Authorizing, Appropriations, Budget, and Reconciliation: What Animal Welfare Advocates Need to Know

U.S. Capitol

If you care about federal protections for animals, you have probably recently heard terms like “authorizing,” “appropriations,” “budget,” and “reconciliation” thrown around when bills are debated in Congress. But what does this really mean, and how does it influence the effort to protect animals?

There has been confusion recently over these terms as they relate to the critical issue of language regularly approved by Congress in its annual Interior Appropriations legislation, which protects wild horses from slaughter. However, it wasn’t included in President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget submitted to Congress.

We are here to explain it!

What is authorization legislation?

As the name implies, authorization legislation authorizes the creation of laws and authorizes the expenditure of funds from the federal budget. It may specify how much money should be spent on a program, but it doesn’t allocate the money or elaborate on where the funds to cover the budget will come from.

An example of an authorizing bill is the Save America’s Forgotten Equines (SAFE) Act (H.R. 1661/S. 775), which will authorize the creation of a federal law banning the practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption.

As you know, while we continue to work on a permanent ban on horse slaughter, we have had success in blocking horse slaughter in the U.S. through the annual appropriations process, but we will save that for the next section.

Bottom Line—The majority of legislative activity out of Congress deals with authorizing legislation, such as the SAFE Act. These are bills that permanently change U.S. laws and policies. They remain in effect until the law is rescinded or altered.

What does the appropriations process mean?

The appropriations process is how Congress distributes funds to government agencies and programs, such as the US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which enforces the Animal Welfare Act. Each year, advocates push for more funding and more explicit report language in these bills to make sure agencies remain accountable.

For example, since 2006, we have successfully had language included (except for one year) in the annual Agriculture Appropriations bills prohibiting the USDA from funding federally required inspections of horse slaughter facilities in the U.S., effectively stopping the industry here. While this effort is critical, horses continue to be shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter, which is why we need Congress to authorize a permanent ban by passing the SAFE Act.

Another example, which inspired this post, concerns the inclusion of language in Congress's annual Interior Appropriations bills regarding wild horses since the mid-1990s. This prohibition is part of the annual Interior Appropriations bill, not the reconciliation bill, as some have claimed.

Bottom Line—Appropriations focus on the yearly funding of the federal government, where most of the work to protect animals happens. This process is not a permanent solution, and each year we must address every issue, including ending the slaughter of domestic and wild horses.

The President’s Budget.

While Congress does create an annual budget, that process has become less relevant in recent years. Therefore, we will focus on the President’s annual budget to Congress. First, we should clarify that the President’s budget, regardless of party or administration, serves as a blueprint outlining what the President wants Congress to support and fund for federal agencies during a single fiscal year, which runs from October 1 to September 30. Congress can accept or reject all or parts of it depending on its agenda.

Bottom Line—President Trump's Fiscal Year 2026 Budget to Congress did not include the annual language preventing the Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management) from killing federally protected wild horses as a management ''tool.'' This language had been included in all previous budgets submitted to Congress since the 1990s; however, as we noted earlier, the budget is merely a blueprint and not set in stone. Congress, through the annual appropriations process, will decide whether or not to include this critical language.

Now, what does reconciliation mean?

Reconciliation is a rarely used legislative tool that facilitates the passage of budget-related bills quickly, requiring only a simple majority vote in both the House and the Senate. That’s why it’s often employed for high-stakes legislation, such as tax cuts or healthcare changes. However, reconciliation is limited to provisions that directly impact spending, revenues, or the debt limit.

It means you cannot use reconciliation to pass most standalone animal welfare laws, like banning horse slaughter or ending animal testing for cosmetics, unless those laws have a direct budget impact that meets strict criteria (known as the Byrd Rule, named after former Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who happened to be a wild horse champion while in Congress).

Bottom Line—reconciliation is a strong tool, but it is not necessarily animal-friendly.

Why does this matter?

For many years, passing authorization bills on any issue has become increasingly difficult and less common, primarily due to political factors. Therefore, if we want stronger animal welfare laws and more resources for rescue, shelter, and protection efforts, we should focus on the appropriations process. This stage is where language influences outcomes and funds are allocated. It’s where your voice can truly make a difference.

Although reconciliation may grab headlines, it doesn't move our main priorities forward. Protecting animals requires more than legislation; it also calls for funding and enforcement.

In conclusion, facts matter. That’s why we wanted to create this post explaining the federal legislative process, so activists have the correct information to make informed decisions when calling Congress and informing others as we work to push for fundamental changes in Congress that benefit all animals.

While the President didn’t include the traditional language preventing the Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management) from killing federally protected wild horses, that doesn’t mean Congress won’t include the language again. It was Congress that originally added it and has kept it for decades. Currently, neither the House nor Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittees have released their Fiscal Year 2026 Interior Appropriations bills, so nothing is certain yet. Rest assured, we are in contact with the relevant committee staff, urging that the prohibition on killing wild horses be included in their upcoming appropriations bills.