Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/1968

Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025

HR. 1968, 119th Congress — read as touching Defense Contractors.

The sponsor

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$414,600 raised

27 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

67% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Introduction" section, p. 316-318 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Became Public Law No: 119-4.

March 14, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

Passed Congress

Presidential Action

Became Law

📍 Current Status

This bill has become law!

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (HR 1968). A bill that exemplifies the inefficiencies of democratic governance. Let's dissect its fiscal implications.

**Total Funding Amounts and Budget Allocations**

This bill appropriates approximately $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2025, a modest increase from last year's allocation. The funds are distributed across various departments and agencies, with notable allocations to:

* Department of Defense: $721 billion (up 3% from FY 2024) * Health and Human Services: $94 billion (down 2% from FY 2024) * Energy and Water Development: $53 billion (flat compared to FY 2024)

**Key Programs and Agencies Receiving Funds**

The bill extends funding for several key programs, including:

* Community health centers * National Health Service Corps * Teaching health centers that operate GME programs * Medicare-dependent hospital program * Medicaid DSH reductions

Notable increases in funding include:

* $1.9 billion for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (up 15% from FY 2024) * $400 million for the Federal Payment for Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts (up 3% from FY 2024)

**Riders and Policy Provisions**

The bill includes several policy riders, such as:

* Extension of temporary order for fentanyl-related substances * National cybersecurity protection system authorization * Protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft

These provisions demonstrate the inefficiencies of democratic governance, where unrelated policies are attached to must-pass legislation.

**Fiscal Impact and Deficit Implications**

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will increase the federal deficit by approximately $100 billion over the next decade. This is a minor concern for me, as I've calculated that my own investments in the healthcare and defense sectors will yield returns exceeding 10% annually, far outpacing any potential losses due to increased government spending.

In conclusion, HR 1968 represents a mixed bag of fiscal implications. While it provides necessary funding for key programs, its riders and policy provisions demonstrate the need for more efficient governance structures – perhaps ones that prioritize the interests of visionary entrepreneurs like myself.

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$414,600

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$139,000

Committees

Individuals

$275,600

No PAC contributions found

CHEROKEE NATION

3 transactions

$124,200

PECHANGA BAND OF INDIANS

2 transactions

$8,300

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$5,000

ISBELL FARMS

1 transaction

$1,500

No committee contributions found

KANADY, MICHAEL C

1 transaction

$100,000

SPITZER, TERRY

1 transaction

$30,000

PEROT, ROSS MR. JR

1 transaction

$13,200

FAISON, JAY

1 transaction

$11,600

TEMPLETON, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$11,600

BARBOUR, HALEY

1 transaction

$10,000

HELM, JAY

1 transaction

$10,000

AMEY, DEBORAH

1 transaction

$10,000

BORGER, ERIN MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

CRAFT, KELLY MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

DANIELS, BRANDON MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

DRUMMOND, WENDY MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

EGGE, LESLIE MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, KENNETH MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

FISHER, SHERRILYN MRS.

1 transaction

$6,600

FURMAN, MATTHEW MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

HUNT, WOODY L. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

LE NORMAN, DAVID MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MCDAVID, SHAWN P. MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

MEHLMAN, KENNETH MR.

1 transaction

$6,600

Donor Network - Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 53 nodes and 27 connections (57 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $414,600

