House GOP’s Fiscal Hawks Dive Into Earmarks: Millions Flowing Back Home Despite “Small Government” Rhetoric
When you hear some House Republicans railing against “big government spending,” you might picture them opposing handing out federal dollars like candy. But a closer look at their fiscal year 2026 earmark requests tells a more complex story. According to a Fox News Digital analysis, a bunch of these conservative lawmakers are actually securing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for projects in their own districts — and some of these projects run well into the tens of millions.
What’s the Deal With Earmarks?
First off, a quick refresher: “earmarks” are funds that members of Congress specifically request to be set aside for projects that benefit their local communities. Some folks call them “pork,” but many lawmakers argue they’re a practical way to make sure federal money goes where it’s needed most.
For fiscal year 2026 — which kicks off on October 1 — both Republicans and Democrats have submitted requests totaling more than a billion dollars in earmarks. That’s right, bipartisan interest in directing federal funds to local projects is alive and well, despite the often heated political rhetoric around “wasteful” spending.
Conservatives Leading the Charge — With Some Irony
Take House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris from Maryland, for example. Harris, a vocal critic of bloated government budgets, has already been approved for more than $55 million in earmarks for projects in his district alone. His earmark portfolio includes $9 million to upgrade the Middle River Fire Company facilities and $1 million to help launch a veterinary medicine program at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore. A big chunk of his requests is aimed at rural development and Army Corps of Engineers projects, with a few earmarks dedicated to clean water efforts.
Harris defended the process when Fox News Digital reached out, saying, “These awards are certified to directly benefit taxpayers in the district—drawing from existing grant programs that are funded annually. It’s far better for elected members of Congress to designate where that money goes than to leave those decisions to unelected federal bureaucrats.” In other words, he’s basically saying, “Let us spend your tax dollars — we’re accountable to you, not faceless government agencies.”
Other GOP Hawks Bring Home the Bacon
Over in Tennessee, Rep. Tim Burchett, who proudly calls himself a deficit hawk, got approved for just over $10 million in earmarks. Some highlights include $4 million for a Flexible Neutron Source at the University of Tennessee — a big deal for scientific research — and $2 million toward veterans housing projects in Knox County.
Meanwhile, Louisiana’s Rep. Clay Higgins, another Freedom Caucus member, scored more than $18 million. His biggest single earmark? Over $4.2 million for the Silicon Bayou Semiconductor Technology Center at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette. Higgins also has funds earmarked for rural hospitals, law enforcement, and clean water initiatives.
Notably, Higgins teamed up with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise on a joint request for a whopping $131.5 million to upgrade a massive levee and floodgate system — called the Morganza to the Gulf of Mexico Project — aimed at protecting the region from storm damage. That’s some serious investment in infrastructure and disaster prevention.
From Skeptic to Supporter: Lauren Boebert’s Shift on Earmarks
Rep. Lauren Boebert from Colorado is another interesting case. When she first entered Congress, she was firmly against earmarks — calling them wasteful. But after Republican-led reforms to the earmark process in 2023, her tune changed. Boebert recently explained in an Aspen Times op-ed that she now supports earmarks because they help fund critical infrastructure projects that her district desperately needs.
She told Fox News Digital, “I fought for real reforms to the appropriations process in 2023 to make sure my constituents’ tax dollars go to necessary infrastructure projects, not the wasteful and corrupt spending schemes that took place under Nancy Pelosi.”
Boebert laid it out plainly: “My district’s roads are crumbling, and our water keeps getting sent to California, where it’s wasted, because Colorado’s politicians won’t invest in water storage or infrastructure investments. My constituents pay federal taxes just like everyone else, and they should see their dollars benefit their communities instead of being sent to sanctuary cities like Denver.”
Her $15 million in approved projects mainly target clean water programs and highway improvements.
Thomas Massie: Libertarian Focus on Transportation
Kentucky’s libertarian firebrand Rep. Thomas Massie also secured about $5 million, mostly aimed at construction and rehab at Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. Massie, who sits on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, sees earmarks for transportation as a legitimate federal role.
“I serve on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee because I believe the federal government has a legitimate role in transportation infrastructure, and the legislature has the constitutional authority to direct the funding of those projects,” he told Fox News Digital.
He added, “In fact, I have voted in the GOP conference more than once to restore congressionally directed spending in the context of transportation infrastructure.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene: From Critic to Community Advocate
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia chairs the subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency (DOGE) and has nearly $10 million in earmarks approved for her rural-suburban district. Her funding requests focus on infrastructure upgrades, clean water projects, and law enforcement enhancements in Floyd County and neighboring areas.
While Greene is widely known as a fiscal hawk — especially critical of foreign aid — she’s unapologetic about securing federal funds for her district.
“I’m proud to bring federal tax dollars back home to Northwest Georgia — where they belong. My constituents work hard, and for far too long, Washington has sent their money to fund foreign wars, foreign governments and globalist pet projects,” Greene said.
She admitted that when she first came to Congress, she opposed earmarks as a “tool of the Swamp,” but has since changed her mind. “If we don’t fight to bring money back to our districts, the money goes elsewhere.”
Greene made clear where she draws the line: “I’ll never support billions for Ukraine or other endless wars, but I will absolutely fight to secure critical investments in Northwest Georgia, from water systems and sewer expansions to public safety equipment, roads and broadband.”
What About the Whole House?
The names above are just a few examples of GOP lawmakers embracing earmarks for local projects. It’s a common practice throughout Congress, cutting across party lines. Both Republicans and Democrats have collectively requested over a billion dollars in earmarks so far for FY 2026.
But the Republican-led House has made some notable changes to the earmark process starting last fiscal year. To prevent funds from supporting what they call “woke” or socially progressive policies, GOP appropriators have mostly barred earmarks for nonprofit organizations, including many LGBT-related initiatives.
This change likely saved hundreds of millions of dollars in annual spending, but Democrats slammed it as a politically motivated block on funding for social programs.
Wrapping It Up: The Reality of Congressional Spending
So what’s the takeaway? Despite their talk about fiscal restraint, many House GOP fiscal hawks are actively steering millions in taxpayer dollars back to their districts through earmarks. They argue this is about accountability and prioritizing their constituents’ needs over bureaucratic red tape.
Whether it’s firehouse upgrades, water infrastructure, veterans housing, or advanced scientific research facilities, earmarks remain a vital tool for lawmakers to deliver tangible benefits to their voters.
And with bipartisan demand for these funds topping a billion dollars annually, earmarks aren’t going away anytime soon — they’re just evolving with the political winds.
Login