President Trump could be stuck with spending priorities set under the Biden administration for longer than congressional Republicans had hoped.
As Congress struggles to strike a bipartisan government funding deal, hopes of striking one by a March 14 shutdown deadline are fading. Some lawmakers say a stopgap seems like the most likely path to keeping the government funded, especially as Congress also faces an April 30 deadline to prevent automatic funding cuts.
House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that the appetite is “growing” for a funding stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution, that runs through September, as lawmakers run months behind in finishing up their funding bills for fiscal year 2025.
“That’s one of the things that, as an appropriator, that worries you,” Cole told reporters this week. “I would say that there’s a significant portion of our Congress that would rather us just CR until we get Trump’s stuff.”
Cole says he and top appropriators are still having bipartisan discussions in hopes of striking a deal on a top-line number for fiscal 2025 funding that will kick off work toward compromise bills that can pass both chambers.
But tensions are hitting a fever pitch in Washington amid Trump’s funding freezes and efforts to dismantle agencies, complicating bipartisan funding talks as Democrats come out in strong opposition to the president’s latest actions.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) pointed fingers at Democrats on early Friday, suggesting Democrats are “trying to set up some sort of government shutdown,” while pointing to recent comments by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats.
“We were negotiating in good faith and trying to get the top-line number,” Johnson said Friday. “But, so far as I know, they’ve been sort of unresponsive the last two days or so. So, I hope we can get back to it. We need to get this job done.”
Democrats have pushed back strongly on Johnson’s comments.
“He just needs to get the appropriate information,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, adding “there are offers on the table.”
Johnson’s comments come after Jeffries said Democrats would look to the coming March 14 funding deadline “if not sooner” to counter efforts by Trump to target financial assistance already appropriated by Congress.
Jeffries’ remarks arrived off the heels of a sweeping funding pause directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) order that has since been held up in courts.
The memo has since been rescinded, but there is distrust among Democrats that whatever agreement struck with Republicans will still hold as the White House has said Trump’s executive orders pausing funds for climate and infrastructure laws key to former President Biden’s agenda, and other funding, is still in effect.
During a press conference earlier this week, DeLauro was pressed if Democrats are looking to get assurances protecting agencies targeted by Trump, like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), reflected in bipartisan funding legislation.
“We’re looking at what language we need to do to keep them from overturning it,” she said on Wednesday.
There is still much uncertainty around what Trump’s orders will have sticking power, as some get tangled up in the courts.
Some Republicans are still hopeful negotiators will be able to enact new funding legislation more in line with Trump’s orders.
“I’d hope that we would change some of the funding and policy on discretionary spending, and I hope that we do something that aligns with President Trump’s executive orders,” Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) said.
“If we do a CR, I think we should go short term, but ideally, the discretionary budget lines up with the president’s policies. He’s already taken action,” Davidson told The Hill. “We shouldn’t just leave him hanging in the courts.”
Other Republicans, however, have signaled openness to the idea of a full-year CR if it helps keep funding flat.
“CRs aren’t my favorite vehicle, but the idea that we’re going to get [appropriations bills] done by March 14 is pretty low. So to me, if we can do that, I’m for that,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said Friday.
“Now, again, a CR that continues to fund USAID is not something that I’m excited about,” he said. “But if we can get restraint on spending from the executive branch on those things, if Russ Vought can get in there, engage in what he might need to do, impoundment and holding dollars back on these kinds of things that we think are concerning, then a CR makes a lot of sense.”
Congress is staring down a late April deadline to pass full-year funding legislation, or risk automatic cuts to government programs under a spending limits deal struck by Biden and House GOP leadership almost two years ago.
Cole has said that stopgap keeping the government funded at levels last hashed out under Biden would not trigger the cuts.
“I’m told that as long as it was a full CR, that that would count the same as 12 pass bills,” he said, but he also told reporters that he’s “more worried right now about March 14.”
At the same time, Senate Republicans are plotting plans rolled out by Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Friday to jam through funding legislation to advance Trump’s border and defense priorities without Democratic support in the upper chamber.
While Bobby Kogan, a former Senate Democratic budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, said some of the funding may not be subjected to Congress’ spending caps, he noted on Friday that the legislative push could have an impact on funding talks.
“You could imagine a scenario where they negotiated a freeze in defense and a freeze in non-defense, and then he says, ‘Oh, but I’m giving an extra $37.5 billion to defense via reconciliation,’” Kogan said. “That’s what they’re setting up right there.”
The plan unveiled by Graham seeks to provide a $150 billion boost for national defense.
Cole was pressed about whether such a package could help Republicans pass a yearlong stopgap while still increasing funds for areas like border and defense on the side.
“That’s certainly possible,” Cole told The Hill on Friday. “I’ve heard that speculated about, but again, I got more than say grace over in this chamber.”
