In today’s hyper partisan political environment, one can reasonably assume that barely any substantial pieces of legislation ever pass Congress. However, the House of Representatives passed all 12 fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills by January 2026. Senate Majority Leader Thune, who has focused on trying to return to regular order, has come within one appropriations bill from achieving the same feat. Passing all 12 bills would be a significant accomplishment.
This level of success in passing appropriations bills through Congress has not been a cost-free experience for taxpayers. The path towards bipartisan cooperation in getting most of these bills past the finish line has been partially laid by the active use of earmarks by the appropriations committees. Now called “Congressionally Directed Spending” (CDS) in the Senate and “Community Project Funding” (CPF) in the House, earmarks were reintroduced in 2021 with stricter transparency rules. The new provisions allow lawmakers to send federal funds to specific state, local, or non-profit projects, with requirements that members publicly disclose their requests. These changes were put in place in response to complaints about the old earmarks system prior to the 2011 earmark moratorium. Earmarks—over 8,200 projects totaling approximately $15.5 billion—played a big part in the passage of 11 out of 12 appropriations bills this fiscal year.
While there is some question whether earmarks actually went away between 2011 and 2021 or were just hidden in other spending instructions, the moratorium actually did hold for 10 years. However, the likelihood of passing appropriations bills on time declined after the moratorium went into effect, as did the probability of a member of Congress voting for a high-priority bill. These are some of the reasons why, in spite of continued popular opposition, there was bipartisan support for bringing earmarks back. A number of bad earmarks passed this year, including squash courts in Baltimore, seeds in Hawaii, and a special elevator to the high priced seats at a theatre in Manhattan. But key appropriators voted with the majority party to help pass most FY 2026 funding bills. Except for one: the Homeland Security bill.
Since Valentine’s Day, the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down. Over 230,000 employees of the department are going unpaid, including staff working at the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Now that many of these employees have missed full paychecks by now, security lines at many airports—including Austin, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Houston Hobby, are approaching 3.5 hours. Some TSA employees are even starting to quit, as the shutdown has now lasted over a month. Even though the FY 2026 Homeland Security appropriations bill contains 203 earmarks with a total cost to taxpayers of over $270 million, the bill has not been able to attract the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate. While there has been a lot of politics swirling around the immigration issue recently, why are senators not voting for the bill, especially considering many are in line to get millions for their states when this bill passes?
Government spending decisions should be based on need, not political clout, but if earmarks are permitted, then they should serve a purpose, like helping bills pass. If senators keep voting against funding legislation, which is forcing federal employees to work for months without pay, then they should not benefit from large earmarks. For example, Senator Cantwell has voted against Homeland Security funding three times so far, and her state is in line to receive $2 million for an emergency operations project in Yakima Valley, Washington. Senators Reed and Whitehouse have also voted against the bill three times, even though Rhode Island will receive $2 million in seawall funding when it finally passes. Connecticut’s two senators (Blumenthal and Murphy) are repeatedly voting against a funding bill that will give their state over $3 million for beach reinforcement, an emergency operations center, and other projects. These earmarks would fund projects pushed by members of Congress outside the typical spending guidelines of federal agencies. If senators refuse to vote for the bill, earmarks should get cut. A stick sometimes works better than a carrot to get a bill passed.
Shutdowns are costly to taxpayers, as are earmarks. If an earmark is not enough to get a senator on board a bill, it is time to cut the earmark out.