Fiscal conservatives in Congress threatened for months to block government funding if GOP leaders didn’t shun earmarks. They succeeded in scrapping just one; the rest, almost $16 billion worth, are slated in the package the Senate needs to clear by Friday to avoid a shutdown.

Republican hard-liners on both sides of the Capitol have made things difficult this winter for their leadership, which has been scrambling to fund the government before cash runs out Friday for the vast majority of federal agencies. But they failed to significantly curtail the practice of directing federal dollars to specific projects back home.

Republicans swore off earmarks for more than a decade in 2010 amid corruption scandals and demands from conservatives empowered by the rise of the Tea Party movement that has since receded. Then in 2021, Democrats brought back the practice after the party swept control of the White House and Congress, softening the return with a rebrand as “community project funding,” new rules to prevent abuse and a cap at 1 percent of funding.

Now Republicans run Washington once again, and they’re overwhelmingly embracing the renaissance. As the Senate considers a nearly $1.3 trillion funding package this week loaded with thousands of earmarks for projects in specific congressional districts, fiscal hawks are acknowledging defeat.

“When a majority of the United States House and a large chunk of the Senate seemingly want to advance earmarks, there’s only so much you can do,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview.

“I’ve long stated I think it’s the currency of corruption, and we shouldn’t do it,” he added. “But, you know, members like to do it.”

Capitol Hill’s most vocal earmark proponents argue that, if not for the revival of earmarks, congressional leaders would not have succeeded in clinching bipartisan deals to fund the Pentagon and nondefense agencies with new budgets for the first time in almost two years.

The multibill funding package has yet to reach President Donald Trump’s desk and is now complicated by Democratic outrage over ICE funding after a federal immigration enforcement agent fatally shot another U.S. citizen in Minnesota over the weekend. But lawmakers in both parties are already touting the cash they secured for local projects as they campaign for reelection nine months out from the midterms.

“It’s not worth being in Congress if you can’t find ways to help your district,” Rep. Mike Flood said in an interview.

The Nebraska Republican secured almost $30 million in projects for his district in the current slate of funding bills, including millions of dollars to repave roads, about $750,000 for police cruisers and $500,000 for improvements to a shelter for minors who would otherwise be in juvenile detention.

Flood argues the inclusion of earmarks ultimately helped Republicans negotiate funding bills that keep federal spending mostly steady — a top priority of congressional fiscal hawks. “For all the things that people say are wrong with Congress, this process is working. And it’s working well,” he said. “And we are bringing this in under budget.”

This month members of the House Freedom Caucus threatened to tank a preliminary vote on spending bills if GOP leaders didn’t knock out at least some earmarks. They were able to kill only one: a $1 million earmark Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar secured for a community organization in her Minnesota district, in part because the address listed for the group was that of a restaurant.

House fiscal hawks made a final stand last week when they demanded, and received, a vote to nix hundreds of earmarks senators had worked to secure. That vote failed overwhelmingly, right before the House passed a funding package with a price tag of more than $1 trillion, with every earmark intact.

Rep. Ralph Norman, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said it was a “sad day” and called it “irredeemable” for a GOP-led Congress and White House to support the earmark-filled package. Norman said he now has no hope Republicans will ever do anything to get rid of earmarks.

“I wish it was different,” he said.

More than 70 House Republicans voted against killing the Senate earmarks. However, some hard-liners argue that it’s really the minority party driving the resurgence in a narrowly divided Congress.

“You need Democratic votes, right? So let’s not forget that,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a former chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “I’m not here to apologize for, or validate, a bunch of garbage Republican earmarks. But we’d have a much better time at making sure those didn’t prevail if we didn’t need the Democrat votes.”

In the Senate, where Democratic buy-in is necessary to overcome the filibuster, fiscal conservatives delayed action on funding bills for more than a month following the end of the record-breaking government shutdown in November — in part due to their earmark concerns. Now that the final slate of funding bills is before the Senate, those same lawmakers are again demanding a vote to eliminate the pet projects.

Last week Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a leader of that charge, noted that in 2021 the Senate Republican Conference voted unanimously to maintain their rule against earmarks, a nonbinding prohibition many GOP senators were quick to flout.

