Vulnerable incumbents and deficit hard-liners are joining forces in an unlikely partnership, pushing House GOP leaders to put earmarks on the table to head off a government funding fight this fall.
The federal coffers are due to dry up Sept. 30. And, as part of any agreement to avert a shutdown Oct. 1, a significant segment of the House Republican Conference is now demanding the inclusion of so-called community project funding. That’s the name Democrats gave their earmark rebrand in 2021 after Republicans banned a more permissive version of the practice for a decade.
Among those now agitating for earmarks — once shunned by most fiscal hawks — are members of the Main Street Caucus, a contingent of 83 business-friendly Republicans heavily stacked with frontliners.
“We’ve been very clear with the speaker: An overwhelming majority of our members want community project funding in this budget,” said Main Street Caucus Chair Mike Flood (R-Neb.) in a recent interview.
But even more remarkable is that many fiscal conservatives — seeing a strategic advantage — are actually promoting the idea, too.
Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland and his allies are suggesting that allowing earmarks to ride alongside a flat-funded, short-term spending bill — known as a continuing resolution, or CR — would help avoid a more dreaded scenario: passage of a larger, full-year package — called an omnibus — at higher funding levels.
“Allowing earmarks on a CR is a hell of a lot cheaper than an omnibus if that’s what it takes to keep spending at least flat,” said one Republican with direct knowledge of the ongoing conversations.
If Republican leaders choose the earmark route, they would have to also embrace a spending measure at current levels so as not to alienate the fiscal hawks who vowed earlier this year to oppose another stopgap this fall. This would mean making hard choices about a litany of programs across the federal government, including the Pentagon — which would spark intense pushback from GOP defense hawks.
This proposal is under serious consideration by Republican leaders, who are increasingly expecting they’ll need to craft some sort of short-term punt as congressional negotiators don’t appear at all close to landing on a long-term spending plan. GOP leaders also appear willing to include a funding boost for the Defense Department if needed.
Conversations around government funding are ongoing. But so far, signs point to earmarks being one of the most viable pathways for breaking the impasse. It’s a sweetener leaders can use to satisfy holdouts who want to be able to deliver wins for their districts — and represents a compromise for hard-liners like Harris who think this arrangement might present the best possible outcome for members who want to spend as little money as possible.
Harris, who is also chair of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Department of Agriculture and FDA, has floated the year-long, flat-funded spending bill that contains earmarks — but paired with the guarantee that Congress will also pass several more rescissions packages to claw back funds already appropriated by Congress.
He also wants the White House to send over a major package of pocket rescissions that would unilaterally cancel tens of billions of dollars. Unlike with a typical rescissions bill, where Congress has 45 days to pass it before the administration is forced to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended, a pocket rescissions measure is transmitted to Capitol Hill with 45 or fewer days left until the end of the current fiscal year — and if Congress doesn’t take any action by that deadline, the money is considered revoked.
There’s no certainty Congress can even pass a second rescissions request, while legal experts and the federal government’s top watchdog have questioned the legality of the pocket rescissions process. But the pitch could be appealing to even the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who is chair of a House Oversight subcommittee tasked with identifying government waste. She said in a social media post earlier this month she was uninterested in “another CR that will leave out much needed appropriation requests that benefit our districts.”
“Funding to support critical infrastructure projects like water, roads, and community projects will AGAIN be left not funded,” she said of a government spending bill without earmarks.
Greene’s position signals a critical opening for proponents of earmarks — and something of a change of tune for Republicans.
Back in March, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune jettisoned billions in previously-approved community project funding as part of the GOP-authored stopgap spending bill to win over fiscal conservatives.
Republicans did, at that time, enthusiastically tout the major cost savings in that bill. But many of them also conceded disappointment that funding was scrapped for hyperlocal projects like a new elementary school on a military base and drinking water safety.
Since the return of earmarks in the form of community project funding — which have more limitations on who can benefit from congressionally-directed dollars than in the prior system — lawmakers of both parties have happily requested money for initiatives in their districts.
A vast number of earmark requests each appropriations season comes from House Republicans, who can argue their control of the House allows them to keep out projects they deem wasteful or “woke” while also being able to promote major wins for their constituents.
With his party’s fragile majority at stake ahead of the 2026 midterms, Johnson and his leadership circle understand the value of these earmarks for vulnerable Republicans. However, leadership will need to make this case to the biggest opponents of earmarks who may not be so easily swayed.
Flood is also framing Main Street’s push for earmarks as a way to boost GOP incumbents in tough races next fall, hoping that message sticks.
The group, he said, has “a lot of frontline members that have been working diligently on some of these projects in their districts.”
Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
