Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which committees or subcommittees were responsible for most 2025 earmark allocations?
Executive summary
Available reporting and advocacy materials show that Congress’s appropriations committees — specifically the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their subcommittees — set the rules and accounts for FY2025 earmark (Community Project Funding / Congressionally Directed Spending) requests and therefore were the central actors in allocating most earmark opportunities [1] [2] [3]. Coverage also documents that FY2025 earmarks were disrupted by a year‑long continuing resolution that removed many earmarks from enacted funding, shifting outcomes away from the normal committee‑driven process [4] [5].
1. Who formally controlled which projects could be requested — the appropriations committees
The House and Senate Appropriations Committees determine which funding accounts are eligible for requests, set eligibility rules and deadlines, and publish guidance for members and applicants; multiple guides for libraries, local governments and Senate offices emphasize that the Appropriations Committees establish overall project eligibility and timelines for FY2025 [1] [2]. Advocacy and agency pages likewise point applicants to committee guidance and note that requests must fit the accounts designated by those committees [2] [6].
2. Subcommittees as the practical gatekeepers for most earmark slots
Within each chamber, the appropriations subcommittees decide which line‑item accounts will accept CPF/CDS requests and therefore functioned as the practical allocators of most earmark opportunities; industry and membership organizations cited that the House Appropriations Committee was accepting requests through specific subcommittees (three of seven had deadline extensions in one update), showing subcommittee-level triage of requests [3] [7]. The committee and subcommittee structure is repeatedly highlighted as the place where eligibility, account lists and posting requirements are set [1].
3. Committee staff also played a prominent, contested role
Critics warned that appropriations committee staff reviewing thousands of requests could usurp agency review processes, signaling that a considerable portion of screening and selection work rested with committee offices rather than line agencies [8]. Citizens Against Government Waste’s Pig Book framed appropriations committee staff review as a substantive step in processing FY2025 requests and criticized the concentration of review within committee operations [8].
4. Senate vs. House differences — same committees, different labels and rules
Both chambers accepted requests but used different program names and some differing account lists: the House calls them Community Project Funding while the Senate calls them Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS); Senator offices and Senate guidance reiterated the Senate Appropriations Committee’s account limits and audit rules for CDS [2] [1]. Sources note that both chambers’ appropriations committees issue the annual guidance that governs what members can seek and how projects are disclosed [1] [9].
5. What altered who actually received money in FY2025 — the stopgap funding fight
Even though appropriations committees and subcommittees set and processed most earmark requests, passage of a year‑long continuing resolution for FY2025 cut or eliminated many earmarks from enacted law. Reporting explained that stopgap bills “never fund the prior year’s earmarks as a general rule,” and that the CR slashed billions in earmarked accounts that had been handled by transportation, interior, labor‑HHS‑education and other appropriations subcommittees [4]. Local reporting also showed projects expected to be funded were left “behind” when House Republicans’ stopgap approach removed earmarks from final funding [5].
6. Local and sectoral guides point back to the same committee structure
Practical advice to libraries, parks and local projects repeatedly directs prospective applicants to their congressional members and the House/Senate Appropriations Committees for deadlines and eligible accounts — reinforcing that those committees and their subcommittees were the entry point and de‑facto controllers of most FY2025 earmark allocations even if votes and final language would follow [7] [1] [10].
7. Open questions and limits of available reporting
Available sources make clear the institutional locus of control (Appropriations Committees and subcommittees) and that committee staff had a major role, but they do not provide a single numeric breakdown by committee or subcommittee showing which ones “received” or “allocated” the most individual earmarks in FY2025 (available sources do not mention a ranked, committee-by-committee count) [8] [1]. Also, because the continuing resolution removed many earmarks from final funding, committee‑level request volumes are not the same as final funded totals [4] [5].
Bottom line: the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and their appropriations subcommittees — together with significant review work by committee staff — were responsible for most FY2025 earmark requests and the allocation framework; however, the enactment of a stopgap funding measure substantially disrupted which earmarks actually received money [1] [8] [4] [5].