“It’s time for Senate Republicans to follow our own rules. END ALL EARMARKS NOW!” Scott posted on social media.

The earmarks Congress has inserted in the new funding bills are the first of Trump’s presidency, since federal agencies have been running on stopgap funding patches for almost two years. Lawmakers in both parties see them as a way to protect their authority to dictate how federal money is spent as the Trump administration continues to shift and cancel billions of dollars in contravention of their wishes.

“It restores the institutional faith in Congress’ ability — albeit in a very small and minor way — to direct congressional spending and gets power back from any executive branch,” Tennessee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, a senior Republican appropriator, said in an interview.

Many Republican lawmakers have been privately pressing GOP leaders to bring back earmarks for years, including as far back as 2016, when then-Speaker Paul Ryan halted a closed-door vote on restoring the practice.

At least under the old rules, earmarks were entwined with corruption. In the early 2000s, several lawmakers pled guilty to money laundering and bribery charges for abusing the practice. In the most high-profile of those cases, the late Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) admitted to accepting $2.4 million in bribes to secure earmarks.

Now Congress has much tighter rules governing the process, including a prohibition on steering money to for-profit organizations. Senior members of the Appropriations Committees who want to avoid a repeat of infamous earmarks scandals also closely vet the requests, said House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.).

“We scrub them pretty hard, and honestly the Democrats do, too,” he said.

In a sign House Republicans are growing more comfortable with the practice, they are now discussing whether to expand earmarks in future funding bills to include education, health and labor projects, according to Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the panel in charge of that money. Only senators are currently allowed to specify projects for funding within those jurisdictions.

“There’s interest on both sides, as long as it’s done in a way that doesn’t make both sides feel uncomfortable,” Aderholt said. “Members want to have a little bit of say-so, because we do have the power of the purse.”

Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

A small but growing number of Republicans are raising public concerns about the killing Saturday of a 37-year-old Minnesota man by federal agents.

Hours after the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on a Minneapolis street, one House GOP chair called for the top ICE leader and other Trump administration officials to publicly answer lawmakers’ questions. GOP Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Thom Tillis of North Carolina called for independent probes into the shooting, with Cassidy arguing the integrity of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security are “at stake.”

Another House GOP chair appeared to suggest President Donald Trump should withdraw from Minneapolis and send the agents there to another city.

“If I were President Trump, I would almost think about, OK, if the mayor and governor are going put our ICE officials in harm’s way and there’s a chance of losing more innocent lives, or whatever, then maybe go to another city and let the people of Minneapolis decide: Do we want to continue to have all of these illegals?” Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said Sunday on Fox News, adding that he expected Minnesotans to “rebel against their leadership.”

However gentle and equivocal the pushback might be, it is growing increasingly conspicuous as congressional Republicans privately discuss how to respond to Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement campaign ahead of the midterm elections. Some Republicans have been privately warning administration officials and GOP leaders for months that the operation is not going over well in some pockets of the country.

“Many of us wonder if the administration has any clue as to how much this will hurt us legislatively and electorally this year,” said one House Republican granted anonymity to candidly discuss private reactions.

While some of those speaking out, like Tillis, are retiring or known to be at odds with Trump, not all fit that bill. Rep. Dusty Johnson, who called Sunday for “a thorough investigation” of the officer-involved shooting and for all parties to “deescalate,” is running in a June GOP primary to be South Dakota’s governor.

After House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) called Saturday for ICE, Border Patrol and other DHS officials to testify before his panel, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.) praised the move, saying it was important “the American people and Congress be given a better understanding of how immigration enforcement is being handled.”

Still, most Hill Republicans have not weighed in publicly or are backing the Trump administration, which was quick to argue Pretti was a “domestic terrorist” intent on massacring federal agents. Eyewitness video shows no evidence he drew his weapon or otherwise threatened agents with deadly force before he was shot.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that people are not allowed to carry a gun while committing another crime. “And interfering with law enforcement is a felony,” he added.

“Peaceful protesters don’t have 9mm weapons with two extra magazines,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said on Fox News, referring to the concealed handgun Pretti had a permit to carry.

The shooting and backlash from Democrats has upended a crucial government funding package that the Senate was expected to pass this week. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Saturday that Democrats won’t vote to advance the legislation so long as DHS funding is included, raising the likelihood of a partial shutdown at midnight Friday.

