In a razor-thin vote, House Republicans pushed through a contentious funding bill for the Energy Department and water development projects on Thursday, highlighting deep partisan divides over fiscal priorities for the coming year.
According to The Hill, the bill, which passed 214-213, allocates roughly $57 billion for fiscal 2026 while slashing nondefense programs and boosting defense-related funding, though it faces an uphill battle in the Senate without Democratic backing.
The vote, taken on Thursday, underscored the polarized nature of budget debates in Congress. Only four Republicans—Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Tom McClintock of California, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania broke party lines to oppose the measure alongside Democrats. The narrow margin of 214-213 reflects the challenges House Republicans face in unifying their caucus on spending issues.
This legislation marks the third appropriations bill passed by House Republicans for the fiscal year 2026. However, Congress remains behind schedule on its annual funding responsibilities, adding pressure to finalize budgets before deadlines loom. The bill, while a significant step for Republicans, is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate without support from Democrats.
At its core, the bill allocates approximately $57 billion for fiscal 2026, targeting key areas within the Energy Department and water development initiatives. A major focus is an increase in funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a branch of the Energy Department responsible for maintaining the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. This boost aligns with Republican priorities, emphasizing defense-related programs over other sectors.
On the other hand, the bill imposes substantial reductions to programs often supported by Democrats. For instance, it slashes the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account by 17 percent, according to a summary released by Democrats earlier this summer. Additionally, funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy faces a nearly 50 percent cut under the proposal.
Another significant reduction targets the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E), which sees its budget trimmed by almost 25 percent. These cuts, while deep, are less severe than those initially proposed by the Trump administration, which called for a 74 percent reduction to renewable energy programs and a 57 percent cut to research funding. Appropriators have faced growing pressure in recent months to align their bills with President Trump’s budget request, which seeks to reduce nondefense discretionary spending by over 20 percent.
The legislation also takes aim at funding provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, cutting $5.1 billion designated for initiatives like hydrogen energy, carbon capture technology, battery recycling, and energy upgrades in public schools.
According to the Democratic summary, these reductions could hinder progress on critical environmental and infrastructure goals. Overall, the bill reduces funding to the Energy Department by about 3 percent, a relatively modest cut compared to other targeted areas.
Despite passing, the bill faced criticism from within Republican ranks, with some lawmakers expressing dissatisfaction with its scope and approach. Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, one of the four Republicans who voted against it, voiced his concerns directly. “The bill’s pretty lacking, that’s why I voted no,” Perry told The Hill.
Continuing his critique, Perry added, “Policy, spending, the whole thing is just a weak effort,” in his remarks to The Hill. His comments reflect broader frustrations among some conservatives who feel the bill does not go far enough in addressing fiscal restraint or policy goals. This internal dissent could complicate future negotiations as Republicans seek to maintain unity on funding matters.
Looking ahead, the bill serves as a starting point for Republicans in discussions over funding for the next fiscal year. However, bridging the gap with Democrats will be essential to secure passage in the Senate, where bipartisan support is often necessary for appropriations bills. The partisan nature of the current proposal suggests that significant compromises may be required in the coming months.
The tight vote and limited Democratic support highlight the ongoing challenges Congress faces in completing its annual funding work on time. As deadlines approach, the risk of delays or temporary funding measures grows, potentially disrupting government operations. Both parties will need to navigate these hurdles carefully to avoid broader fiscal consequences.
The passage of this bill, while a victory for House Republicans, underscores the deep partisan divide over how federal funds should be allocated. With defense priorities bolstered and nondefense programs curtailed, the legislation reflects a clear Republican vision for fiscal 2026. Yet, the road ahead remains uncertain as negotiations shift to the Senate, where Democratic input will likely reshape the outcome.