The week ahead is unlikely to resolve fundamental questions facing the FY 2027 funding cycle, but it may provide signals about where Congress is headed. As the House defers its attempt to advance the NDAA and Senate appropriators continue searching for a path forward, Congress is running into the reality of a compressed legislative calendar ahead of the midterm elections. With August recess looming, the September 30 fiscal year-end deadline drawing closer, an outstanding OMB supplemental request and Reconciliation 3.0 still in the conversation, the coming weeks will test whether Congress can build momentum on the defense authorization and appropriations or whether political and procedural obstacles once again force leadership into crisis-management mode.
Paralysis or Progress? The House Faces a Pivotal Week
Heading into the July 4 recess, House Republican leadership hoped to demonstrate momentum on both appropriations and the NDAA. Instead, the House floor was left paralyzed by demands and disputes surrounding the SAVE America Act. This was particularly disappointing for appropriators, as Chairman Cole spent months working on an aggressive timeline. House leadership has struggled to convert Committee action on appropriations and the NDAA into floor action. The broader significance extends beyond a single week of canceled votes. With so few sessions days remaining, every lost week increases pressure.
This week, the House is back with a hopeful agenda that includes the FY 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act (formerly SFOPS). The Energy and Water bill and the House’s NDAA, previously slated for consideration, will not see the floor this week. For the NSRP bill, we are likely to see fireworks primarily between Democrats on Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment that would end aid to Israel and cut the overall foreign military program by $3.3 billion. The dynamic on display between Democrats is a case study into likely their most divisive intra-party disagreements.
But, for Rep. Massie’s amendment to be considered, House Republicans must be able to pass the Rule. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna has vowed to maintain her floor blockade. Stay tuned.
Senate Appropriators Face Familiar Challenges
The Senate returns this week without a bipartisan topline spending agreement, continuing to complicate forward movement for appropriations bills through committee and onto the floor. As a reminder, Senate Appropriators remain split on how to handle the Administration’s historically high defense budget request, with the administration’s recent defense supplemental request adding another layer of complexity. As the week progresses, observers should watch for movement between Chair Collins and Vice Chair Murray, as well as indications that Senators are coalescing around a framework that could move the process forward. Equally important will be whether Senators can agree to avoid controversial amendments considered “poison pills” that could derail the process.
If no agreement is reached and Democrats remain united in their opposition to advancing bills, Chair Collins will likely be unable to move bills to the floor even if she is willing to proceed on a partisan basis. Senator Mitch McConnell released a statement over the weekend saying that he has moved from the hospital to a rehabilitation center and intends to return to the Senate, but he did not indicate when exactly that would be. Compounding Chair Collins’ challenge, the unexpected passing of Senator Lindsey Graham leaves Republicans down another member on the Appropriations Committee until a replacement is named. If Senator McConnell remains unavailable and Democrats continue to oppose advancing appropriations bills, Chair Collins will not have the votes to move bills to the floor. Readers of the Approps Drop will know that this means that instead of markups, the bills and reports are likely to be posted on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s website likely around the start of August recess.
September 30 is Coming. Now What?
At this point, few expect Congress to enact FY 2027 appropriations bills or negotiate a final omnibus or series of minibuses before the fiscal year ends on September 30. Instead, appropriators’ attention will likely shift in late August or early September to the Office of Management and Budget’s list of continuing resolution (CR) anomalies —targeted exceptions designed to provide agencies with additional flexibility or funding authority during a temporary funding measure. Appropriators will carefully review that list, discuss it with the agencies, and distinguish operational necessities from requests that are simply “nice to have.” The most likely outcome remains a relatively clean CR extending current funding levels. From there, Congress would once again postpone the most difficult funding decisions until after the election, when greater clarity will emerge regarding the political landscape and the path forward for FY 2027 spending negotiations. While funding fights can quickly become unpredictable, the appetite for a government shutdown currently appears limited on both sides of the aisle. The principal wild card remains whether disputes surrounding the SAVE America Act spill into broader fiscal negotiations and create procedural or political obstacles that complicate efforts to pass even a temporary funding measure.
One More Thing
Just weeks after wrapping a consequential term, Associate Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett are scheduled to testify Tuesday before the House and Senate Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittees on the Court’s FY 2027 budget request. Their appearances will mark the first time Supreme Court justices have testified before the appropriations subcommittees since 2019, when Justices Kagan and Samuel Alito appeared to discuss the Court's budget request.
The hearings also come amid increased congressional scrutiny of the judiciary’s request for additional security resources. In recent appropriations cycles, Congress provided supplemental funding for Supreme Court security following concerns about threats directed at the Justices and ongoing efforts to transition certain residential protection responsibilities from the U.S. Marshals Service to the Supreme Court Police. The request has generated debate among appropriators over both its size and the Court's justification for seeking additional resources outside the normal appropriations process, making security spending one of the most closely watched aspects of the Court’s budget presentation. While the intent of the hearings is to focus on the Court’s budget request, the Justices are also likely to face questions about recent decisions and issues like Supreme Court ethics standards.
