With voter sentiment running against Republican governance, vulnerable GOP candidates in competitive House and Senate races are reviving a legislative tool long out of fashion in their party: securing federal funding for local projects. An examination of the closest congressional contests for Republican incumbents shows that many are leaning heavily on earmark success stories as election day approaches.
The strategy offers a positive talking point for candidates navigating a challenging political landscape defined by widespread voter dissatisfaction over economic pressures, tariff concerns, and flagging approval ratings for President Donald Trump. Republican pollster Whit Ayres noted that focusing on local funding helps candidates distance themselves from the administration without risking presidential retaliation.
“When the president’s job approval is in the 30s, it is helpful for Republican candidates to be able to create some distance from the president,” Ayres said. “It’s challenging to do that without encouraging the president’s wrath. But focusing on bringing home the bacon might be one very good way to do it without antagonizing the president.”
Across the country, candidates are actively promoting specific financial wins. In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett released an ad highlighting a $750,000 earmark for youth mentoring, while New York Rep. Mike Lawler pointed to $120 million secured for local projects. In Pennsylvania, Rep. Rob Bresnahan told voters he has brought back more than $110 million to the community, and California Rep. David Valadao ran ads showcasing $500 million in water project earmarks for the Central Valley.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a moderate Republican facing a competitive race in Maine, has frequently touted her track record of locking in federal funding over the past half-decade. Collins reported securing 672 projects totaling $1.5 billion across her home state and has deployed county-specific text messages detailing area investments.
Despite these campaigns, the practice still carries historical baggage. Earmarks were banned by the GOP in 2011 following corruption scandals that sent two lawmakers to prison, leaving Republicans unable to leverage incumbency spoils ahead of the 2018 elections. Democrats revived the process with new safeguards in 2021, and Republicans ultimately opted to preserve earmarks under unified party leadership in 2025, leading to nearly $16 billion in enacted earmarks this year.
Nonpartisan pollster Mike Noble observed that while the term earmark retains negative connotations among fiscal conservatives, voters respond differently when expenditures are framed as tangible investments in water systems, highways, or public safety.
“That word ‘earmark’ can carry some negative baggage, especially among the old fiscal conservatives,” Noble said. “But when you describe that same expenditure as funding for a local water system, highway, public safety project — voters evaluate that differently.”
Not all Republicans are participating, however. Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan is facing criticism from opponents for not requesting any district earmarks while campaigning on fiscal restraint. His Democratic challenger, state Sen. Sean McCann, who is trailing closely in recent polls, pledged to pursue earmarks if elected, arguing that constituents expect lawmakers to secure crucial investments. Huizenga defended his record by pointing to hundreds of millions in federal grants he helped secure without individual earmarks, including a $400 million grant for a nuclear power plant and $51 million for housing redevelopment.
Similarly, Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan has refused to request project-specific cash, instead highlighting his support for infrastructure legislation and federal grants delivered with the assistance of administration officials. Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas also refrained from asking for direct funding this year, though critics have highlighted a past $4.2 million earmark request for a wildlife refuge bordering his ranch.
Ultimately, political analysts suggest the success of the messaging depends on framing. Incumbents typically avoid the formal label in campaign materials, focusing instead on direct benefits delivered to their districts.
“Voters, at the end of the day — it’s about direct benefit. What are they getting out of this deal? That’s one of the powers of incumbency,” Noble said. “They have that ability to say, ‘Hey, look what I brought home for you.’”
