In the ongoing battles over federal funding, the term “clean continuing resolution” (CR) has become a rhetorical centerpiece. A continuing resolution is a temporary funding bill passed by Congress to avoid a government shutdown, or to end one, when full appropriations bills have not been enacted. A “clean” CR, in theory, maintains existing funding levels without introducing new policy changes.  

            On its surface, a clean CR suggests a neutral, straightforward measure to keep the government running—free of policy riders, ideological demands, or partisan brinkmanship. It simply keeps the government functioning for a set number of days, extending the budget that prevailed prior to the deadline of the previous budget, in the present case October 1.

            In the present shutdown, the term "Clean CR" gives Republicans like Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader John Thune  a ready-made talking point: if only the Democrats would accept the clean CR, the government could be opened immediately! They argue that Democrats are obstructing the government’s reopening by demanding unrelated concessions.  

            The “clean” CR is  procedurally tidy but politically loaded.   Democrats  argue that the CR is not truly “clean” if it fails to address two major concerns: the rollback of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies and the practice of “rescission,” where the executive branch refuses to spend funds that Congress has appropriated.  

            First, Democrats seek the restoration of enhanced ACA subsidies that were expanded under President Biden. These subsidies made health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans, particularly low- and middle-income families. Without them, premiums rise, coverage declines, and the ACA’s promise of accessible healthcare is undermined. A clean CR that omits these subsidies  locks in a policy shift that Democrats view as harmful and regressive.

            Second, Democrats are alarmed by the Trump administration’s increasing use of rescission. This practice allows the executive branch to withhold spending on programs that Congress has explicitly funded.  The Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, but Project 2025 envisions a presidency with sweeping control,  including the discretion to ignore or reinterpret congressional appropriations.

            From the Democratic perspective, accepting a clean CR without safeguards against rescission amounts to surrendering legislative authority. It would allow the executive to selectively implement laws, undermining the separation of powers and threatening democratic accountability;  the clean CR is not a neutral funding tool.  The clean CR is not just about keeping the government open. It is about what kind of government remains open.