What is a Continuing Resolution?

Last updated 3 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Known as a “CR,” the continuing resolution is a temporary spending bill that keeps federal agencies running when Congress hasn’t approved their regular annual funding by October 1, the start of the federal fiscal year.

Without a CR or final spending bills, a “funding gap” occurs. This leads to a partial or full government shutdown.

Congress has successfully passed all government funding bills on time only three times in the last 47 years. The last time was fiscal year 1997, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Why Continuing Resolutions Exist

The gap between how federal budgeting should work and how it actually works creates the need for continuing resolutions. The Constitution gives Congress the “power of the purse” through Article I, Section 9: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” as detailed in congressional research.

This ensures the executive branch can’t spend money without legislative consent, making annual appropriations a cornerstone of checks and balances.

How the Process Should Work

The ideal budget process unfolds over several months, according to municipal bond lawyers:

The President’s Budget Request: Each February, the President submits a detailed budget proposal to Congress. The Office of Management and Budget develops this document, outlining spending priorities for the fiscal year running from October 1 to September 30, as education advocates note. While not legally binding, the President’s budget serves as a starting point.

The Congressional Budget Resolution: By April, the House and Senate should agree on a budget resolution. This concurrent resolution doesn’t get signed by the President and lacks legal force. Instead, it acts as a blueprint, setting total discretionary spending limits for the Appropriations Committees, biophysics researchers explain.

**The 12 Appropriations Bills: The Appropriations Committees then divide their total allocation among 12 subcommittees. Each drafts one of the 12 regular appropriations bills funding different government sectors, appropriations experts detail. These bills provide discretionary funding for everything from national defense and food safety inspections to federal employee salaries and national parks, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation notes.

The 12 bills cover distinct areas of government: Defense handles military spending; Labor-HHS-Education funds health, education, and worker programs; Homeland Security covers border protection and emergency response; Agriculture funds rural development and nutrition programs; Commerce-Justice-Science includes FBI, NASA, and the Census Bureau; Energy and Water covers nuclear weapons and water projects; Financial Services funds housing and urban development; Interior-Environment handles national parks and EPA; Legislative Branch funds Congress itself; Military Construction-VA covers veterans’ benefits and military facilities; State-Foreign Operations handles diplomacy and foreign aid; and Transportation-HUD funds highways, aviation, and housing programs.

Each bill represents billions in spending and affects millions of Americans. The Defense bill alone typically accounts for more than half of all discretionary spending. The Labor-HHS-Education bill funds everything from Head Start programs for low-income children to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Agriculture bill determines how much families can receive in food stamps and whether rural hospitals stay open.

Enactment into Law: From May through September, each bill should be debated, amended, and passed by both chambers. Final versions go to the President for signature before the October 1 deadline, legal experts explain.

The Broken Reality

This textbook process has become fiction. The October 1 deadline is routinely missed, making CRs nearly inevitable. Congress has used at least one CR in all but three of the 49 fiscal years since the fiscal year start moved to October 1 in 1977, congressional research shows.

Between fiscal years 1998 and 2025, lawmakers enacted 138 continuing resolutions, the Peterson Foundation reports. The number varies wildly each year, from a handful to the record 21 separate CRs in fiscal year 2001, budget policy experts note.

On average, CRs have funded the government for about five months—nearly half the fiscal year—throughout the 21st century, according to bipartisan policy research.

These delays rarely stem from procedural slowness. They result from deep political disagreements, particularly during divided government when one party controls the White House and another controls one or both chambers of Congress, policy analysts observe. Lawmakers may fail to agree on overall spending levels, defense versus non-defense allocation, or specific policy provisions attached to must-pass spending bills, legal databases document.

This pattern has fundamentally transformed the budget process from appropriation to crisis management. Normal legislative work in late summer no longer focuses on finalizing individual spending bills. Instead, it’s consumed by negotiating politically palatable CR terms to avoid a presidential veto.

This shifts the most difficult decisions to new, shorter deadlines set by CR expiration dates. The entire rhythm of governance changes, forcing federal agencies, state governments, and contractors to build uncertainty and shutdown contingency planning into their core operations, the GAO observes.

Sources: National Association of Bond Lawyers, American Institute of Physics, National PTA

Continuing Resolutions vs. Government Shutdowns

A continuing resolution and a government shutdown are opposites. A CR prevents a shutdown, budget policy experts clarify. A shutdown happens when that tool isn’t used or when negotiations fail.

Shutdowns occur when a “funding gap” emerges. This happens at midnight when an agency’s budget authority expires—usually September 30—if Congress and the President haven’t enacted either regular appropriations or a CR for that agency, the GAO explains.

