In each year since the ban was lifted in 2021, members of Congress have submitted requests for Community Project Funding (CPF)—more commonly referred to as earmarks—to direct federal dollars toward projects in their districts. Supporters contend that these earmarks represent an important exercise of Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Critics argue that they represent politics overriding the competitive grant review processes used by federal agencies, increasing the risk that projects are chosen because of congressional influence rather than objective merit.
As Congress considers appropriations for Fiscal Year 2027, House members have submitted 6,693 earmark requests totaling $8.68 billion. At a time when the national debt is approaching $40 trillion, every dollar flowing from the federal coffers deserves careful public scrutiny. Forty-two House members requested zero earmarks.
To make these requests easier to examine, National Taxpayers Union Foundation (NTUF) has compiled every publicly released House earmark request into a searchable spreadsheet, allowing taxpayers, researchers, and policymakers to more easily review proposed projects before Congress completes the appropriations process.
Methodology
Earmarks were banned in 2011 but brought back in 2021. In the current system, earmarks allow members of Congress to direct money to specific projects with state, local, or tribal governments and eligible nonprofits. Each member can submit up to 20 requests, and, while there is no per-earmark cap, total funding for all earmarks cannot exceed one-half of 1% of discretionary spending. In FY 2025, that limit was about $9.5 billion. Every project must tie to an existing federal law, and members must show evidence of the project’s merit and community support. Finally, in the name of transparency, members are required to post each request online, typically on their website. The guidelines for earmarks can be found here.
If Congress permits earmarks, there should be complete transparency on which members are requesting what. Unfortunately, there is not a searchable, single source for all the earmarks that would make it easy for taxpayers to see what projects are getting funding. The House Appropriations Committee website says “Consolidated Table Forthcoming,” but that table has yet to be published.
Instead, each subcommittee has released separate lists of earmark requests as PDFs, each with its own formatting of columns of data that cannot be easily copied and pasted directly into a spreadsheet, making the requests difficult to search through for useful information.
To improve transparency, NTUF compiled all of the earmarks into a single, searchable, sortable spreadsheet. This newest unified database compiles all publicly released FY2027 Community Project Funding requests submitted by members of the House of Representatives to the House Appropriations Committee. Each project includes the sponsoring member, recipient, project description, requested funding amount, and appropriations bill. This makes it easy for people to use and sort the data in any way they may need, by member, appropriation bills, state, etc.
NTUF first began compiling earmarks in response to a request from a congressional staffer to help tally the number and cost of earmarks buried in the PDFs of the 2026 minibus appropriations bills. NTUF shed light on the 7,611 earmarks totaling over $14 billion in the minibus appropriations enacted earlier this year.
This accessibility makes a real difference. The Wall Street Journal highlighted the resource, contrasting NTUF’s sortable spreadsheet with Congress’s lengthy, static PDFs and crediting it with making the earmarks easier to isolate, total, and scrutinize.
FY2027 House Earmarks at a Glance
Table 1 below presents the summary statistics. Requests with multiple sponsoring members are counted once, avoiding double counting so the total requested amount is not inflated.
Table 1. Summary of Earmark Requests in the 2027 Appropriations Bills | |||||||
Appropriations Bill | Requests | Requested Amount | |||||
592 | $604,215,000 | ||||||
1,226 | $1,075,224,300 | ||||||
71 | $1,342,024,000 | ||||||
113 | $125,202,000 | ||||||
1,196 | $1,031,881,700 | ||||||
463 | $420,344,000 | ||||||
18 | $444,710,000 | ||||||
3,014 | $3,636,423,577 | ||||||
Total | 6,693 | $8,680,024,577 | |||||
Transportation-HUD dominates the request process, accounting for more than $3.6 billion—roughly 42% of all requested funding. By contrast, the Energy and Water Development bill contains only 71 requests but accounts for more than $1.3 billion, reflecting the much larger average size of projects funded through that bill.
The House Appropriations Committee permitted each member to submit up to 20 Community Project Funding requests, an increase from the 15-request limit in FY2026. 162 members used their full allotment, underscoring the continued popularity of earmarks following their restoration in 2021.
