This week the House will most likely pass a “minibus” appropriations package to fully fund a handful of departments for Fiscal Year 2026. This legislation covers three of the remaining Fiscal Year 2026 appropriation bills that have yet to pass Congress, including Commerce, Justice, Science; Energy and Water Development; and Interior and Environment Appropriations Act, 2026.
There are a number of items in these bills that taxpayers should applaud.
The legislative package keeps Fiscal Year 2026 spending for affected departments and agencies about $2 billion below the level projected in the previous passed continuing resolution, and makes several well-placed cuts to wasteful Biden-era projects. For example, the bill would eliminate the Office of Clean Energy and the Office of Energy Justice and Equity at the Department of Energy. Funds for renewable energy programs at the Interior Department would also be cut, and the Environmental Protection Agency budget would be cut by 4%.
With almost $2 trillion annual deficits, spending less in the upcoming year than the current one is a welcome step in the right direction. Lower topline amounts in FY26 is a core priority for NTU and we appreciate lawmakers fulfilling this goal.
However, this bill hamstrings the Trump Administration from pursuing further agency reorganizations by adding language that specifies staffing levels at several agencies, including the EPA. Agencies funded by this legislation will be prohibited from carrying out most agency reorganizations until they provide advanced notice to appropriators. It also adds language disallowing the Administration from using funds from “general savings” from being spent on reorganizations, including savings from reductions in personnel. While we understand that these provisions were likely required to bring Democrats on board, it does seem like a clear missed opportunity to finally right size government spending.
This legislation also contains many earmarks, which have now been renamed “Community Project Funding.” While we understand that, at times, members of Congress may have a better understanding of certain spending needs than federal agencies, taxpayers benefit when federal spending is allocated according to need, not doled out for political purposes. This helps keep more egregious earmarks from being funded, wasting taxpayer dollars.
NTUF’s Vice President of Research compiled earmarks from the Appropriations Committees’ documents into a sortable spreadsheet, available for download here. An analysis of the earmarks shows the following breakdown:
Commerce, Justice, and Science:
1,479 earmarks, at a total cost of nearly $1.8 billion
This includes:
$1 million for clean energy technology in California.
$825,000 for oysters in Brooklyn, New York.
$129,000 for tuna research in Maine.
$1 million for offshore wind energy engagement with tribal communities in California.
$1 million for a Climate Corps Fellowship in Boston, Massachusetts.
Energy and Water Development:
274 earmarks, at a total cost of over $3 billion
This includes:
$1,700,000 for solar and energy storage for a Library in Pasadena, California.
$5,000,000 for University of Delaware’s Center for Clean Hydrogen.
Interior and Environment Appropriation Act:
1,277 earmarks, at a total cost of over $1.7 billion
This includes:
$370,000 for the restoration of an elephant statue in New Jersey.
$570,000 for a compost hub in Rhode Island.
$500,000 for mussel rearing in Delaware.
$250,000 for seed research in Hawaii.
$500,000 for a theatre in one of the wealthiest zip codes in Manhattan, New York.
As we have referenced earlier, earmarks provide some of the clearest examples of wasteful spending in Washington. Since 1991, earmarks have cost taxpayers over $460 million for pet projects—including the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” a $500,000 teapot museum, and $50 million for an indoor rainforest in Iowa.
While we appreciate the fact that this legislation is very transparent about these “community project funding” programs, there are generally better ways to spend taxpayer funds. Or, considering our nation is currently facing a federal debt load of over $38 trillion, Congress should make the prudent decision of foregoing spending on these projects altogether. Especially considering the fact that this legislation walks away from the chance to bank opportunities to reduce federal spending created by the Trump Administration, spending on pet projects in random congressional districts seems a little off in the current fiscal environment.