The New York Times laid out the main argument from the left against the House-passed full-year CR like this:
House Democratic leaders pressed their members to oppose the legislation, contending that it would enable the White House’s effort to drastically reduce federal spending without consulting Congress. Unlike regular spending bills, temporary extensions do not explicitly direct how the federal funding levels that lawmakers set should be allocated.
That would give the Trump administration broader discretion over large sums of money at a time when the president has already moved aggressively to block the government from disbursing funds authorized by Congress for a variety of programs.
This makes fiscal and common sense. No CEO of a private company would ever spend money needlessly just because it was “in the budget.” But that’s what the president is required to do.
That makes no sense given that we are losing $2 trillion a year.
With Russ Vought's fiscal hawks at OMB working with Elon's DOGE teams to identify and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse, a full-year CR means they can much more easily shift funding than under more restrictive appropriations bills.
The House Freedom Caucus explained:
