House Republicans clashed over earmarks this week as a bid to strip $1.3 billion in targeted spending from a must-pass funding package failed on the floor. A motion to remove those earmarks fell well short, exposing a split inside the GOP between fiscal conservatives and appropriators who prefer bargaining and targeted wins. The vote left critics warning that taxpayer dollars are being steered to projects that run counter to conservative values, especially when funds could touch gender transition services for minors.
The amendment to eliminate the earmarks, offered by Rep. Ralph Norman, lost by a wide margin after the House voted 291 to 136. Norman’s proposal aimed to wipe out earmarks in the Labor-Health and Human Services section, arguing that members should not funnel taxpayer money into projects that normalize or support controversial medical practices. “These earmarks are against every conservative value that is known,” Norman said on the House floor Thursday prior to the vote.
const observer = new MutationObserver((mutations) => { const adDivToHide = document.querySelector(“#dailycaller_incontent_1”); if (adDivToHide && dc_noads_page) { adDivToHide.classList.add(“hide-premium”, “hide-free”); observer.disconnect(); console.log(“Ad div found and hidden”); } }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
The tally also revealed the conference split: 136 House Republicans voted in favor of stripping the earmarks while 76 Republicans joined Democrats in defeating the amendment. It wasn’t a fluke; top appropriators like Rep. Tom Cole sided against Norman’s move, signaling a GOP faction that favors negotiating wins in big funding packages rather than blanket bans. That divide matters when voters expect conservative principles like fiscal restraint and parental rights to guide funding decisions.
(new Image()).src = ‘https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=739c4263-c671-4316-b7cf-ecd244900844&cid=9c4d09f1-aa3e-4da1-ad63-362d562ecfad’; cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: “739c4263-c671-4316-b7cf-ecd244900844” }).render(“59f64f116598417b8d610477330f5a3e”); });
Nine Republicans didn’t cast votes, including leaders who were present for the long session, which added to frustration among conservatives pushing for a clean approach. Heritage Action publicly urged House GOP to vote “yes,” pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding earmarks while criticizing them in others. “In demanding earmarks of their own, Republicans have opened the door to Democrats to direct taxpayer funds to entities engaged in practices that most GOP voters find abhorrent,” Heritage Action wrote.
The controversy centers on several named earmarks critics find unacceptable, including money slated for pediatric mental health at hospitals that operate gender-affirming clinics for minors. The Labor-HHS package contains targeted funding for institutions that, according to watchdogs, provide puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and at times surgical referrals for children.
const observer2 = new MutationObserver((mutations) => { const adDivToHide2 = document.querySelector(“#dailycaller_incontent_2”); if (adDivToHide2 && dc_noads_page) { adDivToHide2.classList.add(“hide-premium”, “hide-free”); observer2.disconnect(); console.log(“Ad div2 found and hidden”); } }); observer2.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
One earmark singled out by conservatives would send $2 million to a major children’s hospital for pediatric mental health programs — money opponents fear could subsidize gender transition care or free up funds for that purpose. Analysts at a conservative policy center warned, “The funds used for pediatric mental health will almost certainly go towards sponsoring the gender transition of children or at least free up other funds for that effort.”
Other contested allocations include millions for substance use clinics at health systems that also offer gender clinics for kids, and modest arts grants to organizations that explicitly embrace diversity, equity and inclusion priorities. Those choices didn’t sit well with conservatives who want taxpayer dollars spent on core needs, not ideological programs or projects that contradict family and faith values. The debate highlights a larger tension: wet-blanket suppression of earmarks versus surgical spending aligned with conservative priorities.
https://x.com/Heritage_Action/status/2014390181797781612
const observer3 = new MutationObserver((mutations) => { const adDivToHide3 = document.querySelector(“#dailycaller_incontent_3”); if (adDivToHide3 && dc_noads_page) { adDivToHide3.classList.add(“hide-premium”, “hide-free”); observer3.disconnect(); console.log(“Ad div found and hidden”); } }); observer3.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
Norman isn’t stopping. He reintroduced legislation to permanently ban earmarks in funding bills, framing them as insider handouts that undercut fiscal discipline. “For too long, earmarks have become a way for Washington insiders to steer taxpayer dollars to pet projects instead of prioritizing fiscal responsibility,” Norman said in a statement, and he’s pushing the conference to choose principle over parochial gains.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has defended the process that produced the appropriations text, saying the House has returned to regular order and met deadlines. “There were a lot of people, and I think many in this room, that argued that this could not be done – that a regular appropriations process is a thing of the past,” Johnson said during a press conference Wednesday. “I’m happy to report that all those prognostications were flat wrong, and we’ve gotten it done.”
Johnson framed the package as a rollback of prior spending levels and a return to conservative fiscal direction, asserting, “Once we pass the final batch this week, Republicans will have finally replaced the last of any Biden-era spending levels with Trump-era spending levels. No more Biden and Pelosi negotiated budgets. We’ve turned that page and we are not turning back.”