The Antideficiency Act compels shutdowns. First passed in 1870 and updated since, this law makes it illegal for federal officials to spend money Congress hasn’t appropriated, appropriations specialists note. When funding gaps occur, agencies are legally prohibited from incurring new financial obligations.

This forces them to cease all “non-essential” operations, typically furloughing hundreds of thousands of federal workers and suspending government services, Wikipedia documents. Activities related to “safety of human life or protection of property” generally continue, such as air traffic control, law enforcement, and in-hospital medical care, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget details.

A CR is the bridge lawmakers build over potential funding gaps to keep government fully operational.

How Continuing Resolutions Work

While temporary funding bills seem simple, CRs are complex legislation with specific rules governing spending amounts, purposes, and duration. These rules maintain the status quo and preserve Congress’s final decision-making power.

Funding Formulas

A continuing resolution typically doesn’t appropriate specific sums for agencies. Instead, it provides “budget authority” for operations based on a prescribed formula, often called the “rate for operations,” policy experts explain. This rate is annualized, even if the CR lasts only weeks or months, OMB guidance shows.

The most common formula sets funding at the previous fiscal year’s enacted appropriations level, the GAO notes. For example, a CR for fiscal year 2025 would generally fund agencies at their fiscal year 2024 rates.

Other formulas can have significant financial implications. A CR might fund an agency at the lowest of several amounts: the prior year’s level, the House-passed bill amount, or the Senate-passed version, Clinton administration guidance detailed. This means a CR can sometimes act as a budget cut if current proposals are lower than previous funding.

If an account received $100 million last year, but both House and Senate bills propose $90 million, the CR would likely fund the account at the $90 million annualized rate, according to budget guidance.

Coverage and Duration

Continuing resolutions are flexible in scope and lifespan.

Coverage: A CR doesn’t have to cover the entire federal government. If Congress has passed some of the 12 regular appropriations bills but not others, a CR can apply only to agencies whose bills remain outstanding, budget analysts explain. This creates “partially funded” government situations.

Duration: CR lifespans vary dramatically, from a single day to an entire fiscal year, historical guidance shows. The specific expiration date is written directly into the legislation.

Between fiscal years 2010 and 2022, the duration of 47 CRs ranged from just one day to 176 days—nearly six months, the GAO reports. This flexibility has created several distinct CR types:

Short-Term CR: The most common form, designed to give lawmakers days, weeks, or months to finalize full-year spending bills. Often, multiple short-term CRs pass in succession within a single fiscal year, the Peterson Foundation notes.

Full-Year CR: In cases of intractable political disagreement, Congress may abandon regular appropriations altogether and enact a CR funding some or all agencies for the entire remaining fiscal year, the GAO observes. This has happened for at least some government parts 15 times since 1977, most recently for major portions in fiscal years 2007, 2011, and 2013, bipartisan policy research shows.

“Laddered” or “Tiered” CR: A recent, complex innovation setting different expiration dates for different appropriations bills. For example, it might fund Defense and Homeland Security through February while funding other agencies only through January, government information services explain. This creates multiple, staggered “fiscal cliffs” and is often used as a political strategy to force action on certain bills ahead of others, policy analysts note.

The Ban on “New Starts”

Perhaps the most significant operational constraint imposed by continuing resolutions is the general prohibition on “new starts,” budget policy experts explain. Agencies are typically forbidden from using CR funds to initiate any new project, program, activity, or major procurement not funded in the previous fiscal year, OMB guidance details.

This rule protects Congress’s power of the purse. A CR is intended only to maintain the status quo, not allow agencies or the executive branch to preempt final appropriator decisions, budget guidance explains. If agencies could begin major new construction projects or launch new grant programs under CRs, it could create political pressure on Congress to continue funding those projects in final bills, even if lawmakers wouldn’t have otherwise approved them.

The practical impact is profound. Even if Congress has passed and the President has signed separate authorization bills creating new programs to address urgent needs, responsible agencies cannot begin implementation or hire staff while operating under CRs, Clinton administration guidance shows. This creates legislative and operational paralysis, where government’s ability to respond to new challenges is frozen in time.

This combination of prior-year funding levels and new initiative bans effectively encases government in a legislative time capsule. It forces federal agencies to operate based on priorities and resource levels decided more than a year earlier, policy researchers observe.

This structure inherently ignores present-day realities like inflation, which erodes purchasing power; new geopolitical threats requiring rapid defense responses; emerging public health crises; or economic shifts affecting social service demand. The new starts ban means that even when solutions to new problems have been legally authorized, they cannot be implemented.

