Why Everything Rests on Appropriations

The funding process is always important, and the annual legislative progress is often analyzed based on whether all twelve appropriations bills are signed into law (and at what point in the year).  The overall record is not great -- there have only been three years since 1977 when a continuing resolution (CR) was not used to extend current funding.  According to the Bipartisan Policy Center, "from 2010 to 2022, policymakers passed 47 continuing resolutions ranging in duration from 1 to 176 days."  Congress has not finished the annual appropriations bills on time (by September 30th) for 28 years -- 1997 being the last time all bills were signed into law by the annual deadline.  

While those historic trends may drive the uncertainty that seems to always surround the annual appropriations process, there are other factors to consider this year that may create even more hurdles to success and, more importantly, highlight the importance the spending process plays this year in setting the stage for bipartisan movement going forward.  

With little exception, Democrats have had almost no ability to impact major legislative initiatives that include legitimate spending decisions -- The One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the recent Rescissions Act of 2025 were both drafted and passed only with Republican votes.  In the first case, enormous policy decisions were made with funding consequences.  The rescissions package removed spending that Congress had previously voted on.  Some Democrats question whether moving forward with appropriations in a bipartisan process matters if Republicans are able to use the reconciliation and recissions processes as an end-around to effectively unwind bipartisan decisions.  While completely within the limits of the rules, it is a reminder of the hurdles that exist for the minority party in Congress.  

On the other hand, Republicans (as outlined in the House-passed bills) are closely aligning with President Trump's goals of reducing, and in some cases eliminating, government programs.  They view this as the continuance of an important theme to reduce unnecessary spending and effectively pick "winners" and "losers" among existing spending categories.  In many cases, they also feel as though the DOGE recommendations should be implemented, which is what they are doing by passing the President's rescission packages.  

Even to sophisticated DC insiders, this seems to put two very different spending philosophies on a collision course that could result in endless delay, or even worse, a government shutdown.

Other than the obvious (the need to fund the government), why is the spending process so important this year?  If Republicans and Democrats are unable to come together for appropriations, the rest of the agenda will inherit significant risk.  In other words, if they cannot reach an agreement on appropriations, why would they be able to move forward together on a Farm Bill, Surface Transportation Reauthorization, healthcare extensions, or anything else (with the exception of the National Defense Authorization Act, which has a record of passage that defies congressional trends).  Success -- even partial success around appropriations, on the other hand, could build enough momentum to bring both sides of the political aisle together on the other agenda items.    

With an election on the horizon and growing partisan divide...the appropriations process will be the first (and maybe the best) indicator of whether bipartisanship is possible by the end of the year.