Which Members Requested the Most Funding?
Although most members of Congress submitted a similar number of requests, the total dollar value of those requests varied widely. Some requested less than $10 million in funding, while others sought well over $100 million for projects in their districts. Because a jointly requested earmark is counted once for each member, the member totals will be higher than the figures in the other tabs. Table 2 below shows the top 20 members by total requested earmark funding (a complete table is available here).
Table 2: Top 20 Members by Total Requested Funding | |||
Rank | Member | Number of Earmarks | Requested Funding |
1 | Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) | 18 | $299,477,550 |
2 | Rep. Eric Sorensen (D-IL) | 20 | $266,720,764 |
3 | Rep. Nikki Budzinski (D-IL) | 19 | $263,944,604 |
4 | Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX) | 10 | $215,296,000 |
5 | Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) | 20 | $188,444,464 |
6 | Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) | 4 | $186,500,000 |
7 | Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) | 20 | $142,005,000 |
8 | Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) | 14 | $129,121,671 |
9 | Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) | 12 | $106,461,000 |
10 | Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR) | 19 | $105,409,308 |
11 | Rep Buddy Carter (R-GA) | 14 | $99,992,000 |
12 | Rep. Michael Cloud (R-TX) | 9 | $95,769,000 |
13 | Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA) | 20 | $88,913,000 |
14 | Rep. John Carter (R-TX) | 20 | $88,656,000 |
15 | Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) | 20 | $88,560,000 |
16 | Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) | 19 | $82,738,736 |
17 | Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) | 20 | $74,765,000 |
18 | Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) | 20 | $72,421,846 |
19 | Rep Robert Aderholt (R-AL) | 20 | $71,537,009 |
20 | Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) | 20 | $67,098,183 |
Several of the largest requests are concentrated in infrastructure, flood control, water resources, and military construction projects, which can substantially exceed the size of typical community development grants.
Members Who Requested No Earmarks
Not every House member participated in the Community Project Funding process. Forty-two members declined to submit any earmark requests, continuing a practice followed by some lawmakers since Congress restored earmarks.
Table 3: Members with Zero Requests for Earmarks in FY 2027 | |
Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA) | Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI) |
Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL) | Rep. John James (R-MI) |
Rep. Cliff Bentz (R-OR) | Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD) |
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) | Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) |
Rep. Sheri Biggs (R-SC) | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) |
Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) | Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS) |
Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) | Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) |
Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL) | Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) |
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) | Rep. Analilia Mejia (D-NJ) |
Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) | Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) |
Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) | Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) |
Rep. Pat Fallon (R-TX) | Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) |
Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) | Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) |
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) | Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) |
Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-ID) | Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) |
Rep. Clay Fuller (R-GA) | Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) |
Rep. James Gallagher (R-CA) | Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO) |
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) | Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN) |
Rep. Mark Harris (R-NC) | Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) |
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) | Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO) |
Rep. French Hill (R-AR) | Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) |
Members of Congress cite a variety of reasons for opting out, ranging from philosophical opposition to earmarks to concerns about the federal deficit and the role of Congress in directing spending.
Transparency Has Improved—But More Work Remains
Congress deserves credit for requiring significantly more disclosure than existed before earmarks were banned in 2011. Today, members must publicly identify their requests, certify that neither they nor their immediate families have a financial interest in the proposed projects, and disclose supporting information before appropriations bills advance.
However, taxpayers, journalists, and even congressional staffers still face significant hurdles when trying to evaluate earmark requests. Information is spread across hundreds of individual member webpages, committee documents, and PDF files. The House Committee on Appropriations should provide a centralized, searchable database that allows the public to review every request in one place.
As the national debt approaches $40 trillion, taxpayers deserve a clear accounting of how lawmakers propose to spend their dollars. Congress’s restored disclosure requirements represent a meaningful improvement from past practices, but there is still a need for greater transparency.
NTUF’s FY2027 House Earmark Tracker helps close that transparency gap by placing 6,693 requests totaling more than $8.68 billion into a single searchable and sortable resource. This tracker does not resolve broader concerns about earmarks, but it helps fill the current transparency gap.
Taxpayers now have the information needed to scrutinize proposed spending before funds are appropriated and to hold Congress accountable for how it exercises the power of the purse.