This cumulative effect creates a significant “adaptability deficit,” where government operational capacity lags dangerously behind real-world events. This deficit is the primary source of widespread inefficiencies, disruptions, and hidden costs that have become synonymous with governance by continuing resolution.

Sources: Bipartisan Policy Center, Clinton White House Archives, Congressional Research Service

“Anomalies”: Essential Exceptions to the Rules

If continuing resolutions were simply rigid, across-the-board extensions of previous year funding, they would be unworkable in many cases. The “no new starts” rule and flat funding levels would cause immediate, severe disruptions to critical government functions.

To prevent this, CRs almost always contain specific exceptions to general rules. In Washington parlance, these exceptions are known as “anomalies,” appropriations experts explain.

What Are Anomalies?

An anomaly is a legislative provision written directly into CR text that allows an agency or program to operate differently than the bill’s baseline rules would permit, budget policy experts clarify. They are essential escape valves providing targeted flexibility, patching holes in the legislative straitjacket of a CR, progressive policy analysts observe.

Anomalies can take several forms, the GAO explains:

Funding Adjustments: They can provide specific programs with more or less funding than received in the prior year.

New Start Authorization: They can grant permission for specific new projects or activities to begin.

Authority Extensions: They can extend legal authority for programs that would otherwise expire.

Transfer Authority: They can allow agencies to move funds between different accounts to meet urgent needs.

Anomalies aren’t added haphazardly. They’re typically requested by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which compiles critical needs lists from across all federal agencies, municipal bond lawyers note. This list is then intensely negotiated by congressional leaders and appropriators.

The existence of anomalies exposes a core truth about continuing resolutions: they are inherently flawed instruments. The extensive anomaly request lists accompanying every CR negotiation are, in effect, real-time diagnostic reports detailing precisely where status-quo funding models would immediately fail.

These requests aren’t for luxuries; they’re for necessities required to keep government functioning amid changing circumstances. Requests to fund military fuel, feed low-income families, respond to natural disasters, and keep vital infrastructure projects on track are powerful evidence that simple, “clean” funding extensions are political and practical fiction.

The high-stakes, often behind-the-scenes battle over which anomalies to include is a microcosm of the entire appropriations process, revealing the most urgent priorities and pressure points across the federal government.

Real-World Anomaly Examples

Examining specific anomalies from past CRs and OMB request lists reveals their critical importance. They span every area of government function.

National Security and Defense: The Department of Defense is often a major anomaly recipient due to complex procurement cycles and operational needs.

Shipbuilding: A CR for fiscal year 2025 included an anomaly providing additional funding for the Virginia Class Submarine program and covering prior-year cost increases for 22 nearly-completed ships that would otherwise sit unfinished in shipyards, congressional bills show and White House requests detail.

Operational Costs: Anomalies are frequently needed to increase military operations and training spending rates to account for factors like rising fuel costs, taxpayer advocacy groups report.

Modernization and New Programs: Despite new starts bans, anomalies have been included to allow the military to initiate projects under the “Rapid Defense Experimentation Review” and begin construction of nuclear weapons-related facilities, watchdog groups document.

Emergency Response and Unforeseen Events: CRs must often account for events occurring since the last budget was written.

Disaster Relief: Anomaly funding is frequently provided to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund to respond to recent hurricanes, floods, or wildfires, congressional legislation shows.

Drought and Border Issues: Anomalies have been requested to continue the Bureau of Reclamation’s drought response activities in the arid West and provide funds for FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program to address migrant influxes at the southern border, advocacy groups report.

Maintaining Essential Public Services: Many social programs require adjustments to keep pace with demand and inflation.

Nutrition Assistance: An anomaly in a proposed fiscal year 2025 CR provided a more than $500 million increase for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) to ensure the program could continue serving all eligible participants amid rising food costs, House Appropriations Committee announcements detail. Without this, states would likely have had to turn away beneficiaries, policy experts warn.

Student Loans: The Department of Education has required anomalies to properly administer the federal student loan program, warning that without them, there would be major delays in processing applications and staffing call centers, taxpayer groups note.

Detention Costs: An anomaly was requested to provide an additional $136 million to the U.S. Marshals Service to address a funding shortfall caused by inflationary costs and increased federal detainee population, White House documents show.

Technical and Administrative Fixes: Some anomalies are needed simply to make the government’s books work.

Preventing Rescissions: The USDA requested an anomaly to prevent language from the previous year, which rescinded unspent funds in a facilities account, from carrying over. The funds were now needed for a modernization project ready to be awarded, watchdog reports detail.

Paying Bills: The Pentagon requested an anomaly to transfer $100 million to pay outstanding invoices to contractors from the Afghanistan withdrawal. Without it, the government could have faced lawsuits, taxpayer advocates document.

