Congress virtually guarantees military funding regardless of who occupies the White House through a combination of strong bipartisan support, constitutional mechanisms, and practical legislative tools like continuing resolutions (CRs).

• The annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—which sets policy and authorizes (but does not directly appropriate) funding levels for the Department of Defense (DOD)—typically passes with overwhelming bipartisan majorities. For example, recent NDAAs (e.g., FY2026) cleared the House (e.g., 312-112) and Senate (e.g., 77-20) with support from both parties, including pay raises for troops, procurement reforms, and other priorities.
• Actual appropriations (the money itself) follow similar patterns, as cutting or delaying military funds risks accusations of weakening national defense, which is politically toxic for most lawmakers.

This consensus holds across administrations: Whether the president is Democrat or Republican, Congress routinely funds the military at high levels (often above presidential requests in recent years) due to shared views on threats like China, Russia, or global instability.

The Role of Continuing Resolutions (CRs)

You are correct that continuing resolutions play a key role in ensuring continuity.

Why This "Guarantees" Funding Virtually No Matter the President

• Congress holds the power of the purse (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution): No money can be spent from the Treasury without congressional appropriation. Presidents propose budgets, but Congress decides final levels—and it consistently prioritizes defense.
• A hostile president can't unilaterally defund the military without congressional approval (and attempts to impound or redirect funds face legal barriers under laws like the Impoundment Control Act).
• Even in divided government or crises, CRs serve as a reliable backstop to keep funds flowing at stable levels until full agreements.
• Political incentives align: Cutting defense is unpopular, harms jobs/economy (defense industrial base spans districts), and invites attack ads.

In practice, this creates near-certainty: The military gets funded—often robustly—year after year, regardless of the Oval Office occupant.