Senate Leaders Strike Deal to Avert Government Shutdown
Senate appropriators announced a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) on Sunday that would keep the federal government funded through December 11, 2026, avoiding a shutdown when current funding expires on September 30. The deal, brokered by Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA), aims to push the funding fight past the November midterm elections.
The Senate is expected to hold a procedural vote on Monday, with leadership aiming to pass the measure before the chamber enters its August recess. The CR includes what Collins called “necessary adjustments” for nutrition programs like SNAP and WIC, disaster relief, and national security priorities. It also blocks the Trump administration from transferring funds to Border Patrol and halts a proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule that Democrats argue would allow political appointees to cancel federal grants arbitrarily.
Murray praised the package as a “much-improved CR” compared to the House-passed version, emphasizing that it “rejects Trump’s frivolous war spending wish list” and closes loopholes that would have allowed the administration to divert funds to immigration enforcement. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called the agreement “a responsible path forward,” signaling unified Democratic support in the upper chamber.
Stakes High as House and Senate Diverge
The agreement sets up a potential clash with the House, which passed its own clean CR on July 21 funding the government through December 4. House Republicans, who left Washington for recess, will not return until early September, leaving just weeks to reconcile the two versions before the September 30 deadline.
House Democrats, led by Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), had refused to support the House measure because it did not zero out Border Patrol funding. DeLauro called the Senate version “a clear improvement” over the House Republican CR, but the differences between the chambers are substantive. The Senate CR includes dozens of anomalies not present in the House bill, such as temporary extensions for surface transportation programs and additional flexibility for certain agencies.
Collins, who faces a competitive re-election in Maine, has touted her record of bipartisan funding deals on the campaign trail. “This measure gives Congress the time we need to continue our work on bipartisan appropriations bills,” she said in a statement. The CR’s passage in the Senate is likely, given the 60-vote threshold requires Democratic buy-in, but House leadership will need to decide whether to accept the Senate’s additions or push for a narrower bill.
Fiscal Year 2026 Already Marked by Historic Disruption
The current fiscal year has been plagued by unprecedented funding brinkmanship, with parts of the government shut down for 161 days—44% of the full year. The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) noted that the House’s clean CR was a rare commonsense proposal, but the Senate version introduces provisions that may concern fiscal conservatives.
Key among them is Section 157, which prohibits the OMB from finalizing its proposed reforms to federal grant programs through December 11. The OMB rule, titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” aims to increase transparency and accountability in how the federal government distributes taxpayer funds. It would require senior agency appointees to review grants and expand authority to terminate or suspend awards to recipients failing to meet performance standards.
Democrats have criticized the rule as a politicization of federal spending, arguing that pre-issuance review by political appointees could lead to grants being canceled for ideological reasons. Murray framed the CR’s block as a victory for protecting federal funding from “being held hostage” by the administration. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that the proposed rule is a necessary safeguard against wasteful spending.
The NTU, while not outright opposing the Senate CR, warned that the inclusion of such policy riders makes the measure less than clean. “Taxpayers may be concerned that the Senate CR is not a purely ‘clean’ extension of current policy,” the organization said in a statement. The dispute underscores the deep partisan divisions over federal spending as the election approaches.
What the Senate CR Does—and What It Leaves Out
The Senate CR maintains funding at current levels for most agencies, but includes targeted exceptions. Beyond the border patrol and OMB provisions, the bill extends expiring programs such as surface transportation authorizations, a move sought by state and local governments facing funding uncertainty.
National security programs receive additional funding, as do disaster relief accounts, which have become increasingly critical following a series of extreme weather events. The bill also addresses nutrition assistance, with adjustments to SNAP and WIC to account for inflation and enrollment changes.
Notably absent from the Senate CR is any provision related to defense spending increases requested by the Trump administration. Murray specifically rejected what she called the “war spending wish list,” signaling that Democrats would not accept additional military funding without corresponding domestic investments.
The House CR, by contrast, is a strictly clean extension with no policy riders or funding anomalies. Its simplicity earned praise from conservative groups but drew criticism from Democrats who argued it failed to address urgent needs. The divergence means the final bill will require negotiation, likely through a conference committee or a back-and-forth of amendments when the House returns in September.
Election-Year Politics and the Path Forward
The decision to fund the government through December 11 rather than the end of the fiscal year reflects the political realities of the midterm cycle. Congressional leaders in both parties preferred to postpone a sweeping funding fight until after voters head to the polls, avoiding a politically damaging shutdown in October.
Collins’ involvement in the deal is notable, as she is one of the few Senate Republicans in a competitive re-election race. Her ability to secure bipartisan support for funding bills has been a central theme of her campaign. The CR’s announcement just before the August recess also gives senators a chance to campaign without the threat of a government closure hanging over them.
Murray, who has long advocated for domestic spending increases, framed the deal as a necessary compromise. “It’s good that we were able to produce a much-improved CR to keep the government funded and avert a shutdown that no one wants,” she said. Schumer echoed that sentiment, noting that the Senate’s 60-vote threshold requires cooperation across the aisle.
The House’s early departure for recess complicates the timeline, but leaders in both chambers have expressed confidence they can reach a final agreement before September 30. The key question is whether House Republicans will accept the Senate’s additions or demand a more streamlined bill. With midterm elections approaching, neither party wants to be blamed for a shutdown, but the path to a compromise remains uncertain.
Broader Implications for Government Funding
The Senate CR’s passage would mark the second consecutive year of stopgap funding, a trend that worries fiscal watchdogs and appropriations experts. Reliance on CRs prevents agencies from planning long-term projects and often leads to inefficient spending. The NTU has repeatedly called for Congress to return to regular order, passing individual appropriations bills rather than bundling everything into short-term extensions.
The inclusion of policy riders in the Senate CR—particularly the OMB grant rule block—sets a precedent that could make future CRs more contentious. If Democrats can use a funding bill to halt administration regulations, Republicans may seek similar measures when they hold the majority. This dynamic could lead to a cycle of increasingly complex stopgap bills, further eroding the budgeting process.
At the same time, the tight timeline before the September 30 deadline forces pragmatic compromises. The Senate CR demonstrates that bipartisan consensus is still possible on funding, even in a polarized election year. Whether that consensus extends to the House remains to be seen, but the alternative—a fourth shutdown in two years—is unpalatable to nearly all lawmakers.
As Congress returns from recess, the focus will shift to reconciling the two CRs and, ultimately, to the post-election lame-duck session where a full-year appropriations package must be negotiated. The outcome of the midterms will shape that debate, but for now, the Senate’s deal provides a temporary reprieve from the brinkmanship that has defined fiscal year 2026. With the government funded through December, lawmakers can turn their attention to the campaign trail—until the next deadline looms.
Comments