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: Which amendments in the current continuing resolution are opposed by both Democrats and Republicans?
Executive Summary
The available reporting shows there is no single amendment in the current continuing resolution that both Democrats and Republicans explicitly unite to oppose; instead, opposition falls along predictable partisan lines around health-care subsidies, filibuster rules, and funding rescissions. Key disputes center on Democrats demanding extensions of enhanced ACA tax credits and protections against rescissions while many House Republicans insist on a “clean” CR without those provisions; Republican leaders also reject proposals to eliminate the Senate filibuster [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why Democrats and Republicans Are Not Aligned — Parties Battle Over Health-Care Credits and Bargaining Chips
Reporting shows the central cleavage in the CR debate is health-care subsidies, with Democrats pressing to extend enhanced ACA tax credits and Republicans resisting additions that would swell spending. Democrats have tied support for a stopgap to negotiations over health-care protections and to blocking rescissions of previously appropriated funds, framing these as essential to vulnerable constituents and to program continuity [2] [4]. Republicans, particularly in the House, advanced or defended a “clean” CR approach that omits those Democratic priorities, arguing that attaching policy riders or spending expansions would undercut fiscal discipline. This dynamic means that rather than a specific amendment earning bipartisan opposition, amendments expanding health-care credits or preventing rescissions are each embraced by one side and opposed by the other, producing stalemate [4] [5].
2. Filibuster Talk Isn’t a Bipartisan Block — Republicans Reject Eliminating the Rule Despite Trump Push
A separate flashpoint is the Senate filibuster. President Trump publicly urged scrapping the filibuster to expedite a shutdown-ending measure, but Senate Republican leaders swiftly rejected that idea, defending the legislative rule as important to Senate procedure. That rejection shows intra-party restraint among Republicans rather than bipartisan opposition to a single amendment: Democrats support using the vote majorities they have to press for policy like extending subsidies, while most Senate Republicans keep the filibuster intact and oppose eliminating it. The fight over the filibuster is therefore a strategic institutional dispute layered on top of policy fights, not a jointly opposed amendment in the CR text [3].
3. Two Competing CRs, Two Sets of Amendments — Each Side’s Priorities Spark Cross-Chamber Friction
Congressional reporting documents dueling CRs: House Republican proposals and Democratic countermeasures contain different sets of provisions. The Democratic CR explicitly aimed to extend enhanced tax credits and protect ongoing grant programs, while the House Republican CR omitted these safeguards and included fewer protections against rescissions. The practical effect is that any amendment to include those Democratic priorities would be met with Republican resistance, while Republican preferences for a clean stopgap meet Democratic resistance. Observers therefore find opposition concentrated on each side’s signature amendments, not a shared list of disliked amendments [6] [4] [5].
4. Where the Evidence Shows Bipartisan Agreement Is Absent — Procedural Patterns, Not Single Amendments
Senate votes and procedural outcomes reflect partisan alignment rather than bipartisan opposition to items in the CR. The Senate’s failure multiple times to advance the House-passed funding bill and the stalled attempts to reach compromise show that votes split predictably: Democrats coalesce around protections for health-care subsidies, Republicans coalesce around maintaining a clean CR and preserving institutional norms like the filibuster. The reporting documents repeated procedural failures and that no new cross-party coalition emerged to jointly oppose a particular amendment; instead, each amendment polarizes the chamber along party lines [7] [8].
5. Competing Narratives and Stakeholder Agendas — Unions, Leadership, and Presidential Pressure
Interest groups and leaders add pressure that colors how amendments are framed: federal-worker unions urged Democrats to accept a clean stopgap to reopen government, an appeal Democrats resisted because of policy priorities; Republican leadership refrained from eliminating the filibuster despite presidential urging, suggesting a protective stance toward institutional prerogatives. These actions show distinct agendas—unions prioritizing immediate reopening, Democratic lawmakers prioritizing policy protections, and Republican leaders prioritizing procedure—helping explain why no amendment has attracted uniform bipartisan opposition or support [2] [3].
6. Bottom Line: No Single Amendment Is Universally Opposed — Expect Continued Partisan Tradeoffs
Across the documents, the clear finding is that amendments to extend enhanced ACA tax credits, to prevent rescissions, or to alter the filibuster are each vigorously contested, but none is catalogued as opposed by both parties together. The standoff stems from competing priorities and procedural strategies; resolution will require cross-party bargaining or a change in the Senate’s cloture dynamics. Until negotiations produce compromise language acceptable to both caucuses, the CR will remain the vehicle for partisan tradeoffs rather than bipartisan vetoes of specific amendments [4] [1] [3].