Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

What you (yes, you!) need to know about congressional earmarks

Opinion

congressional earmarks
Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Meeker is the director of special initiatives for the Popvox Foundation. Harris is a member of the organization’s board.

With the passage of the fiscal 2023 omnibus appropriations bill and a wave of congressional press releases touting new spending in lawmakers’ states and districts, it is official: “Earmarks” are back.

The decades-old practice of members of Congress securing money for local projects has been reformed and reinstated after a 10-year ban. The new system limits recipients of “congressionally directed spending” to nonprofits or government entities and the maximum amount available to less than 1 percent of discretionary spending. New requirements prohibit any connection with lawmakers or their families, prioritize community input, and mandate disclosure and transparency at every step — as recommended by bipartisan organizations, congressional experts and the House Select Committee on Modernization.

The new program was announced last year as the appropriations process began, giving congressional offices a very short window to share information about the opportunity to apply for funding and set up their systems for receiving inquiries. Despite this, 332 House members and 64 senators submitted requests in the fiscal 2023 cycle, and the vast majority made it into the final bill.


With the bipartisan success of the first year of “Earmarks 2.0” and longer lead time for getting the word out, it is likely that many more eligible organizations and governments will submit projects for consideration this year. Is earmarked funding right for your organization? The information below will help you decide. And if you choose to submit, the three-step “D-I-Y Earmarks” guide from Popvox Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center will help you design your application and outreach for success.

About the new earmarks:

  • Limited: They are only available to nonprofits and government organizations.
  • Targeted: They are awarded for specific projects and locations, and only awarded for one fiscal year at a time.
  • Transparent: Members must disclose their requests to the public and certify that neither they nor their immediate families have any financial stake in their chosen projects.
  • Accountable: A selection of projects will be reviewed by the Government Accountability Office.
  • Narrow availability: Funding is limited to specific areas of federal spending, including education, health care, economic development, conservation, agriculture, transportation, rural connectivity, law enforcement, STEM research, energy, tribal affairs, historical preservation and entrepreneur support.

If you decide to submit a project, keep three things in mind:

1. Don’t be intimidated.

Even if you have never applied for federal funding or reached out to your member of Congress, this is the perfect opportunity to start. This “D-I-Y Earmarks” guide and other resources from Popvox Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center will walk you through what to expect.

2. Do your homework.

Congressional offices receive many applications and not every worthy project will receive funding. Familiarizing yourself with your lawmaker’s priorities can be a good way to figure out how to “pitch” your project.

3. Approach the process for long-term success.

Applying for earmarked funding is a great way to build or strengthen relationships with your local members of Congress, even if the project is not funded. The process will draw attention to the issue, raise awareness of your organization’s work, and give you practice navigating federal funding requirements. Keeping these long-term goals in mind will help you get the most out of participating in this process.


Read More

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's annual policy conference at the Washington Convention Center March 6, 2018 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC

After AIPAC failed to defeat El-Sayed in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary—after spending $32 million—it said that it remains committed to defeating El-Sayed and his "radical, anti-Israel" agenda in the general election. Which means it is poised to sink tens of millions of dollars in supporting Republican Mike Rogers. It also said that Haley Stevens, his opponent, had presented "an authentic Democratic agenda." Meaning that El-Sayed did not? And they think that Mike Rogers, a MAGA Trump supporter, does compared with El-Sayed?

How can AIPAC say that El-Sayed does not present an authentic Democratic agenda when his socialist stance is much more in line with the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence than most centrist Democrats'? And making it sound like AIPAC cares about an authentic Democratic agenda is deceitful, when in the same breath they make clear that they will support Mike Rogers, a Trump lackey, in the general election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research
silhouette of person using microscope

Scientists Warn of Deepening Federal Attacks on Research

Scientists and the federal government have been close partners since World War II. A landmark report by President Truman’s chief science advisor laid out a vision for government research that shaped eight decades of federally funded science. That vision is now at risk. In principle, the Trump administration has supported scientific research with its own vision for a new “golden age of science.” But in practice, the administration has upended the relationship between the government, researchers, and their institutions. The changes have alarmed working scientists and their allies, who have protested in record numbers.

In July, I moderated a webinar on “Rewriting the Rules: What’s happening to public science?” (read the transcript here). The webinar was co-sponsored by NAPA, CODE, and the Bridge Alliance, with Dr. Aaron Carroll of AcademyHealth, Dr. Chris Marcum of the Federation of American Scientists, Dr. Gretchen Goldman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Dr. Maryam Zaringhalam of the Center for Open Science. I also interviewed Cole Donovan of the Stand Up for Science Foundation by email.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Party Suicide
a piece of paper cut out of the shape of a donkey
Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

Democratic Party Suicide

A recent New York Times article, "Moderate Democrats Prepare for 'War' Against an Ascendant Left," describes a disturbing perspective among mainstream, moderate, centrist Democrats. It is disturbing for many reasons.

First, there is the practical impact. If indeed mainstream Democrats attack socialist Democrats in a sustained, organized manner, there is only one possible result: the defeat of the Party in 2026 and the renewed vigor of Trump and his MAGA allies. Especially when combined with the all-out effort that AIPAC will mostly take to support Republican candidates running against Democratic candidates who are socialists. (See my article, "The Unscrupulousness of AIPAC.")

Keep ReadingShow less
An Iranian flag and the message "No King" graffitied on the ruins of the data center building of Sharif University of Technology after a U.S.-Israeli missile strike on April 7, 2026 in Tehran, Iran.

How has the meaning of military victory changed? Explore Iran, deterrence, nuclear weapons, and why modern wars are fought with limited objectives.

Kaveh Kazemi/Getty Images

The Last War We Understood

Every modern conflict seems to produce the same debate.

Supporters argue that military action achieved its objectives. Critics ask why the enemy still exists. Iran is only the latest example.

Keep ReadingShow less