Tennessee Senate Bill SB2690

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/9/26
• Engrossed: 4/16/26
• Enrolled: 5/5/26
• Passed: 5/22/26
• Chaptered: 5/27/26

Caption

AN ACT to make appropriations for the purpose of defraying the expenses of the state government for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026, in the administration, operation and maintenance of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the various departments, institutions, offices and agencies of the state; for certain state aid and obligations; for capital outlay, for the service of the public debt, for emergency and contingency; to repeal certain appropriations and any acts inconsistent herewith; to provide provisional continuing appropriations; and to establish certain provisions, limitations and restrictions under which appropriations may be obligated and expended. This act makes appropriations for the purposes described above for the fiscal years beginning July 1, 2025, and July 1, 2026.

Summary

SB2690 is Tennessee’s annual appropriations act for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027. It sets the state budget across the legislative, judicial, and executive branches, including major funding for education, TennCare, corrections, transportation, health, human services, public safety, and higher education. The bill also includes capital outlay funding, debt service, emergency and contingency appropriations, and a large number of earmarked grants and reserve/carry-forward provisions for specific programs and projects. A central feature of the bill is the allocation of recurring and nonrecurring funds to core state functions and major policy priorities. It funds K-12 education through the TISA formula, charter school facilities support, school resource officers, higher education operating support, scholarships, and capital projects. It also provides substantial appropriations for TennCare medical services, correctional facilities and community corrections, mental health and substance abuse services, child welfare, public safety, transportation infrastructure, and state employee compensation and benefits. The act further authorizes the use of departmental revenues, federal funds, and reserve balances for many agencies and programs, and it establishes rules for allotments, transfers, carry-forwards, and reporting. The bill’s impact on state law is primarily fiscal and administrative rather than substantive regulatory change. It appropriates more than $27 billion in total spending authority, directs how funds may be obligated and expended, and reauthorizes or continues numerous dedicated funds, reserve accounts, and special revenue streams. It also sets conditions for capital projects, debt service, state insurance contributions, retirement funding, and the administration of lottery-funded education programs. In addition, it contains detailed provisions governing transfers between departments, reporting to legislative committees, and the treatment of unexpended balances, which shape how agencies may manage appropriated funds during the fiscal year. The general sentiment reflected in the voting history was favorable to passage, but not without significant opposition to many amendments. The Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee recommended passage with amendments by a 9-2 vote, and the bill ultimately passed third consideration in the House with a strong majority. However, several floor amendments offered by members such as Clemmons, Behn, Jones, and Hemmer were repeatedly defeated by wide margins, indicating that while the overall budget had broad support, many proposed changes were controversial or lacked majority backing. The main points of contention appear to have centered on budget priorities, earmarked spending, and attempts to alter the appropriations package through amendments. The failed amendments suggest disputes over how funds should be distributed, what programs should receive additional support, and whether certain appropriations or policy riders should be changed. The bill also contains numerous targeted grants and special appropriations to named entities and local projects, which often draw scrutiny in budget debates because they can be seen as discretionary or politically sensitive. Overall, the bill advanced as a comprehensive state budget with strong final passage, but with clear disagreement over specific spending choices and amendments.

Impact

SB2690 enacts Tennessee’s biennial appropriations act, authorizing spending for state government operations, capital outlay, debt service, and numerous dedicated and federal revenue programs for fiscal years 2025-2026 and 2026-2027. It affects a wide range of statutes by appropriating funds under existing law, continuing or creating reserve and special revenue mechanisms, and setting conditions for how agencies may use, transfer, carry forward, or report appropriated funds. The bill also directs funding for education formulas, TennCare, corrections, transportation, public safety, health, human services, higher education, and state employee benefits, while preserving legislative control over allotments and agency spending.

Sentiment

The overall sentiment around SB2690 was supportive of passage, as reflected by the committee recommendation and the strong final floor vote. At the same time, the many failed amendment votes show that members disagreed on a number of budget details and attempted to revise the spending plan in several areas. The debate appears to have been less about whether the state needed a budget and more about which programs, projects, and policy priorities should receive funding within it.

Contention

The most notable contention involved proposed floor amendments, many of which were rejected by large margins, indicating disagreement over how to reshape the budget. Based on the bill’s structure and the amendment votes, likely flashpoints included earmarked grants, education funding details, public safety spending, and other targeted appropriations. The bill also includes many direct appropriations to named entities and local projects, which often generate debate because they can be viewed as discretionary spending or as crowding out broader programmatic funding.