Extending Authority: Numerous anomalies are often needed to simply extend legal authority for federal loan and loan guarantee programs at agencies like the Small Business Administration and USDA, which would otherwise be forced to halt operations, advocacy groups report.

A History of Budget Battles

The continuing resolution has a long history, but its evolution into a central feature of high-stakes political combat is more recent. The story of the modern CR is inseparable from the government shutdown story—a threat that was once a legal abstraction but is now recurring reality.

This history reveals the steady weaponization of the budget process, where the fundamental duty of funding government has been transformed into a point of maximum leverage for partisan policy battles.

The Rise of Shutdown Politics

While CRs have been used for over a century to bridge temporary funding gaps, their frequent use and political significance exploded in the 1970s, coinciding with rising partisan divisions, legal databases document. However, the true turning point creating the modern era of shutdown politics occurred in 1980 and 1981.

Before this, when funding gaps occurred, federal agencies largely continued operating, minimizing nonessential functions under the assumption that Congress intended for them to do so while waiting for appropriations, congressional research shows.

That changed when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a series of legal opinions. He interpreted the Antideficiency Act much more strictly, concluding the law didn’t permit agencies to operate without appropriations except in very narrow circumstances involving safety of human life or property protection, appropriations experts explain.

This legal interpretation meant funding gaps now legally required shutdowns of all non-essential government functions, CBS News reports.

The Civiletti opinions fundamentally altered the political landscape. They inadvertently created a powerful new weapon. By making shutdown the automatic and legally required consequence of budget impasse, the opinions established the “shutdown threat” as we know it today.

The deadline for passing a CR was no longer just a procedural target; it was the trigger for a high-impact event with tangible consequences for the public, giving enormous leverage to those willing to risk it.

When Stopgaps Fail

The history of recent decades is punctuated by several major government shutdowns occurring when CR or final spending bill negotiations collapsed. These episodes serve as powerful case studies in how the budget process can be used as a battlefield for larger political wars.

1995–1996 (Clinton vs. Gingrich): This confrontation set the template for modern shutdown politics. Following the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, the new Republican-led Congress, under Speaker Newt Gingrich, clashed with Democratic President Bill Clinton over their pledge to balance the federal budget in seven years.

The conflict peaked when Republicans attached provisions to a CR that would have increased Medicare premiums and made deep spending cuts, CBS News details. President Clinton vetoed the measure, leading to two separate shutdowns lasting a combined 26 days (with the longest stretch being 21 days), budget experts note.

The fight wasn’t about minor funding details but about the fundamental size and role of the federal government, research databases show.

2013 (The Affordable Care Act): A 16-day government shutdown occurred when conservative Republicans in the House, led by Senator Ted Cruz in the Senate, refused to support any CR including funding for implementing President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act, Wikipedia documents.

The standoff was a clear example of using a must-pass funding bill to try forcing major concessions on a completely separate, highly ideological policy issue, budget watchdogs observe.

2018–2019 (The Border Wall): This became the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 35 days from late December 2018 to late January 2019, appropriations specialists note. The impasse was triggered by President Donald Trump’s demand for over $5 billion in funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

When Congress passed a CR without that funding, the President refused to sign it, initiating a partial shutdown that furloughed an estimated 800,000 federal workers, Wikipedia details. The core dispute was, once again, not over baseline agency funding but over a single, high-profile, deeply divisive political priority.

The human cost was severe. Federal workers missed two paychecks during the shutdown. Many were forced to visit food banks, take out emergency loans, or seek temporary employment. Coast Guard members, considered essential personnel, had to work without pay while protecting America’s shores. Air traffic controllers, also deemed essential, continued directing flights while worrying about paying rent and buying groceries.

The economic impact rippled through the broader economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the shutdown reduced economic output by $11 billion, with $3 billion permanently lost. National parks closed to visitors, costing local tourism-dependent communities millions in revenue. Small businesses near federal facilities saw customers disappear as furloughed workers stopped spending.

Shorter Shutdowns, Lasting Damage

Even brief shutdowns cause disproportionate harm. The 16-day shutdown in 2013 over the Affordable Care Act cost the economy an estimated $24 billion, according to Standard & Poor’s. Federal workers lost $2 billion in wages during the shutdown, money that local businesses and communities never recovered.

The shutdown forced the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to halt flu monitoring during flu season. National Institutes of Health had to turn away new patients from clinical trials, including children with cancer. The Food and Drug Administration stopped routine food safety inspections, increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks.

