In the dynamic world of federal budgeting, few tools are as contentious and crucial as the continuing resolution (CR). As a mechanism that keeps the government running before final appropriations have been approved by Congress and the administration, the CR represents both a lifeline and a point of contention in the political arena. On March 14, just hours before a potential government shutdown, Congress passed a full-year Continuing Resolution, extending previous years' funding levels through the end of FY 2025 (September 30, 2025). This move not only averted an immediate crisis but also raised significant questions about power dynamics, legislative priorities, and the future of federal spending under the Trump Administration. Here, we delve into the key takeaways from this pivotal decision.
- The passage of the CR prevented a full federal government shutdown, which would have commenced at midnight on March 14. Traditionally, the possibility of a government shutdown is used as a strong motivation to get congressional leaders to the negotiating table to find a compromise on federal spending. However, with the Trump Administration’s ongoing efforts to reshape federal spending, Congress faced the possibility of a prolonged shutdown, with the Administration and the Republican majority using the shutdown to more aggressively pursue cuts to programs that do not align with their priorities.
- Many see this budgetary move as yielding power to the Trump Administration by Congressional Republicans, who were leading the effort for a full-year CR instead of attempting to finalize the FY 2025 appropriations.
- The CR offers minimal guidance from Congress to the executive branch regarding spending allocations, relying largely on the previous year’s framework. Unlike typical appropriation legislation, the CR omits detailed explanatory statements in reports, which traditionally justify and direct funding levels.
- A significant consequence of the CR is the elimination of congressionally directed projects, commonly known as earmarks, which were part of the House and Senate Appropriations bills. This decision saved an estimated $13 billion (a specific number is difficult to predict because final project numbers were never released) — a drop in the bucket of federal spending but a significant loss to communities that stood to benefit from individual projects.
- The one notable exception from the “blank” CR is funding for the Department of Defense. For the first time, Congress included a provision to allow the Department to fund new projects that had been included in either House or Senate reports, at the agency’s discretion.
- In the House of Representatives, the Republican Caucus, led by Speaker Mike Johnson, put aside their differences during this process and voted for the bill unanimously, with one dissension from Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY). This was seen as a major legislative achievement by the Speaker, given the narrow margins of the Republican majority and the intra-caucus disagreements that threatened to derail the vote. All but one Democrat voted against the bill, making a strong statement while knowing that they still did not have a chance to thwart it.
- In the Senate, Democrats held the potential to halt the legislation as Republicans required eight Democratic votes to get a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster. Ultimately, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) endorsed the CR, securing enough votes to prevent a filibuster, largely due to uncertainties about the Trump Administration's response to a shutdown. It was not clear whether the Republican majority would work to reopen the government or, instead, use the shutdown to further defund some of the programs or agencies that are already being targeted by the Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.
- Subsequently, Sen. Schumer faced strong criticism from the more progressive wing of his party for seemingly not fighting against the CR. It is, however, unclear what path these critics would have proposed outside the government shutdown and whether they had a clear agreement among themselves on what they would have hoped to accomplish.
- The use of extended CRs has become more common due to persistent policy disagreements between political parties that stall the annual appropriations process. This year, the Senate was not able to bring up any of the 12 appropriations bills for a vote on the floor. However, normally, the CRs are short-term and are used to buy time for Congress to finish its appropriations work. The last time Congress passed a “full-year” CR was in FY 2013.
- It remains to be seen how this CR impacts the FY 2026 Appropriations cycle. The President’s Budget, which traditionally officially starts the appropriations process, is running several months late. Even when released, it is anticipated to be short on details. For constituent communities who hope to benefit from Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS), there is an added level of uncertainty because of the backlog of projects excluded from the FY 2025 CR. For more information on the process of securing funds through CDS, read our analysis here.
Conclusion
While the recently passed full-year CR temporarily averted a government shutdown, it also illuminated deep-seated political divides and the challenges of navigating federal spending priorities in a polarized environment. As we look towards the end of FY 2025, the implications of this decision will continue to unfold, shaping the landscape of American governance and fiscal policy. In this evolving narrative, understanding the strategic and political undercurrents of the CR will be crucial for stakeholders navigating the future of federal budgeting. The Global Strategic Advisory team stands apart through an unmatched combination of senior relationships, sector expertise, and proven results, and helps clients transform policy insights into strategic advantages.
Sign up to receive all the latest insights from Ankura. Subscribe now
© Copyright 2025. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of Ankura Consulting Group, LLC., its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals. Ankura is not a law firm and cannot provide legal advice.
