After a record-long government shutdown that ended in November, Congress faces another funding deadline just two months later.
Federal lawmakers are trying to avoid another closure that would lead to furloughs of thousands of federal workers and a pause in some government operations. But the consequences wouldn’t likely be as significant as the one in the fall because a few agencies already have full-year funding through the end of September.
Funding standoffs are becoming increasingly common, and the government has been operating for a while on short-term bills to keep things running at current levels. And that has left Congress more susceptible to shutdown threats.
With lawmakers returning from the holiday recess this week, they have a short window to strike a funding deal on an appropriations package for the rest of fiscal year 2026 or opt to pass another short-term bill to give them more time for negotiations.
If they are unable to approve any funding fix by the end of the month, the government could fall into a partial shutdown.
Here’s where things currently stand.
Why is government funding running out in January?
Congress set the next funding deadline for Jan. 30 as part of a bipartisan deal that reopened the government in mid-November.
Members passed three of the 12 full-year spending bills that fund specific government agencies for fiscal year 2026: military construction projects and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration, and the Legislative Branch which keeps Congress operating. Those funds will last until Sept. 30, which is the end of the federal fiscal year.
Meanwhile, the rest of the government agencies are operating on flat funding that will expire at the end of January.
Congress will either need to pass the remaining nine spending bills that’ll keep the rest of the government funded through September or pass another short-term measure known as a continuing resolution.
Will they meet the deadline to avert a shutdown?
Congress will be tasked with finishing up a broader funding deal with less than a month until the deadline.
Negotiations were underway before the holiday break and will ramp back up again for the next three weeks that Congress is in session in January.
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, will play a major role in those negotiations. She’s the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, which crafts and negotiates spending legislation.
Leaders are hopeful they can broker a deal with new topline numbers. But if an agreement on a funding package doesn’t come together, Congress will likely resort to a continuing resolution that’ll keep funding going for a shorter period of time. But passage of that type of legislation isn’t guaranteed either.
Even if funding were to lapse again, it wouldn’t be like last year’s 43-day shutdown.
Some programs that were suspended in the fall, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP, wouldn’t be in jeopardy again. That’s because Congress already approved full-year funding for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees federal nutrition assistance.
Will health care play a role again?
During the funding standoff in the fall, congressional Democrats made health care one of the central demands to earn their votes. Because of narrow majorities in Congress, Republicans needed Democratic votes at least in the Senate to pass any funding bills.
The debate revolved around the extension of enhanced premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans. With the expiration of those pandemic-era tax credits after Dec. 31, premiums are set to spike for many this year who get their coverage through the state’s marketplace, Access Health CT.
Democrats, including Connecticut’s congressional delegation, have said they’ll keep fighting for the renewal of those expired subsidies that had been in place since 2021.
But it is unclear if the party will once again tie the tax credits to funding the government at the end of January, though they could make new demands.
Separately from government funding, various groups of lawmakers are seeking a legislative solution to bring back the subsidies, though likely with some limits.
And the House is expected to take up Democrats’ three-year extension after the party and four Republicans forced the issue through a procedural tool called a discharge petition. Because lawmakers collected 218 signatures, it triggers a vote on the House floor.
Even if it passes the House this month, Senate GOP leadership is unlikely to take it up. A vote on the three-year subsidy extension failed to advance in the Senate last month.
Will CT secure the rest of its congressional earmarks?
Connecticut’s congressional delegation scored some of its funding requests for local projects for the first time in years.
That’s because earmarks — now known as congressionally directed spending in the Senate and community project funding in the House — usually only get approved in full-year spending bills.
Lawmakers are able to make requests with some limitations that typically get steered toward pet projects in their states. Connecticut’s delegation has sought funding for infrastructure and environmental investments, social services for families and children, affordable housing and upgrades for police departments and emergency units.
Connecticut’s share of approved earmarks were part of the three full-year spending bills that passed in November to end the shutdown. But dozens of other earmarks requests are in limbo.
If Congress can pass some or all of the remaining nine funding bills this month, Connecticut will secure funding for its other initiatives that amount to tens of millions of dollars. Lawmakers in the state sought at least $177 million in earmarks for FY 2026.
But if the government stays open through a short-term fix, funding for those local projects are unlikely to materialize. Lawmakers will be able to make new earmarks requests later in the year for fiscal year 2027.
The Connecticut Mirror/Connecticut Public Radio federal policy reporter position is made possible, in part, by funding from the Robert and Margaret Patricelli Family Foundation.
This story was originally published by the Connecticut Mirror.
