A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2026 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2027 through 2035.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that the budget resolution is a necessary and routine step to establish fiscal discipline and a governing framework for federal spending. They contend that the reconciliation instructions — capped at $70 billion in deficit impact — provide a responsible, bounded mechanism to advance priority legislation on immigration enforcement and border security, areas where the executive branch has already taken significant action and where congressional authorization would strengthen legal footing. They further argue that the expedited reconciliation process is a legitimate constitutional tool that both parties have used repeatedly to enact major legislation.

Opponents argue

Opponents argue that using reconciliation to advance immigration enforcement spending — a policy area not traditionally tied to budget reconciliation's core purpose of deficit reduction — stretches the Byrd Rule's limits and sets a precedent for bypassing the Senate's deliberative process on contentious policy matters. They contend that authorizing up to $70 billion in new deficit spending, combined with reserve funds that could accommodate broad immigration enforcement changes, lacks sufficient fiscal offsets and could add meaningfully to the national debt. Critics also argue the resolution's ten-year budgetary targets are non-binding and provide little real constraint on future spending.