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.
Fact check: What spending vehicles (short-term CR, omnibus, targeted appropriations) allow reopening while excluding border wall money?
Executive Summary
Short-term continuing resolutions (CRs), omnibus appropriations bills, and targeted or single-committee appropriations riders can all reopen the government while excluding funding for a border wall, but each vehicle carries distinct political trade-offs and procedural limits. The practical path depends on whether Congress wants a quick stopgap, a negotiated all-at-once package, or a piecemeal agreement that isolates Homeland Security funding, and recent congressional proposals show all three approaches have been used to either include or omit wall money [1] [2].
1. A quick fix: short-term continuing resolutions let Congress reopen now — and sidestep wall money if written that way
Short-term continuing resolutions (CRs) are the fastest mechanism to reopen funding and preserve the status quo; they simply extend prior-year levels and can be drafted to omit or prevent new authorities for specific line items such as border wall construction. Congressional proposals in 2024–2025 demonstrate that a CR’s language controls whether new wall funds are allowed: some CR drafts prevent new construction funding by maintaining existing statutory limits, while other CRs have included targeted add-ons (including border-related provisions) when negotiators opted to make temporary policy changes [3] [1]. The political appeal of a CR is speed, but its weakness is temporary stability — it buys time but leaves the underlying dispute unresolved, and negotiators may reinsert construction funding when pursuing a longer bill [4].
2. The big bet: omnibus appropriations can exclude wall funds but require broad compromise
An omnibus appropriations bill, which bundles multiple appropriations bills into one large package, can definitively exclude or prohibit funding for border wall projects by omitting line items or including explicit prohibitions. Omnibus bills have the advantage of finality — they can settle funding across departments for the full fiscal year — but they demand complex trade-offs across numerous policy areas. Historical precedent shows Congress used omnibus deals to limit or reallocate border funding as part of larger compromises, accepting or rejecting portions of executive requests in exchange for concessions elsewhere [5] [6]. The downside is that omnibus negotiations are high-stakes and can entrench other controversial provisions; excluding wall money in an omnibus is feasible only if a majority in both chambers and the White House tolerate the trade-offs involved [6].
3. Carve-outs and single-issue bills: targeted appropriations can isolate border funding debates
Congress can also pursue targeted appropriations — either a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill that omits wall funding, or a single-bill approach funding most agencies while leaving DHS for separate negotiation. Targeted bills let lawmakers isolate the border funding fight and may be politically attractive if coalition majorities oppose wall construction but support other spending. The FY2024 House DHS bill that explicitly included no funding for new wall construction is an example of this approach: it shows lawmakers can strip wall money out of a single-agency bill even while funding personnel and technology [2]. This approach requires either Senate agreement to take up the pared package or separate CRs to cover other agencies, and it can stall if the other chamber or the White House insists on wall funding.
4. Precedent and leverage: how past deals shaped current options and political incentives
Past funding decisions set practical precedents: the 2018 government spending deal that allocated limited funds for physical barriers while cutting back a larger White House request illustrates that Congress can split the difference and still reopen the government [5]. That precedent shows lawmakers can negotiate numeric compromises rather than an all-or-nothing battle over “wall” money, and negotiators often trade funding levels for policy riders on immigration enforcement, technology, or disaster relief. Recent FY2024 and FY2025 CRs and proposals in 2024–2025 reveal competing agendas — some bills explicitly attempted to enhance border security without funding new wall construction, while other packages bundled border construction with broader funding items [1] [3]. Political leverage and the White House’s priorities determine whether excluding wall funds is sustainable for the full appropriations cycle.
5. Practical considerations: timelines, riders, and the risk of reinserted funding
Choosing a vehicle requires weighing procedural speed against longevity. A CR can omit border wall funding now but invites renewed contention when a longer appropriations measure is negotiated; an omnibus can lock in exclusion but requires broad political buy-in; a targeted DHS bill isolates the issue but may complicate passage of other appropriations. Lawmakers also use riders and conditional language to allow or forbid transfers, reprogramming, or construction waivers — mechanisms that can quietly re-enable wall spending unless explicitly prohibited. Recent analyses and bills from 2024–2025 show Congress has the tools to exclude wall money, but the outcome ultimately depends on majorities in the House, Senate, and the President’s willingness to sign or veto the selected vehicle [4] [2] [6].