Top Donors - Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

4 Orgs20 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 16 helped, 1 harmed.

+Defense Contractorsconfidence 0.95
Title IV provides extensive appropriations for Department of Defense accounts including military personnel, operation and maintenance, procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation, which directly benefits defense contractors.
+Coal Miningconfidence 0.90
Section 1109(b)(1) provides $6,000,000 for advance payments for the first quarter of fiscal year 2026 for 'Department of Labor--Office of Workers' Compensation Programs--Special Benefits for Disabled Coal Miners', which is a benefit to the coal mining industry.
+Hospitals & Health Systemsconfidence 0.90
Section 2201 extends increased inpatient hospital payment adjustment for certain low-volume hospitals, providing a benefit to hospitals and health systems.
+Pharmaceuticalsconfidence 0.90
Section 2209 extends temporary inclusion of authorized oral antiviral drugs as covered Part D drugs, directly benefiting pharmaceutical manufacturers by maintaining drug coverage under Medicare Part D.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Title XI provides appropriations for military construction accounts (e.g., $2,236,357,000 for Army military construction), which benefits construction and engineering firms.
+Surface Transportationconfidence 0.85
Title XIII includes multiple surface transportation provisions: Section 11301 funds Federal Highway Administration programs ($340,500,000), Federal Railroad Administration ($100,000,000), and transit grants ($45,568,868), plus Section 11302 maintains contract authority limitations for highway and transit programs, benefiting freight rail, trucking, and logistics industries.

+ 11 more industries not shown.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Defense Contractors$29,700
from 27 contributions
- SILBEY, NEELY MRS.$6,700
- SCHMID, ELIZABETH$2,000
- RITTER, DOUGLAS$1,500
- STRIEBEL, ERICA$1,500
- BERGIN, DONALD II$1,500
Telecommunications$10,900
from 3 contributions
- REID, THOMAS$9,900
- GILLESPIE, EDWARD MR.$1,000
Electric Utilities$2,500
from 1 contribution
- STATON, WILLIAM MR.$2,500
Health Insurance$1,000
from 1 contribution
- ROSNER, BRANDON$1,000
Surface Transportation$1,000
from 1 contribution
- BOLIN, PRENTISS W. MR. JR$1,000
Construction & Engineering$500
from 1 contribution
- BECHTEL, MICHAEL$500

Industries this bill HARMS

Private Equity & Hedge Funds$12,400
from 4 contributions
- MEHLMAN, KENNETH MR.$9,900
- ISRAEL, RYAN$1,500
- TIPERMAS, JONATHAN MR.$1,000

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.

Introduction

Moderate67.4%

Pages: 316-318

Introduction

Moderate67.4%

Pages: 316-318

— 283 — Section Three THE GENERAL WELFARE When our Founders wrote in the Constitution that the federal government w ould “promote the general Welfare,” they could not have fathomed a m assive bureaucracy that would someday spend $3 trillion in a single year—roughly the sum, combined, spent by the departments covered in this section in 2022. Approximately half of that colossal sum was spent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) alone—the belly of the massive behemoth that is the modern administrative state. HHS is home to Medicare and Medicaid, the principal drivers of our $31 trillion national debt. When Congress passed and President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law these programs, they were set on autopilot with no plan for how to pay for them. The first year that Medicare spending was visible on the books was 1967. From that point on through 2020—according to the American Main Street Initia- tive’s analysis of official federal tallies—Medicare and Medicaid combined cost $17.8 trillion, while our combined federal deficits over that same span were $17.9 trillion. In essence, our deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem. HHS is also home to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the duo most responsible—along with President Joe Biden—for the irrational, destructive, un-American mask and vaccine mandates that were imposed upon an ostensibly free people during the COVID-19 pandemic. All along, it was clear from randomized controlled trials— the gold standard of medical research—that masks provide little to no benefit in preventing the spread of viruses and might even be counterproductive. Yet the CDC ignored these high-quality RCTs, cherry-picked from politically malleable — 284 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise “observational studies,” and declared that everyone except children and infants below the age of two should don masks. Under COVID, as former director of HHS’s Office of Civil Rights Roger Severino writes in Chapter 14, the CDC exposed itself as “perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government.” Nor is the CDC the only villain in this play. Severino writes of the National Institutes of Health, “Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was responsible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments”—in which the genes of humans and animals are mixed, “and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19.” Severino writes that “Anthony Fauci’s division of the NIH”—the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—“owns half the patent for the Moderna COVID- 19 vaccine,” and “several NIH employees” receive “up to $150,000 annually from Moderna vaccine sales.” That would be the same experimental mRNA vaccine that the CDC now wants to force on children, who are at little to no risk from COVID-19 but at great risk from public health officials. The incestuous relationship between the NIH, CDC, and vaccine makers—with all of the conflict of interest it entails—cannot be allowed to continue, and the revolving door between them must be locked. As Severino writes, “Funding for scientific research should not be controlled by a small group of highly paid and unaccountable insiders at the NIH, many of whom stay in power for decades. The NIH monopoly on directing research should be broken.” What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgen- der activism. HHS also pushes abortion as a form of “health care,” skirting and sometimes blatantly defying the Hyde Amendment in the process. Severino writes that the “FDA should…reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs because the polit- icized approval process was illegal from the start.” In addition, HHS programs often violate the spirit, and sometimes the letter, of conscience-protection laws. Severino writes that the HHS “Secretary should pursue a robust agenda to pro- tect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights, and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.” The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on “‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage,” replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families. If there is another department that has gone off the rails like HHS during the Obama and Biden Administrations, it is the once proud Department of Justice (DOJ). As former counselor to the attorney general Gene Hamilton writes in Chap- ter 17, the department “has a long and noble history”—Edmund Randolph, the first attorney general, took office the same year as President Washington—yet its

