By Bo Erickson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Republican fiscal hawks in Congress are making a new pitch in the struggle to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history: Continue to spend at the same rate as last year for as long as possible.
That approach would not cut discretionary spending but also not add to the roughly one-quarter of the $7 trillion federal budget that lawmakers are fighting about, and to some observers also represents a resignation that the deeply divided institution is unlikely to agree on a path forward anytime soon.
The idea did not have broad support among President Donald Trump’s Republicans, who hold majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives, and would mean they were ready to leave the budget essentially unchanged from levels agreed to under Democratic former President Joe Biden, adding about $1.8 trillion a year to the nation’s $38 trillion in debt.
The hardline House Freedom Caucus, influential in the Republicans’ 219-213 House majority, argued in a policy statement for a stopgap funding bill, known as a continuing resolution, with an “ideal” end-date after the November 2026 midterm elections — well after the current fiscal year ends on September 30, 2026.
That proposal, the group said, would “effectively keep federal discretionary spending flat at the same levels since 2023, and it will block any further effort by Democrats and the Swamp to advance a budget-busting, pork-filled, lobbyist handout.”
It would make a change from a group that long opposed continuing resolutions, known as CRs, because they did not cut spending.
“Many conservatives have been reluctant to support continuing resolutions in the past,” said Matthew Dickerson, budget director at the conservative Economic Policy Innovation Center, noting a change in tactic after Congress in March 2025 passed a full-year stopgap bill – with the help of Democratic votes – and then went on to pass Trump’s signature tax and spending bill with only Republican votes.
“Many of those same dynamics and challenges are still in play now, leading conservatives in the House, Senate, and the administration to see a long-term CR as the most responsible compromise,” Dickerson added.
‘BEST WE CAN DO’
Senator Ron Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican, said in an interview that a longer-term CR is “probably the best we can do, unfortunately.”
This push for another full-year CR is at odds with Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s promise to pursue the regular appropriations process that calls for Congress to pass 12 appropriations bills — something that it has failed to do on time in almost three decades.
Republican Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine instead pushed for a stopgap funding bill to reopen the government that would last into December, meant to buy time for lawmakers to agree on a broader deal.
Other Senate Republicans argued for a mid-January timeline to allow for more funding negotiations.
Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the appropriations committee, this year dismissed full-year CRs as a “power grab” because it cedes congressional spending authority to the executive.
Most Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against a stopgap funding bill, passed by the Republican-controlled House in September, that was meant to patch government funding until November 21 so the appropriations process could continue after the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
Democrats are withholding their votes to reopen government as they push for a fix to healthcare insurance subsidies, and other hot-button issues like how senators could address the Trump administration’s firings of federal workers.
“By appropriating, we are following President Trump’s initiatives and the things that he’s put in his budget,” said Senator John Hoeven of North Dakota, a Republican appropriator, rejecting the idea.
Another issue: extending a stopgap funding bill does not include the Trump administration’s rescission cuts to foreign aid spending, nor any changes to the federal government workforce stemming from the Department of Government Efficiency, increasing the prospect of more partisan rescissions.
(Reporting by Bo Erickson; editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)
