In 2011, Congress banned earmarks — the practice of individual lawmakers directing federal money to specific projects in their districts. It was hailed as a victory for fiscal responsibility. A decade later, earmarks are back. They just go by a different name.
In the House, they're called "Community Project Funding." In the Senate, "Congressionally Directed Spending." But a pork barrel by any other name still smells like bacon.
FY2024 Earmarks
$14.6B
~8,000 individual earmarks
Average Earmark
$1.8M
Per project
Peak (FY2006)
$29B
9,963 earmarks
A Brief History of Pork
| Year | Total Earmarks | Count | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | $29.0B | 9,963 | Peak earmarks era |
| 2008 | $17.2B | 11,610 | Growing backlash |
| 2010 | $16.1B | 9,129 | Last year before ban |
| 2011-2020 | $0 | 0 | Earmark moratorium |
| 2022 | $9.0B | 4,963 | Return under new rules |
| 2023 | $12.3B | 6,800 | Rapid growth |
| 2024 | $14.6B | ~8,000 | Approaching pre-ban levels |
The moratorium lasted a decade. When earmarks returned in 2022, Congress added "guardrails": members must publicly disclose their requests, certify they have no financial interest, and earmarks can only go to state/local governments or nonprofits (not private companies).
Whether these guardrails are meaningful depends on your tolerance for creative accounting. The total has already grown from $9 billion to $14.6 billion in three years, and the trend shows no signs of slowing.
Greatest Hits: Earmarks Hall of Shame
The pre-ban era produced some legendary examples of pork barrel spending:
The Bridge to Nowhere — $398 Million
The most infamous earmark: a proposed bridge connecting Ketchikan, Alaska (pop. 8,900) to Gravina Island (pop. 50). It would have been nearly as long as the Golden Gate Bridge. Killed after national outrage.
Teapot Museum — $500,000
Federal funds for a teapot museum in Sparta, North Carolina. Because nothing says "essential government function" like preserving teapot heritage.
Lobster Institute — $1.5 Million
Repeated earmarks for the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine. Because lobsters apparently need federal advocacy.
Indoor Rainforest — $50 Million
An enclosed rainforest in Coralville, Iowa, championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley. Because when you think "tropical rainforest," you think Iowa. Never completed.
The New Earmarks: Same Pork, Better Branding
The returned earmarks are smaller on average but growing fast. Current examples include:
| Project | Amount | State | Sponsor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sidewalk improvements, small town | $3M | Various | Various |
| Community center renovations | $2-5M | Various | Various |
| Local park upgrades | $1-3M | Various | Various |
| University research programs | $2-10M | Various | Various |
| Museum and cultural projects | $500K-2M | Various | Various |
Defenders argue these are legitimate community investments. Critics point out that every district thinks its sidewalks and community centers are essential — and that's how you get to $14.6 billion.
🐷 The Defense of Earmarks
Some political scientists actually defend earmarks. Their argument: earmarks give party leaders leverage to secure votes for important legislation. Without them, Congress is even more dysfunctional. The cost ($14.6B) is a rounding error in a $6.75T budget. The question is whether greasing the legislative wheels is worth the price.
Who Gets the Most Pork?
Earmarks are bipartisan. Both parties participate enthusiastically. However, members of the Appropriations Committee consistently secure more earmarks than others — a perk of controlling the purse strings. Senior members also tend to get larger and more numerous earmarks.
The geographic distribution mirrors political power, not need. States with senior appropriators get more money, regardless of whether they need federal help building sidewalks and community centers.
The Bottom Line
Earmarks are back, they're growing, and they're not going anywhere. The "guardrails" are real but limited. At $14.6 billion, earmarks are indeed a small fraction of the budget — but they represent something larger: Congress's inability to resist directing money to pet projects, even when the country is $36 trillion in debt.
The best argument for earmarks is that they're transparent and relatively small. The best argument against them is that they reward political connections over merit, and they condition lawmakers to see federal spending as a tool for re-election rather than a public trust.
More Analysis
Where Your Taxes Actually Go
A cent-by-cent breakdown of every dollar Washington spends — and why most Americans have no idea.
Spending ComparisonDefense vs. Education: America's Spending Priorities
We spend 12x more on the military than the Department of Education. Is that the right balance?
Waste & FraudThe $247 Billion Waste Machine
Improper payments, fraud, and the GAO's high-risk list — a taxpayer's guide to government waste.
National DebtThe $34 Trillion Time Bomb
Interest on the debt now costs more than national defense. Here's how we got here — and where we're headed.