Which appropriations bills (Defense, Labor-HHS, etc.) were still pending at the 2025 funding lapse?

1. What different sources claimed — and the headline disagreement that matters

One set of analyses asserted a narrow claim: that the Labor‑HHS appropriations measure was the singular major bill still pending at the lapse, drawing on legislative tracking and committee activity to single it out as notable ^[2]. Another, broader account states plainly that none of the 12 regular FY2026 appropriations bills had been enacted nor had Congress passed a continuing resolution, so all appropriations packages were pending when funding lapsed on September 30 and the shutdown began October 1, 2025 ^[1]. Both claims are factually grounded, but they emphasize different frames: the CRS‑style focus on a particular high‑profile bill versus the procedural reality that every regular appropriations bill was unresolved at the moment of lapse. Readers should treat the narrow claim as a spotlight, not a replacement for the full congressional status. ^{[2] [1]}

2. The full list: every appropriations title still awaiting action when funding lapsed

The clearest contemporaneous accounting lists all twelve standard appropriations bills as pending at the start of the FY2026 lapse: Agriculture; Commerce‑Justice‑Science; Defense; Energy and Water; Financial Services; Homeland Security; Interior and Environment; Labor‑Health and Human Services‑Education (Labor‑HHS); Legislative Branch; Military Construction‑VA; State‑Foreign Operations; and Transportation‑HUD. That enumeration reflects the procedural fact that Congress had not enacted any full‑year FY2026 measures nor secured a stopgap continuing resolution, making each title unresolved when the shutdown began ^[1]. This comprehensive framing avoids overstating attention on any single bill and reflects the legal reality that appropriations authority for FY2026 had not been established. ^[1]

3. Why some reports emphasized Labor‑HHS and how that fits into the bigger picture

Analysts pointed to Labor‑HHS because it had visible committee activity and politically salient program cuts discussed in draft proposals; the House and Senate had both reported versions at different times, but neither chamber had completed final action before the lapse. A report specifically noted H.R. 5304 and S. 2587 as reported measures that had not advanced to enactment, which is why some observers described Labor‑HHS as a standout unfinished bill ^[2]. That spotlight is factually correct about committee movement, yet it does not contradict the broader status that all 12 bills were pending—it simply highlights one politicked, high‑impact bill among many unresolved measures. Framing it otherwise can suggest a false exclusivity. ^{[2] [1]}

4. Timeline and operational consequences tied to the funding gap

The funding lapse began October 1, 2025, because Congress had failed to enact FY2026 appropriations or a continuing resolution; reporting of the shutdown’s early days documented furloughs of roughly 900,000 federal employees and repeated failed procedural votes on stopgap measures as negotiators clashed over policy riders and funding tradeoffs ^[3]. Other accounts show lawmakers immediately mapping potential post‑shutdown strategies and prioritizing which bills to move first when work resumed, with some leadership proposals focusing initially on discrete, politically manageable packages ^[4]. These procedural and personnel impacts are direct consequences of the unresolved appropriations posture across all 12 bills, not the product of any one pending title. ^{[3] [4]}

5. Political narratives, competing agendas, and what was omitted from some accounts

Coverage that narrowed attention to the Labor‑HHS bill often reflected partisan or policy priorities—health, education, and labor spending are inherently newsworthy and ideologically contested—while broader procedural summaries emphasized institutional failure to complete the 12‑bill cycle. Some sources also flagged proposed cuts to nondefense programs and elimination of Community Project Funding as bargaining chips; those programmatic details explain why specific bills drew more public attention even as every bill remained technically pending ^[5]. Readers should note these agendas: selective framing can elevate particular bills for political reasons, so the full 12‑bill list provides the necessary context to evaluate claims about which appropriations drove the lapse. ^{[5] [4]}