What is the process for approving the US federal budget?

1. How Washington Says “Start”: The President’s Request and Congressional Response

The formal process opens when the President submits a detailed budget request to Congress, typically in early February; that document frames administration priorities but has no legal force. Congressional Budget Committees in the House and Senate then craft a concurrent budget resolution that sets aggregate spending and revenue targets and can include reconciliation instructions directing committees to propose policy changes to hit those totals ^{[1] [3]}. The Congressional Budget Office provides nonpartisan cost estimates and economic projections that shape deliberations. The budget resolution is procedural rather than statutory: it does not appropriate funds or create law but establishes the numerical framework used by Appropriations and authorizing committees. In practice, Congress often misses statutory deadlines, and the House and Senate frequently adopt differing resolutions that must be reconciled or ignored when Appropriations bill work proceeds ^{[4] [5]}.

2. Where the Money Is Actually Decided: Appropriations Committees and 12 Bills

After a budget resolution sets toplines, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees divide discretionary spending into 12 subcommittees, each drafting an appropriations bill that funds specific agencies and programs. Those bills must pass both chambers and be reconciled; absent agreement, Congress often bundles bills into omnibus packages or extends funding through continuing resolutions to avoid shutdowns ^{[1] [5]}. Appropriations address discretionary spending only; mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare) and interest on the debt are governed by existing statute and entitlement rules. Conference committees or bicameral negotiators resolve differences between House and Senate versions. If Congress cannot agree by the start of the fiscal year (October 1), the result is reliance on stopgap funding that preserves programs at prior-year levels, a recurring feature highlighted in recent years ^{[4] [3]}.

3. The Fast Track: Budget Reconciliation and the Byrd Rule’s Limits

Congress can use budget reconciliation to enact changes to revenue, direct spending, and the debt limit with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The process begins with reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution, sends implementing legislation through committees, and culminates in a single reconciliation bill that requires only 51 votes to pass ^{[2] [6]}. The Byrd Rule constrains reconciliation by rejecting provisions deemed extraneous to budgetary changes, and certain programs — notably Social Security — are generally protected. Reconciliation is a powerful but legally constrained tool; it has been used to pass major fiscal measures but cannot carry provisions that lack a direct budgetary effect or that violate Senate rules ^{[7] [2]}.

4. Timing, Politics, and the Reality of Delays: CRs, Omnibus Bills, and Shutdown Risk

The statutory calendar sets December for most appropriations decisions, with April 15 as a typical budget-resolution target, but partisan conflict and competing agendas routinely derail the schedule. When Congress cannot finish appropriations, lawmakers resort to continuing resolutions (CRs) to avoid a government shutdown or craft large omnibus or minibus spending packages that consolidate many bills into one legislative vehicle ^{[4] [3]}. These ad hoc fixes shift bargaining leverage, compress oversight, and can obscure detailed program-level decisions. Political incentives, intra-party divisions, and external events (economic shifts, emergencies) commonly force last-minute compromises, which explains why the formal process often diverges from the idealized timeline described in statutes and educational guides ^{[5] [4]}.

5. Competing Narratives and What Experts Disagree On

Sources agree on the formal mechanics — President’s request, congressional resolutions, appropriations, and reconciliation — but diverge on how critically those steps constrain outcomes and on the causes of dysfunction. Some summaries emphasize statutory structure and committee responsibility, presenting the process as orderly when followed ^{[1] [3]}. Others stress political breakdowns, frequent reliance on CRs and omnibus bills, and strategic use of reconciliation as signs the system is routinely bypassed ^{[4] [6]}. These differences reflect distinct agendas: institutional descriptions aim to explain “how it should work,” while policy analyses prioritize recent practice and incentives that produce delays. Understanding both frames is essential: rules set the options, politics decides which options Congress uses in any given year ^{[5] [7]}.