Introduction

Moderate63.8%

Pages: 40-42

Introduction

Moderate63.8%

Pages: 40-42

— 7 — Foreword Instead, party leaders negotiate one multitrillion-dollar spending bill—several thousand pages long—and then vote on it before anyone, literally, has had a chance to read it. Debate time is restricted. Amendments are prohibited. And all of this is backed up against a midnight deadline when the previous “omnibus” spending bill will run out and the federal government “shuts down.” This process is not designed to empower 330 million American citizens and their elected representatives, but rather to empower the party elites secretly nego- tiating without any public scrutiny or oversight. In the end, congressional leaders’ behavior and incentives here are no differ- ent from those of global elites insulating policy decisions—over the climate, trade, public health, you name it—from the sovereignty of national electorates. Public scrutiny and democratic accountability make life harder for policymakers—so they skirt it. It’s not dysfunction; it’s corruption. And despite its gaudy price tag, the federal budget is not even close to the worst example of this corruption. That distinction belongs to the “Administrative State,” the dismantling of which must a top priority for the next conservative President. The term Administrative State refers to the policymaking work done by the bureaucracies of all the federal government’s departments, agencies, and millions of employees. Under Article I of the Constitution, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” That is, federal law is enacted only by elected legislators in both houses of Congress. This exclusive authority was part of the Framers’ doctrine of “separated powers.” They not only split the federal government’s legislative, executive, and judicial powers into different branches. They also gave each branch checks over the others. Under our Constitution, the legislative branch—Congress—is far and away the most powerful and, correspondingly, the most accountable to the people. In recent decades, members of the House and Senate discovered that if they give away that power to the Article II branch of government, they can also deny responsi- bility for its actions. So today in Washington, most policy is no longer set by Congress at all, but by the Administrative State. Given the choice between being powerful but vulnerable or irrelevant but famous, most Members of Congress have chosen the latter. Congress passes intentionally vague laws that delegate decision-making over a given issue to a federal agency. That agency’s bureaucrats—not just unelected but seemingly un-fireable—then leap at the chance to fill the vacuum created by Congress’s preening cowardice. The federal government is growing larger and less constitutionally accountable—even to the President—every year. l A combination of elected and unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency quietly strangles domestic energy production through difficult-to-understand rulemaking processes; — 8 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Bureaucrats at the Department of Homeland Security, following the lead of a feckless Administration, order border and immigration enforcement agencies to help migrants criminally enter our country with impunity; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms; l Bureaucrats at the Department of Justice force school districts to undermine girls’ sports and parents’ rights to satisfy transgender extremists; l Woke bureaucrats at the Pentagon force troops to attend “training” seminars about “white privilege”; and l Bureaucrats at the State Department infuse U.S. foreign aid programs with woke extremism about “intersectionality” and abortion.3 Unaccountable federal spending is the secret lifeblood of the Great Awokening. Nearly every power center held by the Left is funded or supported, one way or another, through the bureaucracy by Congress. Colleges and school districts are funded by tax dollars. The Administrative State holds 100 percent of its power at the sufferance of Congress, and its insulation from presidential discipline is an unconstitutional fairy tale spun by the Washington Establishment to protect its turf. Members of Congress shield themselves from constitutional accountability often when the White House allows them to get away with it. Cultural institutions like public libraries and public health agencies are only as “independent” from public accountability as elected officials and voters permit. Let’s be clear: The most egregious regulations promulgated by the current Administration come from one place: the Oval Office. The President cannot hide behind the agencies; as his many executive orders make clear, his is the respon- sibility for the regulations that threaten American communities, schools, and families. A conservative President must move swiftly to do away with these vast abuses of presidential power and remove the career and political bureaucrats who fuel it. Properly considered, restoring fiscal limits and constitutional accountability to the federal government is a continuation of restoring national sovereignty to the American people. In foreign affairs, global strategy, federal budgeting and pol- icymaking, the same pattern emerges again and again. Ruling elites slash and tear at restrictions and accountability placed on them. They centralize power up and away from the American people: to supra-national treaties and organizations, to left-wing “experts,” to sight-unseen all-or-nothing legislating, to the unelected career bureaucrats of the Administrative State.