Environmental protection ground to a halt. The Environmental Protection Agency furloughed 94% of its workforce, stopping pollution monitoring and hazardous waste cleanup. Toxic waste sites across the country went unmonitored for over two weeks.

Even the 1995-1996 shutdowns, which lasted 26 days total, had effects that lasted much longer. Veterans’ disability claims processing was suspended, leaving injured former servicemembers without income. Social Security card issuances stopped, preventing people from getting jobs that required background checks. Passport processing halted, stranding Americans abroad and canceling international business trips.

The International Embarrassment Factor

Government shutdowns also damage America’s standing abroad. During the 2013 shutdown, President Obama had to cancel trips to Asia, undermining American diplomatic efforts in a critical region. Foreign leaders and diplomats struggle to understand how the world’s largest economy can simply turn off its government over political disputes.

International investors watch American shutdown threats with growing alarm. Each crisis raises questions about America’s ability to govern itself and manage its finances. Credit rating agencies have warned that repeated shutdown threats could eventually lead to downgrades of U.S. government debt, which would increase borrowing costs for decades.

Military allies depend on predictable American defense spending and cooperation. When shutdowns threaten to disrupt joint training exercises, intelligence sharing, or weapons development programs, it weakens crucial international partnerships. Defense contractors working on international projects must explain to foreign partners why their government might simply stop paying its bills over domestic political disputes.

These case studies reveal a consistent pattern. The impasses leading to shutdowns are rarely about technical appropriations details. They’re about leveraging the CR deadline to create crisis.

Political actors, seeing the CR as the only must-pass bill on the horizon, intentionally risk shutdown to force opponents to the negotiating table on their preferred ideological battleground—be it the scope of the social safety net, a landmark healthcare law, or immigration policy.

The continuing resolution is no longer just a timing mechanism; it has become the battlefield itself.

Sources: Wikipedia, CBS News, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

The Hidden Costs of Governance by CR

While continuing resolutions successfully avert the headline-grabbing drama of government shutdowns, their chronic use isn’t without cost. Reliance on these temporary measures creates “governance by uncertainty,” which imposes a hidden but substantial “inefficiency tax” on all government operations.

This tax is paid in wasted time, lost opportunities, delayed services, and degraded public trust. The consequences cascade from federal agency halls in Washington down to individual citizens’ daily lives across the country.

Inside Federal Agencies

For federal agencies, operating under strings of CRs is a recipe for administrative chaos and managerial paralysis. Government Accountability Office reports have extensively documented these internal impacts, GAO studies show.

Administrative Chaos and Wasted Resources: The constant threat of CR expiration without replacement forces agencies into cycles of repetitive, wasteful work. Financial and human resources staff must divert significant time from core responsibilities to engage in shutdown planning, the GAO reports.

This includes identifying essential personnel, preparing furlough notices, and developing contingency plans—work often discarded at the last minute when new CRs pass, only to be repeated weeks or months later. This represents massive productivity loss and diversion of taxpayer-funded resources from mission-critical activities to crisis management, federal manager groups note.

Hiring and Retention Paralysis: The funding uncertainty of CRs has a chilling effect on hiring. Agencies frequently slow down or implement complete hiring freezes, as they cannot make firm offers without knowing their final budgets, the GAO observes.

This causes them to lose talented candidates to the private sector, disrupts strategic workforce planning, and can directly harm mission delivery, GAO research documents. The impact is felt even in national security; the Army has reported being constrained in its ability to offer recruitment bonuses, hurting efforts to attract and retain soldiers, policy experts note.

Planning and Contractual Gridlock: Long-term planning becomes virtually impossible under CRs. Agencies cannot commit to multi-year projects, award large contracts, or issue new grants with confidence, budget policy researchers explain.

This creates ripple effects harming the vast ecosystem of businesses, universities, and non-profit organizations that partner with government. A GAO report noted one instance where delaying a contract award for a new prison facility under a CR was estimated to have cost the Bureau of Prisons an additional $5.4 million due to rising prices, GAO testimony shows.

This constant uncertainty forces agencies into short-term, reactive postures. They cannot make long-term commitments necessary for efficient, effective governance. The direct, measurable result is the inefficiency tax: staff time wasted on shutdown preparation, talent lost due to hiring freezes, and higher costs from delayed contracts.

The indirect, perhaps more damaging, result is erosion of public services and trust. When a government service is delayed or a payment is late, the average citizen doesn’t see the arcane workings of a continuing resolution; they see a government that is unreliable and incompetent.

This repeated, systemic friction, caused directly by the broken budget process, slowly degrades the fundamental relationship between government and the people it is meant to serve.

The Economic Cost of Uncertainty

The financial impact of CRs extends far beyond government walls. Private contractors, state governments, and non-profit organizations that depend on federal funding must also build uncertainty into their business models.

Defense contractors, for example, cannot confidently hire workers for projects that might be delayed by CR restrictions. A major aerospace company might have to lay off engineers working on a new fighter jet program if a CR prohibits the “new start” of that project. These workers often move to competitor firms or leave the defense industry entirely, creating a brain drain that weakens America’s defense industrial base.

State governments face similar challenges. Many state programs receive federal matching funds, where states must spend their own money to unlock federal dollars. Under CRs, states often don’t know how much federal funding they’ll receive, making it nearly impossible to set their own budgets. This forces states to either gamble with taxpayer money or delay crucial programs.

Universities conducting federally funded research face a particularly cruel bind. Research projects often require years of continuous funding to produce meaningful results. When CRs create uncertainty about future funding, universities may have to halt research midstream, wasting months or years of work. Graduate students working on federally funded projects may be forced to abandon their dissertations. Promising young scientists may leave academia entirely rather than build careers on such unstable foundations.

The National Science Foundation has reported that CR-related delays in grant awards have forced some researchers to abandon time-sensitive projects entirely. Climate researchers studying seasonal phenomena, for example, may miss critical data collection windows if their funding is delayed. Medical researchers working with patient populations may lose participants who cannot wait for delayed studies to restart.

Impact on Public Services

The internal problems caused by CRs don’t stay within federal agency walls. They ripple outward, affecting delivery of a wide range of public services and programs.

Department of Agriculture: The uncertainty of CRs has caused weeks-long delays in rental assistance payments to property managers participating in the Section 521 program, which provides housing for low-income rural tenants, policy experts report.

Furthermore, because CRs are based on previous year funding, the WIC nutrition program can be left with insufficient funds to cover both rising food costs and increases in eligible participants, creating risk that states would have to create waiting lists or turn away needy families, budget analysts warn.

Department of Education: Under CRs, the department cannot determine final grant amounts for programs like the Predominantly Black Institutions Formula Grant Program. This causes delays in notifying universities of their awards, which disrupts their financial and academic year planning, federal manager groups document.

This uncertainty can also disrupt or discontinue education-related community activities that rely on grant funding, the GAO notes.

Health and Human Services: The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program has struggled to provide summer cooling assistance to vulnerable households because of CR timing and funding constraints, policy researchers observe.

To mitigate disruptions, some LIHEAP grantees have been forced to rely on state funds to bridge gaps caused by delayed federal dollars, GAO studies show. During actual shutdowns, which CRs are designed to prevent, the National Institutes of Health is barred from admitting new patients to clinical trials, potentially delaying life-saving medical research, budget watchdogs note.

Department of Defense: The impact extends to military families and readiness. Under a year-long CR, the DOD would be unable to expand from half-day to full-day kindergarten services for children of servicemembers stationed around the world, policy experts explain. The ban on new starts also means critical military construction projects, vital for maintaining and modernizing bases, cannot begin.

Military readiness suffers in subtler ways. Training exercises may be scaled back to conserve fuel and ammunition when agencies cannot predict their final budgets. New equipment purchases are delayed, forcing troops to use aging vehicles and weapons systems longer than planned. Military housing maintenance is deferred, leaving service families in substandard conditions.

The Pentagon’s massive size makes it particularly vulnerable to CR-induced inefficiencies. With over 2.8 million employees and contractors worldwide, even small delays in decision-making can waste millions of dollars. When procurement officers cannot approve new contracts, suppliers may raise prices or find other customers, ultimately costing taxpayers more when purchases finally resume.

How CRs Affect Your Daily Life

The impact of continuing resolutions reaches into American homes in ways most people never realize. When you apply for a passport to visit family abroad, CR-related staffing shortages at the State Department may delay processing by weeks. When you file taxes expecting a refund, understaffed IRS call centers operating under CR constraints may leave you on hold for hours.

Parents applying for their children to participate in federal nutrition programs may find enrollment temporarily suspended. Small business owners seeking SBA loans may discover their applications stuck in bureaucratic limbo. Farmers waiting for crop insurance payments after natural disasters may face delays that threaten their ability to plant next season’s crops.

Senior citizens depending on Social Security disability reviews may see their cases postponed indefinitely. Veterans seeking treatment at VA hospitals may encounter longer wait times as hiring freezes prevent the addition of medical staff. Students applying for federal financial aid may receive delayed notifications that disrupt their college enrollment plans.

The Ripple Effect on Innovation

America’s technological leadership depends heavily on federal research funding. The National Institutes of Health funds about 80% of basic medical research in the United States. The National Science Foundation supports fundamental research that leads to breakthrough technologies. NASA drives innovations that benefit both space exploration and everyday life.

