When Congress returns to Washington on Tuesday, it will face a critical four-week sprint to fund the government and prevent a shutdown. With funding set to lapse on September 30, lawmakers will likely turn to a short-term stopgap known as a continuing resolution, though how long such a measure would last — and what it would include — remains unsettled.
The path forward is murky. Senate and House leaders know a clean, full-year funding bill is unlikely to pass in the time available, and a narrow, temporary extension may be the most realistic option to buy time for lawmakers to finish 12 annual appropriations bills. Yet the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate complicates any straightforward agreement, and Democrats and Republicans alike face internal divisions that could stall progress.
Republican leaders in both chambers will need Democratic support to push through any stopgap funding, while many in the Democratic ranks are wary about how a continuing resolution would be structured. Some Democrats advocate tying a funding extension to broader policy protections, such as extending health insurance subsidies, to maintain political leverage in negotiations. Others worry that a short-term fix could merely delay difficult spending decisions and leave critical programs underfunded.
A major flashpoint remains President Donald Trump’s move to rescind nearly $5 billion in foreign aid without congressional approval. Democrats argue such unilateral actions undermine the legislative process and could complicate negotiations over funding levels. Republicans are split on how aggressively to push back against the White House approach, further muddying the path to a deal.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma acknowledged the challenge of the schedule, noting that lawmakers did not have the luxury of ample time to maneuver. “Would I like to be somewhere else? Yeah. But we haven’t had the schedule to do it,” he said before the August recess. The question now is whether a short-term extension could be agreed upon quickly, and if so, what it would look like and how long it would last.
Beyond the immediate funding fight, other items loom large on the return agenda. Lawmakers in the House are expected to press an effort to disclose the Jeffrey Epstein-related files, a move that could spur another round of political maneuvering. In the Senate, there is talk of altering rules to streamline the confirmation process for Trump’s nominees, a move that would provoke pushback from Democrats wary of eroding senate norms.
The spending talks come amid broader political tensions. Democrats have shown frustration with what they view as ongoing party-line maneuvers, while Republicans face pressure from deficit hawks who want to see spending restrained. The debt and deficit dynamics have intensified the debate over whether a short-term extension is prudent or whether a longer, full-year funding bill is necessary to prevent a rolling series of short-term deals.
One potential sticking point is the ongoing debate over health insurance subsidies. Democrats among the coalition argue for extending subsidies for health plans purchased through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, set to expire at year’s end. They warn that failure to extend could send premiums higher and destabilize markets, especially as open enrollment begins in November. Republicans, meanwhile, are wary of expanding subsidies or tying them to broader spending deals without assurances that funding remains sustainable.
Another area of contention is earmarks. While fiscal conservatives once rejected earmarks as wasteful, a faction within the GOP now seeks to attach targeted funding to specific projects in districts and states as part of any continuing resolution. Others insist that earmarks contradict the small-government ideals they tout, creating yet another hurdle for a timely agreement.
Complicating matters is the political environment surrounding the White House, Congress, and the country’s fiscal outlook. The administration’s posture on budget priorities and the use of rescissions — unilaterally repealing or reallocating funding — has fueled distrust on both sides of the aisle. Some Republicans argue that more rescissions could help balance the books, while Democrats contend such moves undermine the negotiated appropriations process and threaten the functionality of government programs.
Nevertheless, there are reasons to remain hopeful that lawmakers can avert a shutdown. The history of recent midterm cycles shows that, despite deep disagreements, Congress has historically found a way to fund essential government activities — even if the process is messy and protracted. Members on both sides understand the stakes: a shutdown would disrupt federal services, furlough workers, and create economic and national-security headwinds at a moment when the country could ill afford it.
What to watch in the coming weeks
– Will a continuing resolution be agreed, and if so, how long will it last? Will it be clean, or will it include policy riders or other conditions?
– How will lawmakers address the health-insurance subsidies debate, and could any extension be tied to broader negotiations?
– What impact will the Epstein-file disclosure push have on House floor action and the broader spending talks?
– Could the Senate change rules to speed up confirmations, and how would Democrats respond?
– How will the administration’s use of rescissions influence the bargaining dynamics and the viability of a compromise?
Impact to watch for if a deal isn’t reached
– Nonessential government operations could pause, while critical functions in national security, public health, and disaster response would still run, but with potential delays.
– Federal contractors and grant recipients could face funding uncertainties, leading to project slowdowns or stoppages.
– Markets tend to respond to policy uncertainty, so a shutdown risk can affect investor sentiment even before any actual spending gaps appear.
Summary
As Congress returns, the immediate objective is clear: prevent a government shutdown by producing a funding patch that buys time for full appropriations while accommodating the political realities on Capitol Hill. The path forward is complicated by disputes over how long a stopgap should last, how it should address policy priorities like health subsidies, and how to respond to unilateral funding actions from the executive branch. Despite the hurdles, both parties recognize the stakes and the potential costs of inaction, which could provide a practical incentive to reach a workable agreement in the coming weeks.
A hopeful note: while the talks promise to be tough, lawmakers have historically found a path to keep the government open, demonstrating a willingness to negotiate amid pressure to protect constituents and avoid disruption. The coming weeks will reveal whether a pragmatic, narrowly tailored stopgap or a broader bargain emerges to keep the government funded and functioning.