In the past, when Congress funded the government, it decided how much money would go to housing, education, and medical research, among other crucial priorities. Even though members of Congress didn't get everything they wanted, they supported the funding agreement because it included enough of what they were asking for and because they knew the funds would be allocated to those priorities to the letter. That wasn't the case in 2025, and it won't be the case in future years unless sufficient changes are made to the budget process and budget enforcement laws. The fact is that Trump has consistently violated previous budget agreements. Since his first day in office, President Trump has illegally frozen funds, breaking budget laws by refusing to distribute money as required by law. This has included funding for education, childcare, biomedical research, and overseas humanitarian aid. And while some of this funding has already been restored, the president has yet to illegally distribute billions of dollars in funds approved on a bipartisan basis by Democrats and Republicans in Congress. In this way, Trump has unilaterally rewritten the budget agreement for fiscal year 2025.

The damage these actions have caused has been severe and, in some cases, irreversible. Because grants were not awarded in a timely manner, some Head Start programs closed. Research that could have led to cures for cancer or other deadly diseases was halted, causing clinics to close. And the freeze on disaster preparedness and recovery funding has prolonged the struggle to rebuild in devastated communities.

In addition to these illegal suspensions, the president and congressional Republicans also rescinded some funding, cutting whatever they did not want. While bipartisan rescissions are normal and it is reasonable to disagree with every aspect of a government funding agreement,In 2025, the first successful partisan termination package in history occurred. Members of Congress reach funding deals not because they like every part of the agreement, but because it encompasses enough of what they cared about. If bipartisan agreements to fund the government that require 60 votes to pass the Senate can be immediately revoked by senators of only 50 political parties, there will be no more bipartisan agreements.

Most funding disputes revolve around government spending levels and priorities, but this year's is only nominally about that. If the Trump administration insists on the ability to unilaterally dictate which parts of a funding deal it keeps, then the debate is not about any of that, and Congress will have failed to ensure funding for the priorities of the American people.

In other words, funding the government at its current levels does not guarantee that those funds will be used. The current “clean” continuing resolutions, by definition, are not, as they can be reversed at any time. The bicameral Democratic proposal has multiple sections dedicated to pursuing many of these budget abuses and must be included in any funding agreement to ensure that the funding priorities Congress sets on behalf of the public are set in stone. For all these reasons, the party’s recent resolution is not “clean.” Sadly, many in the Washington media have bought into the White House and congressional Republicans’ narrative. But the president’s own actions throughout 2025 have revealed his unwillingness to respect federal spending laws, dealing a severe blow to countless Americans. Labeling this as a “clean” continuing resolution is a boon to the Trump White House, as it desperately protects its ability to undo the resolution at any time. Emily Gee is senior vice president for Inclusive Growth and Miguel Rodriguez is executive vice president for External Relations and Programs, both at the Center for American Progress.