Continuing resolutions disrupt this innovation ecosystem in profound ways. Research universities cannot start new projects or hire researchers when funding is uncertain. Promising young scientists may choose more stable career paths in private industry rather than risk their futures on unpredictable federal grants.

The pharmaceutical industry relies heavily on NIH research for drug development. When CRs delay clinical trials or interrupt research programs, it can set back medical breakthroughs by months or years. Cancer patients waiting for experimental treatments may miss their chance for potentially life-saving therapies.

Silicon Valley’s success partly stems from technologies first developed with federal funding. The internet, GPS, touchscreens, and voice recognition all emerged from government research programs. When CRs create uncertainty about research funding, they threaten America’s ability to develop the next generation of world-changing technologies.

Infrastructure in Limbo

America’s crumbling infrastructure suffers when continuing resolutions prevent new construction projects from starting. The Federal Highway Administration cannot begin new road projects under CRs, even when traffic congestion costs the economy billions annually. The Federal Aviation Administration cannot modernize air traffic control systems, even as passenger volumes reach record levels.

Water treatment plants seeking federal grants for upgrades must wait, sometimes exposing communities to contaminated water longer than necessary. Broadband expansion projects designed to connect rural areas to high-speed internet face delays that leave entire communities economically isolated.

These delays have compounding effects. Construction crews may move to other projects, requiring agencies to restart bidding processes when funding finally arrives. Material costs often rise during delays, making projects more expensive when they eventually begin. State and local governments, which typically provide matching funds for federal projects, may abandon plans altogether rather than wait for uncertain federal contributions.

The Politics of Reform

The persistent reliance on continuing resolutions isn’t merely a process failure; it’s a reflection of modern American politics. The CR has been transformed from a simple budgetary tool into a key instrument of political leverage, particularly in an era of divided government and intense partisan polarization.

This has led to vigorous debate about whether the current system is sustainable and what, if anything, can be done to fix it.

CRs as Political Weapons

The “must-pass” nature of legislation to fund government makes continuing resolutions incredibly powerful political vehicles, legal databases explain. Because failure to pass a CR will result in a politically damaging government shutdown, the bill becomes a prime target for lawmakers seeking to advance other policy goals.

It’s an attractive place to attach controversial policy “riders”—provisions unlikely to pass on their own but might be forced through as part of funding bills that leaders cannot afford to see fail, recent congressional bills demonstrate.

At the same time, CRs serve another, more subtle political purpose: they allow lawmakers to postpone difficult and politically painful decisions, research documents show. By passing short-term CRs, Congress can avoid shutdowns while pushing contentious debates over final spending levels and policy riders to later, perhaps more politically opportune, moments.

This act of “kicking the can down the road” has become a central tactic in managing deep ideological divides that often paralyze the appropriations process, the Peterson Foundation observes.

The CR exists in a political paradox: it’s simultaneously a symptom of legislative dysfunction and a necessary tool for managing that very dysfunction.

The “Automatic Continuing Resolution” Debate

The constant cycle of budget crises and damaging effects of CRs have led to numerous reform proposals. The most prominent and widely debated is the concept of an “automatic continuing resolution,” or ACR, GAO analysis shows.

An ACR would fundamentally change budget process dynamics. It would be a permanent law stipulating that if regular appropriations aren’t enacted by the October 1 deadline, funding for government agencies would continue automatically at a predetermined rate (for example, 100% of the prior year’s level) without requiring any new congressional vote or presidential signature, congressional research details.

Arguments For an ACR: Proponents argue that an ACR would be a powerful antidote to governance by crisis. By making funding automatic, it would entirely eliminate the threat of government shutdowns and associated economic and social disruption, GAO reports note.

This would provide stability and predictability for federal agencies, allowing them to plan more effectively. It would also, proponents claim, create a less-pressured environment for budget negotiations, allowing for more thoughtful and deliberate decision-making rather than frantic, last-minute deals made under threat of deadlines, budget counsel research shows.

Arguments Against an ACR: Critics warn of serious unintended consequences. The primary concern is that an ACR would remove the single most powerful incentive for Congress to ever complete its work: deadline pressure, GAO analysis cautions.

Without the threat of shutdown, lawmakers might allow government to run on autopilot for months or even years, funded by an ACR based on outdated priorities. This could lead to a “zombie government,” unresponsive to current needs.

Critics also argue that it would represent a dangerous abdication of Congress’s constitutional duty. The power of the purse is meant to be an active, annual exercise of legislative will, not a passive, automatic process, progressive policy analysts contend.

