Members of Congress from both political parties and the Senate and House of Representatives feasted on taxpayer dollars by approving 8,392 earmarks (a 2.1% increase compared to 2024) contained in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 appropriations bills at a cost of $23.7 billion (a 4.4% hike over 2024’s $22.7 billion), according to the 2026 edition of the Pigbook on Earmarks researched and written by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

“The $23.7 billion in FY 2026 is the fourth highest total since CAGW released the first Pig Book in 1991, behind the $29 billion in 2006, $27.3 billion in 2005, and $26.1 billion in 2023. Since FY 1991, CAGW has identified 140,826 earmarks costing $484 billion,” the nonprofit government watchdog said in a statement announcing publication of the 2026 edition. Earmarks for 2026 are compared to those of 2024 because Congress failed to pass any appropriations bills last year. The CAGW identified, researched, and exposed earmarks since 1991.

For decades, earmarks were anonymous spending provisions inserted deep inside lengthy, complicated appropriations bills that not infrequently were later found to benefit family members, campaign donors, or present or former business associates of senators and representatives. Because they were inserted in those big spending bills, none of the individual earmarks was specifically voted on by Congress and, in the vast majority of cases, it was all but impossible to know which senator or representative sponsored any particular earmark.

But steadily increasing public dissatisfaction with the practice was fueled mainly by conservative members of Congress and conservative media outlets. That dissatisfaction approached a boiling point in 2006 when Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) exposed the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark that provided $223 million to build a bridge connecting Alaska’s Gravina Island with the small city of Ketchikan. The island had only 50 residents, but it was also the site of the Ketchigan Airport, which served the city’s 8,000 residents. The earmark was sponsored by two Republicans, Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska and Rep. Don Young, also of Alaska.

Coburn was known as “Dr. No” among his Senate colleagues because of his determined opposition to budget deficits and waste and fraud in federal spending programs. He referred to earmarks as “the gateway drug to Federal Spending Addiction.” He was the main congressional force behind passage of the Federal Financial Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 that mandated making public via the internet more than 70% of all federal spending (exceptions were made for national security considerations).

Thanks mainly to Coburn and conservative activist groups like CAGW, public pressure to end earmarks continued to grow so much that the practice was ended in 2011. But pressure from senators and representatives who viewed earmarks as one of their few tools to force executive branch bureaucrats to spend tax dollars on favored projects, finally succeeded in bringing them back in 2022.

“The revived earmarks, despite a futile attempt to cover them up by designating them as ‘Community Project Funding,’ are similar to the old earmarks that were included in the appropriations bills passed by Congress during FYs 2008-2010, which required that the names of the members who received earmarks be listed in each bill,” the 2026 Pigbook explains.

Under the new system, House members can request up to 15 earmark provisions, while senators can seek as many as they wish. All of their requests are published online and a list of the approved projects, with descriptions and spending amounts including, are made public once the relevant appropriations bills are marked up by congressional committees. The earmarking senators and representatives must certify that neither they, their spouse, or any family members have a financial interest in a project.

Members of the Senate and House appropriations committees have long been the main beneficiaries of earmarking and 2026 is no exception. The Pigbook researchers found that 92 members of the two panels make up only 17% of the 535 Members of Congress, but they were responsible for more than 41% of all 2026 earmarks, and 38.8% of the spending required to fund those earmarks. As has also long been the case, senators were more action ear-markers, with a result that eight of the top 10 Members measured by the total dollar amounts of their earmarks were members of the Senate spending panel.

“As usual, earmarks also benefited senators far more than representatives in FY 2026. Senators requested 6,299 earmarks costing $13,566,023,692 compared to 4,886 earmarks costing $8,648,072,276 requested by representatives. This means legislators in the upper chamber received 28.9 percent more of the earmarks and 56.9 percent more of the cost,” according to the Pigbook.

“Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.) claimed the most earmarks by value in FY 2026. Her 96 earmarks cost $484,654,000, which is only 0.2 percent more than the legislator in second place, former Senate Leader and current Senate Appropriations Committee member Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who received 44 earmarks costing $483,718,000. Three more senators rounded out the top five: Senate Appropriations Committee member John Kennedy (R-La.), who received 64 earmarks costing $443,733,993; Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-Maine), who received 156 earmarks costing $425,716,000; and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who received 49 earmarks costing $393,380,000,” the Pigbook reported.

Among the numerous examples highlighted by the Pigbook of earmarks of questionable value were these:

• $1,753,000 included in the Agriculture Appropriations bill for two earmarks funding theaters, including $1,588,000 for renovations at the Eugene O’Neill Memorial Theater Center and $165,000 for facility improvements at the Shea Theater Arts Center, Inc. in Turners Falls, Massachusetts. Connecticut Democratic Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal requested the O’Neill earmark, and the Shea earmark was sought by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Conn.).

The Pigbook questioned the two theater earmarks, saying “apart from misusing an appropriations bill for agriculture-related programs to fund theaters, these entities should use their own funds for construction projects. In 2024, the Eugene O’Neill Memorial Theater Center boasted $9.6 million in total assets. The Shea Theater Arts Center had revenue of $348,793 in 2024, meaning the earmark is equal to 47 percent of its annual revenue.”

• $1,975,000 for multiple theater earmarks included in the Department of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill:

“The FY 2026 earmarks include $1,975,000 for five projects funding museums, including $500,000 for historic preservation of the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, New York by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and $500,000 for the replacement of the Honolulu Museum of Art’s roof by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). The George Eastman Museum reported total assets of $54.4 million in 2020, and the Honolulu Museum of Art reported $122.1 million in total assets in 2024. Both museums are fully capable of functioning without the earmarks. Since FY 1991, legislators have added 1,485 earmarks for museums costing $1.7 billion dollars.”

• $20,477,000 in the Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations measure:

“Here are 17 earmarks sought by 23 members of Congress funding bike paths spread across 13 states, a 29.2 percent decrease in the number from 24 in FY 2024, and a 31.1 percent decline in cost from the $29.7 million earmarked in FY 2024. The dollar total in FY 2026 is the third highest ever earmarked for bike paths. Since FY 1991, members of Congress have taken taxpayers for a ride by adding 181 earmarks costing $165.1 million for bike paths, meaning 12.4 percent of this total cost was earmarked in FY 2026.”

Earmarks have always been difficult to locate because of the arcane nature of legislative language, and that difficulty remains with the 2026 spending. As CAGW pointed out, earmarks are scattered across 11 separate appropriations bills, thus requiring extensive research time and effort.

“Beyond the high percentage of anonymous earmarks, larger problems with transparency exist. The FY 2026 earmarks were again in omnibus bills containing thousands of pages, which were voted on with minimal time for review. Moreover, the earmarks were in disparate sections of the 11 appropriations bills with varying degrees of legibility,” the report noted.

“To undertake this analysis, CAGW staff painstakingly created a searchable database, oftentimes entering by hand information that failed to accurately scan because of blurry, barely discernable text. The data released to the public makes a mockery of the searchable database delineated by the earmark guidelines. And rather than being in a single database, the individual members’ earmark requests reside only on their website.”