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 in US government funding?
Executive Summary
A continuing resolution (CR) is a temporary appropriations law Congress uses to keep federal agencies funded at existing or specified levels when regular annual appropriations are not enacted by the fiscal-year deadline. CRs vary in scope and duration—short stopgaps, full-year measures, or hybrids—and their frequent use creates operational uncertainty for agencies and political leverage for lawmakers [1] [2] [3].
1. Why Washington Keeps Reaching for Stopgaps — The Mechanics of a Continuing Resolution
A continuing resolution is legally an appropriations vehicle that preserves funding for federal departments, agencies, and programs when Congress fails to pass regular appropriations acts; it typically does so by extending prior-year funding levels or setting fixed rates for a defined period. CRs specify which agencies are covered, at what funding rate, and for how long, and they can include exceptions or extensions for particular programs [1] [4]. The Government Accountability Office describes CRs as formal statutes that can constrain agency spending, freeze hiring or new initiatives, and limit program management options, because agencies operate under conditions that are not tailored to current needs [5]. Congress can pass short CRs that buy time for negotiations or a single CR that funds the government for an entire fiscal year, but the legal architecture is the same: temporary appropriations in lieu of enacted regular bills [2].
2. How Often Congress Uses CRs and What That Means for Agencies
The use of CRs is routine rather than exceptional in recent decades: Congress enacted at least one CR in most fiscal years, with counts showing dozens of CRs across recent decades and specific tallies such as 47 CRs between FY2010–2022 and 138 CRs from FY1998–2025 in available summaries [5] [3]. This chronic reliance produces funding uncertainty and administrative inefficiency because agencies cannot plan multi-year procurements, adjust workforce levels decisively, or launch major new programs when constrained to carryover spending rules. GAO and congressional analyses underline that CR-driven operations raise costs, delay projects, and impair strategic planning for defense, research, and grant programs, even when CRs avoid immediate shutdowns [5] [2].
3. The Political Uses of CRs — Leverage, Riders, and “Clean” Proposals
Continuing resolutions are political tools as well as budgetary stopgaps: lawmakers use CRs to advance policy riders, force votes on hot-button issues, or demand concessions in broader negotiations. Parties sometimes propose “clean” CRs that simply extend funding without policy changes to reopen a shutdown-impacted government, while others attach provisions to achieve legislative goals. Recent high-profile fights over clean versus conditioned CRs illustrate this dynamic: one side framed a clean CR as the path to reopen agencies and fund operations through defined dates, while opponents sought policy changes tied to funding [6] [7]. Votes to advance or amend CRs often determine whether a shutdown occurs, as the Senate vote to move a House-passed CR ended a 40-day shutdown in a recent episode that funded agencies through specified dates [8].
4. What a CR Covers—and Not—Plus Examples of Variations
CRs can be comprehensive, covering all regular appropriations accounts, or selective, applying only to certain departments. They often fund programs “at the rate of operations” from the prior fiscal year but may include exceptions for emergencies, expiring authorizations, or differing end dates for particular agencies. Legislative examples such as H.R.5371 show CRs that funded most programs at previous levels while extending specific authorities and setting staggered funding end dates—illustrating that CRs are drafted to balance continuity with targeted policy choices [4]. The form and language of a CR determine whether large programs, grants, or contract actions can proceed uninterrupted or face legal and practical constraints.
5. Downsides and Trade-offs—Operational Impacts and Budgetary Signals
CRs avoid partial or full government shutdowns, but they are not neutral: constrained funding rates and uncertainty impede procurement, research, and long-term initiatives, and can increase costs over time. Analysts document that frequent CRs reduce agency flexibility and complicate fiscal management, while the political signaling inherent in attaching riders can destabilize negotiations and prolong funding gaps [5] [2]. Moreover, prolonged reliance on CRs can mask underlying budget conflicts between Congress and the Administration, delaying resolution of priority-setting choices that regular appropriations are designed to resolve.
6. Multiple Perspectives and What Sources Emphasize
Congressional and oversight sources emphasize the legal mechanics and administrative impacts of CRs, documenting frequent use and practical consequences for agencies [1] [5] [2]. Legislative and news-oriented sources focus on the immediate political stakes—clean CR proposals, shutdown-avoidance votes, and negotiated end dates that reflect bargaining outcomes [6] [8] [7]. Together, these perspectives show CRs as both a necessary fiscal tool to prevent shutdowns and a symptom of deeper appropriations-level gridlock that transfers costs from policy decisions to operational stress on the federal government [3] [4].