The debate over automatic CRs reveals a deep and perhaps irreconcilable tension at the heart of modern governance: the conflict between the desire for stability and the need for accountability.

The current system of manual, negotiated CRs is undeniably chaotic and unstable, but the looming threat of shutdown does, eventually, force accountability. It compels lawmakers to make difficult choices and cast tough votes.

An ACR would provide perfect stability but could do so at the cost of accountability, allowing Congress to avoid its most fundamental responsibilities indefinitely. The choice isn’t between a good system and a bad one, but between two deeply flawed systems, each with its own set of risks.

It’s a choice that reflects a profound philosophical disagreement about the nature of legislative duty in a deeply divided nation.

Other Reform Proposals

Beyond automatic continuing resolutions, lawmakers and policy experts have proposed numerous other fixes to the broken budget process.

Biennial Budgeting: Some propose switching from annual to two-year budget cycles. Under this system, Congress would pass all appropriations bills for two fiscal years at once, theoretically reducing the frequency of budget crises. Supporters argue this would give agencies more predictability and allow Congress to focus on oversight in alternate years.

Critics worry that biennial budgeting would make the government even less responsive to changing circumstances. Two-year-old spending priorities might become completely obsolete by the time they’re implemented. Emergency situations requiring rapid funding adjustments would become even more difficult to address.

Expedited Procedures: Another proposal would change congressional rules to make it easier to pass individual appropriations bills. Currently, Senate rules allow unlimited debate and amendments on spending bills, making it easy for a small group of senators to delay action. Reformed procedures might limit debate time or restrict amendments on appropriations bills.

However, these procedural changes would require senators to voluntarily give up power, something they’ve historically been reluctant to do. Minority parties particularly value their ability to slow down legislation they oppose.

Default to Prior Year Funding: Similar to automatic CRs, this proposal would make government funding continue automatically at the previous year’s level if new appropriations aren’t enacted. Unlike automatic CRs, this approach might include automatic spending reductions over time to create pressure for congressional action.

For example, funding might continue at 99% of the previous year’s level for the first month, 98% for the second month, and so on. This would maintain government operations while creating increasing pressure to resolve budget disputes.

Separate Appropriations from Policy: Some experts propose prohibiting policy “riders” on appropriations bills entirely. This would prevent lawmakers from using must-pass spending bills to advance unrelated policy goals, which often cause budget impasses.

The challenge is defining what constitutes a “policy rider” versus legitimate spending oversight. Nearly every spending decision has policy implications, from how much to spend on border security to which environmental programs to fund.

The Role of Leadership

Much of the dysfunction in the appropriations process stems from weak congressional leadership and the decentralization of power within both parties. In earlier eras, committee chairs and party leaders had more authority to force members to accept compromise solutions.

Today’s leaders often lack the tools to discipline members who threaten government shutdowns to advance ideological goals. The proliferation of outside groups that fund primary challenges against “moderate” lawmakers makes compromise politically dangerous for many members.

Electoral reforms might help restore functional budgeting. Campaign finance changes that reduce the influence of ideological donors could make compromise less politically risky. Redistricting reforms that create more competitive general elections might encourage candidates to appeal to centrist voters rather than partisan bases.

International Comparisons

Most other democratic countries don’t experience the budget dysfunction that has become routine in America. Parliamentary systems generally avoid shutdown threats because the government falls if it cannot pass a budget, forcing immediate new elections.

Countries with separation of powers similar to America’s often have different rules that prevent shutdowns. In many systems, if a new budget isn’t passed, the previous year’s budget continues automatically until one is enacted. This removes the shutdown threat while maintaining pressure for legislative action.

Some countries require supermajority votes to change existing spending levels, making the status quo the default rather than a shutdown. Others have constitutional requirements that certain essential services continue regardless of budget disputes.

These international examples suggest that America’s budget dysfunction isn’t inevitable. It results from specific institutional choices and could be addressed through constitutional or statutory changes. However, such reforms would require broad political consensus that currently seems impossible to achieve.

The Stakes Keep Rising

As America faces increasing global competition, budget dysfunction becomes a greater national security threat. China doesn’t shut down its government over political disputes. Neither do America’s other strategic competitors.

Every shutdown or near-shutdown weakens American influence abroad while strengthening arguments that authoritarian systems are more effective. When American diplomats have to explain why their government might stop functioning over domestic political fights, it undermines decades of work promoting democratic governance worldwide.

The economic costs are also rising. As the federal government plays an increasingly important role in the economy—from research funding to infrastructure investment to pandemic response—budget uncertainty has wider ripple effects. A government shutdown today would disrupt more economic activity than shutdowns in previous decades.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.