House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said Tuesday that he’s pushing for a stopgap that punts this month’s threat of a government shutdown into November to buy time for funding talks.

Congress has until Sept. 30 to strike a deal to keep the government funded or risk its first shutdown in years. 

Asked for his preferred timeline for a stopgap, which would freeze funding at current levels while lawmakers negotiate a bill for fiscal 2026, Cole said Tuesday that he wants to see a stopgap “into November.”

Cole said lawmakers are specifically discussing kicking the deadline into as early as Nov. 6, but added, “The latest we would go would be pre-Thanksgiving, like the 20th.”

“My aim is to try to get to a negotiated agreement on all 12 bills,” he said, referring to the 12 annual government funding bills Congress is working to craft. “That’s what [Senate Appropriations Chair Susan] Collins (R-Maine) and I are trying to work together on, and what we think the best thing is to begin the process and hope these other things resolve themselves over the course of discussion.”

Cole also signaled optimism about a potential deal that would greenlight several full-year funding bills for fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1, and use a stopgap to cover the rest, arguing such a move could help “get some momentum going” on funding. 

But Congress faces a tight crunch to hash out a deal, and tensions have risen in the past week in light of President Trump’s so-called pocket rescissions effort. The Trump administration is using the tactic to cancel about $5 billion in funding for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) without approval from Congress.

Democrats have come out strongly against the move, arguing it’s illegal and undermines already fragile bipartisan funding negotiations to fund the government. Some Republican appropriators have also criticized the effort as “unlawful,” although the administration has defended the tactic as legal. 

Cole told reporters on Tuesday that the effort by the administration is a “legitimate concern,” but he also argued the “legal case here really is unclear.”

“I would prefer not to do them. I would always prefer a congressional vote. I don’t have any problem with a rescission as long as Congress votes,” he said.

But he added, “It’s not clear what the law is.”

Emily Brooks contributed.