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.
What is a continuing resolution and how does it fund the government short-term?
Executive Summary
A continuing resolution (CR) is a temporary spending law Congress enacts to keep federal operations funded at prior-year levels or under a specified formula when regular appropriations are not passed by the October 1 fiscal-year start, and it functions as a short-term bridge that avoids government shutdowns while lawmakers negotiate full-year bills [1] [2]. CRs have become a routine tool—used in most years—and while they maintain basic operations they also create administrative strain, uncertainty, and limited flexibility for agencies that must operate under prior assumptions until final appropriations are enacted [3].
1. What supporters and critics say about the CR's purpose and design
Supporters frame continuing resolutions as pragmatic stopgaps that preserve essential services and prevent the economic disruption of a shutdown by funding government operations temporarily at the prior year's rate or a defined “rate of operations.” This description matches the core legal function of CRs as short-term appropriations mechanisms that can cover all agencies or only select accounts, and include variations such as anomalies or legislative provisions to tweak prior funding where needed [3] [4]. Critics argue CRs undermine congressional budgeting because they are used repeatedly in lieu of regular appropriations, creating chronic uncertainty and preventing agencies from implementing new priorities or adapting to changing needs; multiple sources document that CRs have been used in almost every recent fiscal cycle and have imposed measurable operational constraints [1] [2].
2. How a CR actually funds agencies short-term and what that looks like in practice
Legally, a continuing resolution typically sets funding at the previous fiscal year’s enacted level or at a prorated “rate of operations” for a defined period, effectively extending prior authority to obligate funds until a specified date or until full appropriations pass. In practice this means payroll, basic contracts, and ongoing programs continue, but new initiatives, expansions, or significant hires are often curtailed or delayed because agencies cannot reallocate baseline funds or start multi-year commitments without explicit new appropriations language—an operational reality documented in GAO analyses and recent reporting on CR impacts [2] [4]. CRs may also include specific adjustments—called anomalies—that allow limited changes to certain programs, but these are the exception, not the rule.
3. The frequency and political dynamics driving CR use
Congress has increasingly relied on CRs as deadlines approach; records show numerous CRs across recent decades with varied durations, and at least one CR enacted in all but a handful of the last 47 fiscal years, underscoring a pattern of legislative gridlock and tactical bargaining [3] [5]. Short-term CRs are often paired with high-stakes negotiations on policy riders or supplemental spending, producing tight vote margins in the House and procedural hurdles in the Senate, particularly the 60-vote threshold for passage of some funding measures. Recent instances illustrate how split chambers and partisan priorities can convert CR votes into leverage points, with consequences stretching from county-level services to military and court funding debates [5] [6].
4. Concrete impacts on federal agencies, grantees, and the economy
Agencies operating under CRs face hiring freezes, restricted travel, delayed procurements, and curtailed research or infrastructure projects because they cannot commit to funding beyond the CR’s narrow window—outcomes repeatedly observed in government reporting and recent analyses [3] [2]. Grantees and state or local partners experience funding uncertainty that complicates planning and service delivery; counties and other recipients have warned that stopgap measures stall projects and increase administrative costs. While CRs prevent immediate shutdowns, they impose opportunity costs and inefficiencies by forcing agencies to run on carryover budgets that may not reflect current needs or emergent priorities [1] [3].
5. Pathways out of dependence on CRs and political trade-offs to watch
Options to reduce reliance on continuing resolutions include strengthening long-term budget agreements, mandating automatic funding mechanisms, or reforming the appropriations calendar; each option carries trade-offs between political control and fiscal predictability. Some lawmakers advocate for omnibus appropriations to minimize CRs, while others use CRs strategically to extract concessions or delay controversial decisions—the choice between stability and leverage shapes whether CRs remain frequent. The record shows that absent structural changes to the appropriations process or bipartisan agreements, CRs will likely persist as the default instrument to avert shutdowns, even as analysts and agencies highlight the operational downsides of that status quo [3] [2].