Amid the uncertainty, some Republicans have privately fretted about the lack of guidance coming from the Trump administration about the shooting. Four GOP lawmakers and several GOP aides noted they had received many more updates from the administration about the weekend’s major winter storm than the situation in Minneapolis or immigration enforcement operations generally.

Compounding the confusion, a DHS official sent an email alert with incorrect and contradictory information to congressional Republicans about three hours after the shooting Saturday, according to three people with direct knowledge of the message, which Blue Light News obtained.

The email described “the incident this morning between US Border Patrol officers and an illegal alien with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, who was wanted for violent assault.” But it linked to a DHS social media post that said federal agents were pursuing “an illegal alien wanted for violent assault” and then an “individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” referring to Pretti, who was a U.S. citizen.

As Republicans wrangle with the shooting, Democrats are discussing internally how to mount a response — with senators strategizing over the funding bill and House leaders considering options including targeting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem with sanctions.

There’s a growing demand in the caucus to impeach Noem, with one purple-district Democrat who voted for DHS funding last week, Rep. Laura Gillen of New York, publicly backing the move shortly after a Sunday morning caucus call.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, both former House Democrats, briefed the lawmakers on the private call.

Walz “sounded the alarm” over the “illegal” DHS activity in Minnesota, “and he urged everyone to unite and defend the integrity of the victims who are being smeared by the Trump administration,” said one House Democrat on the call who was granted anonymity because participants were encouraged not to leak its contents.

“This is dark, unthinkable stuff, but I’ve never seen Democrats more militantly united,” the lawmaker added.

Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington’s nonvoting delegate to the House for more than three decades, will not seek a 19th term in office.

Norton’s campaign on Sunday filed a termination notice with the Federal Election Commission, essentially signaling an end to her campaign. She can still file for reelection in the future.

Norton’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Norton, 88, has faced mounting questions about her ability to serve in office as she retreated from most public appearances and showed unmistakable signs of frailty when she did speak.

Her fitness came under particular scrutiny last summer when she remained largely out of sight as President Donald Trump announced a move to surge National Guard and federal law enforcement into Washington and take over its police department against the will of city leaders.

While Norton insisted for months afterward she would in fact run again, reelection appeared increasingly untenable. Prominent Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, her former top aide, publicly called on her to retire, and Norton raised scant funds for her campaign.

What is already a crowded field of challengers to the longtime delegate could balloon even further. The election is likely to be decided in the Democratic primary election in a city that hasn’t given a Republican presidential nominee more than 10 percent of the vote since 1988.

Among the Democrats already vying to succeed her are D.C. Council members Brooke Pinto and Robert White, political strategist Kinney Zalesne and former Norton aide Trent Holbrook.

One of only two people who have represented D.C. in Congress since the delegate position was established in 1970, Norton made her reputation as a civil rights activist and pioneering attorney for women’s rights. Elected to succeed Walter Fauntroy in 1990, she became known on Capitol Hill as a fierce defender of the city’s self-rule, helping to orchestrate a financial rescue for the city in the 1990s while fending off efforts by congressional Republicans to assert more control over the city.

In the later decades of her career, she worked to build support for more autonomy for the city government and to secure congressional voting rights for D.C. residents. A bipartisan bid to secure D.C. a full House vote evaporated in 2009, and Norton turned to pushing statehood efforts.

The House voted to support D.C. statehood in 2020 and 2021, but the effort has not otherwise advanced.

Decades of improving conditions in the city had led to an increasingly hands-off approach from federal overseers. But that changed in recent years after a post-pandemic surge in crime and Trump’s reelection in 2024 — posing the greatest threat to the city’s autonomy since it was granted partial home rule in 1973.

Norton was largely absent from the public eye during Trump’s takeover, issuing statements and news releases but not granting interviews or appearing alongside municipal leaders who railed against the Trump administration. When she has made speeches on Capitol Hill, she has read from prepared remarks with halting delivery and with aides close beside her.

In an episode that raised further questions about her fitness for reelection, Norton was scammed out of thousands of dollars by fraudsters last year. She was described as having “early stages of dementia” in an internal police report that also described a longtime aide as her caretaker with power of attorney.