Opinion - Congress is breaking the appropriations process

As we reflect on the just-ended Department of Homeland Security funding impasse, we face a familiar problem. Such shutdowns occur because Congress struggles to assemble 60 votes in the Senate to pass contentious funding bills — in this case, those supporting core immigration enforcement functions.

Although the solution of shifting those funding decisions into the budget reconciliation process may have broken the stalemate, the long-term ramifications of that decision could potentially break something far more fundamental.

If the Senate cannot pass appropriations bills under its current rules, the answer is to address the rules, not to bypass the appropriations process altogether. Because this is about more than the filibuster. It is about how Congress exercises the power of the purse.

The appropriations process is one of the oldest and most structured functions in American governance. Rooted in the Constitution and refined over more than two centuries, it is designed to force tradeoffs into the open — through hearings, markups and bipartisan negotiation — and to ensure ongoing oversight of federal spending.

The Senate filibuster, in contrast, is a chamber rule. It evolved over time and was modified when the Senate concluded that other priorities warranted it. Whatever one’s view of the 60-vote threshold, it should not take precedence over the appropriations process itself.

That distinction is getting lost.

Budget reconciliation is a powerful tool, but it is a blunt one. It was designed to align taxing and spending with a budget resolution — not to fund discretionary programs in detail. It is constrained by the Byrd Rule , limited to provisions with direct budgetary impact, and ill-suited to the operational realities of agencies like ICE and Customs and Border Protection, where funding decisions involve personnel levels, detention capacity and rapidly changing enforcement demands.

Appropriations provides the structure to manage those complexities through line-by-line funding, oversight, and the ability to adjust as conditions change. Reconciliation does not.

Congress has used reconciliation before to enact major spending packages, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 , and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 . Those measures pushed significant funding outside of regular appropriations and were each controversial for that reason.

But those bills did not replace the regular appropriations process. Rather, they layered new spending on top of it. During the fiscal years in which those bills were passed, annual appropriations bills still set baseline funding, controlled agency operations and preserved congressional oversight. The system held.

What is being executed now is vastly different. Moving Homeland Security funding into reconciliation does not supplement appropriations. It is a substitute for it, using a fast-track process to fund core discretionary functions that have always been handled through regular order.

That shift would have consequences and set a dangerous precedent. It would sideline the jurisdiction of the appropriations committees — and thus the lawmakers charged with overseeing federal spending — and concentrate decisions in leadership-driven negotiations.

It would compress the legislative process, reduce transparency, and limit opportunities for scrutiny and amendment. And it would set a precedent that extends far beyond immigration policy.

If Congress starts making a habit of funding controversial programs through reconciliation whenever it cannot reach 60 votes, this will become the new model for both parties.

Reconciliation can add spending. It cannot replace governance.

There is a more straightforward path. The Senate should adopt a narrow exception to the filibuster for appropriations bills necessary to reopen the government when shutdowns occur. That would preserve the appropriations process, resolve shutdowns, and deter them going forward.

What Congress should not do is allow a procedural impasse to hollow out one of Congress’s core constitutional functions.

Leslie Belcher is managing director of Government Affairs and Public Policy at Steptoe, where she leads the firm’s appropriations practice. She previously served as chief of staff to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.