As Congress considers implementing a six-month stopgap funding measure, also known as a continuing resolution (CR), the looming threat of a government shutdown is temporarily avoided. Yet, this stopgap prolongs uncertainty over the federal budget, delaying essential fiscal negotiations that could shape the country’s future.

Such a temporary fix would significantly impact various federal agencies, particularly the Department of Defense. The military depends on consistent annual budgets to carry out long-term planning and launch new initiatives. While a six-month CR wouldn’t immediately cripple the U.S. military, it could steadily erode military readiness, delay crucial modernization efforts, and limit America’s ability to respond swiftly to emerging global threats.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has made clear his stance: Congress must avoid relying on a CR and instead pass a full defense budget. In his stark warning, Austin emphasized that the CR would have long-lasting detrimental effects on national security. He called for swift action, stating that approving regular funding for the Pentagon is “the single most important thing that Congress can do to ensure U.S. national security.”

Austin’s warning goes further—he describes the consequences of the stopgap as “devastating” for U.S. military readiness and modernization. In a letter to Congress, Austin outlined his concerns: the CR would hinder essential military training and maintenance, both vital to keeping American forces prepared to respond to global threats at any moment. Worse yet, this delay would severely impact high-priority projects like the Replicator drone program. As China and Russia continue to expand their capabilities, the U.S. military must be equipped with cutting-edge technology in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. A stopgap measure slows this progress at a perilous moment.

In essence, Austin equated the CR to an effective $6 billion cut from the defense budget, limiting the military’s ability to recruit and retain personnel. It would also disrupt procurement programs, delay shipbuilding and nuclear modernization, and defer maintenance of crucial defense assets like ships and aircraft.

Should Congress proceed with the stopgap, it would temporarily extend government funding at current levels, narrowly averting a shutdown while lawmakers continue to negotiate a full budget. But the repercussions of such a scenario are serious. While essential services would continue functioning, federal agencies, including the DoD, would be forced into a state of limbo, operating on restricted budgets that delay new initiatives, contracts, and even hiring. A CR would grant Congress more time to hammer out a long-term spending bill, but it could also heighten political tensions and risks—especially if the same gridlocks persist. If negotiations falter after six months, the threat of another government shutdown looms.

Under the CR, funding levels are frozen at the previous fiscal year’s allocation. This means new military programs, initiatives, or changes to existing strategies can’t move forward. This stagnation is dangerous. Delays in procuring or modernizing vital defense systems could hamper the military’s ability to stay ahead of global adversaries. Time-sensitive projects, such as nuclear modernization or missile defense, could be indefinitely postponed. While ongoing operations would generally continue, the inability to fund new initiatives or adapt to emergent threats could undermine the flexibility and adaptability that the U.S. military relies on.

Defense projects, particularly large-scale undertakings like constructing aircraft carriers or fighter jets, are multi-year efforts. The stopgap complicates these endeavors, delaying funding and increasing costs as reauthorizations are required down the line. Furthermore, a CR would almost certainly slow down research and development for cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence, hypersonic weapons, or cybersecurity innovations—technologies that give the U.S. a strategic edge. Falling behind in these areas risks eroding the military’s advantage, reducing the speed at which the U.S. can deploy new capabilities.

Another consequence: the U.S. military might be restricted in its ability to respond to unexpected global crises. If a new conflict or international threat arises, limited funding could slow or even restrict U.S. military action. This could force the U.S. to scale back its presence in key regions like the Indo-Pacific or Eastern Europe, where a strong military posture is crucial to maintaining deterrence. A diminished or less capable presence could embolden adversaries to take aggressive actions, believing that the U.S. is less prepared to respond.

Global adversaries, including Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, closely monitor U.S. domestic politics, especially its budgetary struggles. A prolonged CR would signal instability and might encourage these adversaries to test U.S. resolve or exploit perceived weaknesses. For instance, China could ramp up its activities in the South China Sea, or Russia might take more aggressive actions in Eastern Europe, believing the U.S. military’s readiness or political stability has been compromised.

Moreover, U.S. commitments to global alliances, particularly NATO, could be affected if funding uncertainty limits troop deployments, joint exercises, or cooperative defense programs. Allies may begin to question the U.S.’s resolve if they perceive diminished military leadership due to budgetary issues. A weaker U.S. military presence risks undermining the country’s credibility, especially in regions like the Indo-Pacific, where the U.S. presence acts as a counterbalance to China’s rising influence.

China’s rapid military buildup, particularly in naval and missile forces, poses a growing threat to U.S. dominance in the Indo-Pacific. Delays in American military initiatives—such as bolstering Pacific bases or enhancing missile defense systems—would disadvantage the U.S., allowing China to further solidify its influence in the region.

For all these reasons and more, Congress must ensure continued funding for the Pentagon, even if a temporary stopgap measure is implemented. The alternative is simply too dangerous.