House Republicans are facing internal divisions as the Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline approaches, with lawmakers and committee members grappling over the best approach to fund the government. The Appropriations Committee is at odds with the Trump administration and some conservative lawmakers over whether to push for a short-term continuing resolution (CR) or a longer-term funding measure to avert a partial government shutdown.
The Trump administration has faced criticism for lacking a clear top-line budget proposal and for allegedly delaying its budget to support a year-long CR, which some Republican appropriators oppose. Committee members like Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., have expressed frustration, calling the idea of a long-term measure ‘very frustrating.’ He argued that the process of crafting a spending bill is a critical responsibility for Congress and that a one-year CR undermines the role of appropriators in setting funding levels.
Republicans broadly agree that a CR is necessary to avoid a shutdown, but disagreement lingers over the length of the resolution and the lack of a cohesive strategy from the White House. While House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., supports extending the CR into December 2026, others, like Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., caution that a year-long measure could be economically devastating. Diaz-Balart warned that the idea of extending funding into a second year is ‘preposterous’ and not a position held by appropriators.
Some House lawmakers accuse the Trump administration of intentionally delaying its budget proposal to build support for a year-long CR. Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., criticized the lack of clear guidance, noting that lawmakers are ‘flying blind’ without a clear directive from leadership. Others have pointed to Russ Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), accusing him of delaying the budget to push for a long-term resolution.
House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., has expressed willingness to support a CR into November but has urged flexibility in the timeline. He acknowledged that multiple parties bear responsibility for the current situation, though he refrained from singling out any one group. Cole also noted that the White House’s proposal to extend funding through the first quarter of 2026 was not coming from appropriators but from the White House itself.
A recent CR passed in March, with White House support, extended fiscal 2024 spending levels through Sept. 30, though the administration later rescinded some of those funds, including foreign aid and public broadcasting. This has strained bipartisan efforts, as Democrats have warned they will not agree to a spending deal without assurances that similar rescissions will not occur. However, a White House official suggested a clean CR could trap Democrats in a politically awkward position and shift blame for a shutdown to them if they reject the measure.
Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has privately signaled support for a short-term CR, with Democrats indicating openness to a similar approach. As lawmakers race to finalize a deal before the Sept. 30 deadline, the impasse reflects deeper tensions over funding levels, procedural strategy, and the role of the White House in shaping the nation’s fiscal policy. The ongoing debate highlights the challenges of balancing short-term needs with long-term planning in a politically polarized environment.