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 parties have enforced or approved a CR in the past years
Executive summary
Both major parties—Democrats and Republicans—have repeatedly enacted and relied on continuing resolutions (CRs) to fund the federal government; CRs are a bipartisan tool used when full appropriations fail. Recent Congresses and presidents of both parties have enacted CRs (notably September and December 2024), while a separate statute, the Congressional Review Act (CRA), has been used predominantly by Republicans recently to challenge agency rules [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why CRs are a bipartisan habit that won’t go away
Continuing resolutions emerge when Congress cannot pass the full slate of twelve appropriations bills by the fiscal-year start, and both parties have turned to CRs as a stopgap over decades. Historical data show that from FY1977 through FY2015 Congress completed all appropriations on time in only four years, producing a persistent reliance on CRs; from FY1998 through FY2025 the average was about five CRs per year, indicating bipartisan dependence rather than single-party enforcement [5] [1]. CRs are procedural devices used to maintain existing funding levels; they are not a partisan innovation but a consequence of legislative complexity, divided government, and intra-party disagreements. The evidence shows CR usage rises in years with divided or fractious control of the House, Senate, and White House, with both parties using CRs when politically or procedurally expedient [1] [6].
2. Recent, concrete examples: who passed what in 2024–2025
In the most recent cycle, Congress and the President enacted bipartisan CRs to avoid shutdowns: President Biden signed a continuing appropriations act on September 26, 2024 after large bipartisan votes in both chambers, and Congress passed another CR on December 20, 2024 to fund the government through March 14, 2025 with overwhelming bipartisan margins in the House and Senate [2] [3]. These votes demonstrate that majorities from both parties supported short-term funding in those instances. However, partisan proposals sometimes diverge—House Republicans and Senate/House Democrats introduced competing CRs in September 2025 that failed in one chamber, precipitating a shutdown—showing that while CRs are frequently bipartisan, they can also be tools of partisan strategy when each side seeks to attach specific policy riders [7].
3. The statistics: frequency, averages, and the bipartisan footprint
Aggregated counts underscore how routine CRs are: Congress enacted dozens of CRs in recent decades—one dataset records 47 CRs between FY2010 and FY2022, and the multi-decade trend shows CRs in all but three of the past 47 fiscal years, making them a near-constant feature of federal budgeting [6] [1]. The average of roughly five CRs annually from FY1998–FY2025 reflects systematic bipartisan reliance, with some fiscal years seeing more than twenty CRs when negotiations stall. These numbers demonstrate that CRs are not isolated to one party’s governance; both Democratic and Republican congressional majorities, and presidents from both parties, have approved CRs to prevent funding gaps and to preserve government operations while negotiations continue [1] [6].
4. How “CR” can mean two different things—and why that matters
The abbreviation “CR” can denote two distinct legal tools: continuing resolutions (short-term spending measures) and the Congressional Review Act (a mechanism to disapprove agency rules). This ambiguity matters because the partisan patterns differ. Continuing resolutions are bipartisan stopgaps routinely voted by both parties in various combinations [1] [2], whereas CRA disapproval resolutions have recently been concentrated in Republican-led efforts: the 118th Congress introduced a record number of CRA disapproval resolutions, targeting many regulations—though few became law without presidential alignment [4]. Clarifying which “CR” a question refers to is essential to answering who has “enforced or approved” it.
5. Competing narratives and potential agendas in CR usage
Proponents of frequent CR use argue CRs provide necessary continuity and protect spending from abrupt cuts, and the bipartisan voting margins on recent CRs support that practical framing [2] [3]. Critics argue CRs empower short-term politics and prevent thorough budget scrutiny, with some legislators leveraging CRs to attach policy riders or score political points—an approach visible when competing, partisan CR proposals are tabled and fail, as occurred in September 2025 [7]. The CRA narrative is often partisan: Republicans have used CRA resolutions to target environmental and administrative rules, a pattern visible in several recent congresses where EPA rules were frequent targets, suggesting an ideological agenda behind CRA usage [4].
6. Bottom line: who enforces or approves CRs—and how to read the record
The concrete record shows both major parties have consistently enacted continuing resolutions to keep government funded; CR votes often draw bipartisan majorities because the immediate consequence of inaction is broad and visible. The Congressional Review Act, distinct from continuing resolutions, has been used recently more aggressively by Republicans to roll back regulations, though its effectiveness depends on White House alignment. For precise attribution in any given year, consult the roll-call records for the specific CR measure; the broad pattern is clear: CRs are a bipartisan procedural staple, while the CRA reflects more partisan, rule-targeted politics [1] [2] [4].