Fact check: Who in the senate voted against the full year continuous funding act

1. What the roll call shows — a clear tally, contested interpretations

The official roll-call reporting on the Senate passage records a 55–45 vote on the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, with the YEAs a bipartisan mix and the NAYs numbering 45. The roll-call summary identifies several named YEAs such as Capito (R-WV), Collins (R-ME), and Fetterman (D-PA), while the NAY list includes Democrats like Alsobrooks (D-MD), Baldwin (D-WI), and Bennet (D-CO). This numeric outcome is consistent with multiple roll-call summaries and the congressional record that were published and aggregated on September 30, 2025, and it provides the definitive legislative result that 45 senators opposed passage ^[1]. The fact of 45 NAYs is corroborated by more than one roll-call data product.

2. Who voted against it — names, party patterns, and anomalies

Available roll-call extracts and reporting list the 45 senators who voted against final passage and indicate that the majority of those NAYs were Democrats, reflecting intra-party divisions over the bill’s substance and political strategy. Multiple named Democrats appear on the NAY list; reporting highlights Alsobrooks, Baldwin, and Bennet among others as voting no. Some reporting also points to Democrats who split with their caucus on other funding measures earlier in the year, signaling that voting patterns were influenced by policy disagreements and tactical positions on appropriations rather than simple party-line discipline ^[1]. The composition of the NAYs shows a policy-driven—not purely partisan—contestation over the full-year approach.

3. Context: how this vote fit into a broader funding fight

This vote came amid repeated congressional attempts to fund the government and to avert or resolve shutdown risks; earlier procedural votes, continuing resolutions, and six-month packages had fractured support across and within parties. Some senators previously crossed party lines to support short-term CRs to avert a shutdown, while others repeatedly opposed CRs or full-year measures on policy grounds. Reporting from March and October to November 2025 documents multiple failed CR votes and shifting coalitions, and notes that in several earlier votes most Senate Democrats opposed certain CRs while a smaller group joined Republicans to pass stopgap measures. The Full-Year Act vote must be read against these sequential funding battles ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

4. Disagreements in public reporting and what to watch for in original sources

Different outlets emphasize alternative angles: roll-call databases provide the raw yea/nay lists and timestamps, while news stories frame the vote as either bipartisan compromise or a party revolt depending on narrative choice. Some articles list ten Democrats who voted with Republicans on certain six-month bills, while other accounts stress that 37 or more Democrats opposed particular CRs; such differences arise from referencing distinct votes on separate proposals across months. The most reliable reference for exact names is the formal roll-call record, which should be consulted for any definitive list; contemporaneous news coverage offers context but can conflate separate votes if not clearly dated ^{[1] [2]}.

5. Motives and strategic calculations behind the 45 NAYs

Senators voting no cited a range of rationales in coverage: objections to funding levels, policy riders, and negotiating tactics; some opposed a full-year package as insufficiently protective of priorities, others balked at concessions or procedural sequencing. Conversely, senators voting yea argued a full-year measure provided stability and avoided repeated CRs. Observers note that strategic calculations about messaging to home-state constituencies and positioning for future appropriations negotiations shaped many votes. The vote reflects both substantive disagreement over the bill’s content and electoral or institutional strategy, not just a single unifying motive ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom line and where to verify names and rationales

The factual bottom line: the Senate passed the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 by a 55–45 margin, and 45 senators voted against it, with reporting indicating most of the NAYs were Democrats. For an authoritative, itemized list of the 45 senators who voted no, consult the official roll-call entry (published September 30, 2025) and the Congressional Record; for motives and quotes, read contemporaneous reporting that distinguishes this specific roll call from earlier CRs and stopgap measures. The roll-call record is the primary source to confirm individual names, while news reports supply the political context and competing interpretations ^{[1] [2]}.