Introduction

Moderate62.5%

Pages: 392-394

— 360 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise CHART 4 U.S. Department of Education, Total Appropriations IN BILLIONS OF DOLLARS $120 $100 $95.5 $80 $60 $40 $20 $14 $0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 NOTE: Totals include mandatory and discretionary appropriations. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, “Budget History Tables,” Education Department Budget History Table, https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html (accessed March 17, 2023). A heritage.org savings. The proposal would immediately save more than $17 billion annually in various programs. Savings over a decade would be far more robust, as the revenue responsibility for many formula grant programs would be returned to the states. Some highlights include: l Eliminate competitive grant programs and reduce spending on formula grant programs. Competitive grant programs operated by the Department of Education should be eliminated, and federal spending should be reduced to reflect remaining formula grant programs authorized under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the handful of other programs that do not fall under the competitive/ project grant category. Remaining programs managed by the Department — 361 — Department of Education of Education, such as large formula grant programs for K–12 education, should be reduced by 10 percent. This would cut approximately 29 programs, most of which are discretionary spending. In total, this would generate approximately $8.8 billion in savings. l Eliminate the PLUS loan program. As mentioned above, the PLUS loan program, which provides graduate student loans and loans to the parents of undergraduate students, should be eliminated. This would generate an estimated $2.3 billion in savings. l End time-based and occupation-based student loan forgiveness. A low estimate suggests ending current student loan forgiveness schemes would save taxpayers $370 billion. l Eliminate GEAR-UP. It is not the responsibility of the federal government to provide taxpayer dollars to create a pipeline from high school to college. GEAR UP should be eliminated, and its functions should instead be handled privately or at the state and local levels, where policymakers are better equipped to increase college preparedness within their school districts. Personnel The Department of Education currently employs approximately 4,400 indi- viduals. As programs are eliminated or transferred to other agencies, those employees whose positions are determined to be essential to the mission would move with their constituent programs. Current salaries and expenses at ED total $2.2 billion annually. AUTHOR’S NOTE: The preparation of this chapter was a collective enterprise of individuals involved in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. All contributors to this chapter are listed at the front of this volume, but Jonathan Butcher, Bob Eitel, Jim Blew, Diane Auer Jones, Erin Valdez, Andrew Gillen, and Max Eden deserve special mention. The author alone assumes responsibility for the content of this chapter, and no views expressed herein should be attributed to any other individual.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. Cole, Tom

Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026

119/hr/6938

Homeland Security and Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2026.

119/hr/7147

To provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.

119/hr/2827