace stopgap measures with a largely year‑long funding framework that carries forward FY2024 top‑line discretionary levels while adding targeted increases and extensions for specific programs, producing a different fiscal and policy profile than prior CRs that included deeper policy riders and rescissions [1] [2]. The main differences are that the 2025 package sets roughly $1.6 trillion in discretionary authority (about $893 billion defense, $708 billion nondefense), contains modest net funding increases and supplemental disaster and programmatic allocations, and limits broad partisan policy changes, which together change scoring dynamics and political tradeoffs compared with earlier resolutions [2] [3].
1. Why the 2025 CR Feels Like a Different Animal: Funding Levels vs. Policy Riders
The 2025 CR is distinct because it prioritizes level funding with narrow adjustments rather than sweeping policy riders, meaning Congress largely carried forward FY2024 appropriations but allowed modest increases—about a $10 billion bump—and targeted supplemental funds, especially for disaster relief and specific program extensions [2] [4]. Previous CRs and budget proposals often sought to change top‑line caps or embed broad policy changes—like major IRS funding cuts or wide rescissions—that altered both program operations and budget scoring; by contrast, the 2025 approach reduces those flashpoints and instead concentrates on keeping government operations stable while adding limited new authorities [2] [1]. This shift from ideological leverage toward operational continuity changes where fights occur: from headline policy riders to line‑item tradeoffs over supplemental allocations and program extensions [5] [6].
2. The Big Ticket Shifts: Defense, Nondefense and Disaster Money
One clear divergence is the allocation mix: the CR establishes roughly $893 billion for defense and $708 billion for nondefense discretionary spending, producing a total near $1.6 trillion that mirrors FY2024 but with specific addons [2] [6]. The package also includes notable supplemental funding for disaster programs—over $100 billion in some analyses—and a $22.5 billion allocation for FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, plus extensions of programs such as TANF and the NFIP, which previous short CRs or stopgap bills did not consolidate for a full fiscal year [3] [6]. Those supplemental and programmatic shifts both respond to acute needs and lock in spending patterns that will influence budget baseline projections and future negotiations [3].
3. Winners and Losers: Program Cuts, Eliminations, and Extensions
Although top lines are largely maintained, the 2025 package cuts certain nondefense programs by about $13 billion and eliminates Community Project Funding and specific Department of Labor programs, signaling real changes in congressional priorities despite overall level funding [5]. At the same time, the CR extends community health center authorities, Medicare/Medicaid adjustments, and a year‑long extension of the 2018 Farm Bill, while delaying reductions to Medicaid DSH payments—moves that protect or prolong support for particular constituencies even as others face reductions [1] [3]. These tradeoffs highlight a selective reallocation approach: protect mandatory and politically sensitive programs while trimming discretionary or earmark‑style line items [5] [1].
4. Fiscal Scoring and the Political Playbook: Small Net Savings, Modest Deficit Effects
Analysts find the CR’s level‑funding posture sidesteps larger scoring battles but still produces modest fiscal impacts: an estimated $5.4 billion in direct outlay savings over a decade contrasted with a net deficit increase of roughly $7 billion through 2034 under some scoring assumptions, reflecting technicalities in how extensions, timing, and supplemental offsets are counted [2] [4]. The Fiscal Responsibility Act’s prior caps also constrained discretionary growth—reducing FY2025 allocations relative to pre‑cap projections—which compounds the political framing that the CR is both a continuity measure and a fiscal restraint tool [7]. These scoring outcomes shape leverage for both parties: Republicans can point to constrained growth, Democrats to program protections and targeted investments [2] [7].
5. What This Means Going Forward: Negotiation Space and Governance Risks
By converting stopgaps into a year‑long resolution with selective increases, the 2025 CR reduces immediate shutdown risk while concentrating future fights on specific line items, supplemental needs, and the next appropriations cycle, effectively moving the political contest from whether to fund government to how to allocate within a largely frozen topline [6] [4]. The CR’s grant of additional administrative discretion on some program funding and removals of community project funding also shifts power toward executive implementation choices and away from earmark‑based congressional control, creating governance tradeoffs that will surface in oversight and implementation debates [5] [1]. These structural changes create a different bargaining landscape for the remainder of FY2025 [2] [3].