When Connecticut lawmakers rushed into a November special session to create a $500 million “emergency” fund, supporters made three clear promises to the public.
First, the fund would be temporary. Second, any unused money would be returned. Third, the extraordinary spending authority would end once the legislature reconvened.
Those assurances did not survive the first day of the 2026 legislative session.
By extending the Federal Cuts Response Fund into fiscal year 2027, lawmakers preserved sweeping executive spending authority long after the stated emergency had passed — and after the General Assembly was back in session and fully capable of exercising its constitutional role.
What Lawmakers Promised in November
In November 2025, lawmakers rushed through Public Act (PA) 25-1 amid concerns about a potential federal government shutdown. The bill set aside $500 million to backstop certain programs if federal funding was disrupted.
Supporters defended the extraordinary process, bypassing public hearings and handing massive spending authority in the executive branch, by emphasizing that the fund was strictly temporary.
Sen. Cathy Osten (D–Sprague) described the measure as a contingency that “may never get spent,” explaining that any unused funds would be returned to the Budget Reserve Fund and ultimately applied to pension liabilities. Others characterized the fund as a short-term bridge justified only because the legislature was out of session and unable to respond quickly.
That framing made an otherwise troubling process acceptable to some lawmakers, based on the understanding that the lack of traditional oversight would end once the legislature returned.
The statute reflected that bargain. PA 25-1 required all unspent balances to lapse and return to the Budget Reserve Fund on Feb. 4, 2026 — the first day of the new legislative session. The date was explicit and intentional.
It was the deal.
Emergency Over, Authority Extended: What Changed in February
By February, the conditions used to justify the emergency fund no longer existed. The shutdown threat had passed. Federal funding continued. And on February 4, the General Assembly reconvened — restoring lawmakers’ ability to approve spending through the regular appropriations process.
Under the terms lawmakers themselves had set in November, the remaining balance — roughly $330 million — should have lapsed Wednesday.
Instead, the Senate voted to extend the fund.
The newly adopted S.B. 83 does more than preserve unused balances. It entrenches the fund and expands its scope. During floor debate, proponents were candid about the bill’s purpose. “This bill just extends the federal cuts response fund until the end of fiscal year ’27,” one supporter stated.
The extension directly contradicts earlier assurances that any unused funds would be returned once the legislature reconvened.
Even more striking, the bill broadens the circumstances under which the money can be spent. While the original law limited expenditures to a defined list of programs tied to a potential shutdown, the new language authorizes spending in response to undefined federal “policy impacts” or federal “action or inaction.”
That phrasing places virtually no meaningful limit on how the funds may be used.
As Sen. Ryan Fazio (R–Greenwich) noted during debate, “None of the arguments for this special emergency provision that was passed in November are in existence today.” The legislature was back in session. The shutdown was over. “And yet,” he continued, “here we are… extending that virtually unilateral authority of the governor to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.”
Accountability and Transparency Were Proposed — and Rejected
Republicans did not merely object. They offered amendments.
They proposed requiring legislative approval on spending, adding audit and reporting requirements, narrowing the scope of allowable spending, and preserving the original sunset date.
Every substantive accountability amendment was rejected on party-line votes.
As Sen. Fazio warned, the structure leaves lawmakers with no real role at all. “We are surrendering our powers as a legislature to actually make these decisions for the people who elected us.”
Under the final structure, six legislative leaders receive notice of planned expenditures and have 24 hours to block them — but only by majority vote. In practice, that means four Democrats would need to vote against their own governor to stop a transfer.
As several senators acknowledged during debate, that check is largely illusory.
A Precedent That Should Worry Everyone
Supporters argue that the fund may never be fully spent. That misses the point.
The real danger here is not $330 million or even $500 million. It is the precedent.
If legislative leadership can declare an emergency, bypass public hearings, delegate the power of the purse to the executive branch, promise a sunset, and then quietly extend that authority once the crisis has passed, then temporary emergency powers cease to be temporary.
They become a matter of convenience.
Nothing in the revised law meaningfully prevents this fund from being extended again — or replenished in the future. The original hard expiration date was the only real guardrail, and lawmakers have now demonstrated that even that constraint is optional.
The fund is financed with surplus dollars, making it easy to refill. Its broadened authorization to respond to undefined federal “policy impacts” has no natural endpoint. And with no audit requirement, no annual reauthorization, and no legislative vote required to spend the money, there is nothing forcing the fund to wind down.
After brushing aside the limits that were supposed to make the fund temporary, lawmakers have cleared the path for future legislatures to keep it alive indefinitely.
And that is the real consequence of what just happened.
The fund was supposed to expire. It didn’t.
