In a contentious House vote Thursday evening, a proposal to strip $1.3 billion in earmarks from a government funding package was soundly defeated, revealing deep divisions among Republicans over taxpayer dollars tied to controversial programs.
The House of Representatives rejected an amendment by South Carolina Republican Rep. Ralph Norman with a vote of 291 to 136. The amendment targeted earmarks in the Labor-Health and Human Services (HHS) bill, which included funding for entities linked to sex-change procedures for minors and late-term abortions.
While 136 GOP lawmakers supported Norman’s measure, 76 Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it, and nine Republicans, including House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, did not cast a vote despite attending the session.
The broader funding package, which passed the House with a 341-88 vote, now moves to the Senate, where conservatives may challenge specific allocations. Notable earmarks include $2 million for Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego for pediatric mental health services and $3 million for Hennepin Healthcare System in Minnesota for a substance use disorder clinic. Critics have pointed out that both facilities are associated with gender transition treatments for children.
The vote has ignited a firestorm of debate among fiscal conservatives who view these earmarks as a betrayal of core principles. Many argue that taxpayer money should not support programs or institutions pushing agendas they see as out of step with traditional values, the Daily Caller reported.
“These earmarks are against every conservative value that is known,” Norman declared on the House floor before the vote. Such a stark warning from a fellow Republican should have rallied the party, yet over 70 GOP members turned a deaf ear, siding with Democrats to keep the funding intact.
Heritage Action, a prominent conservative group, didn’t mince words in its critique of the GOP’s actions. “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,” the group stated in a release. This hypocrisy stings, as it exposes a willingness to play the same political games conservatives often decry.
One earmark drawing intense scrutiny is the $2 million allocated to Rady Children’s Hospital, the sole pediatric medical center in San Diego County. The hospital runs a Center for Gender-Affirming Care, offering various sex-change procedures, as reported by the nonprofit Do No Harm. Analysts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center caution that these mental health funds could indirectly bolster such treatments.
Similarly, the $3 million for Minnesota’s Hennepin Healthcare System raises eyebrows due to its pediatric clinic providing puberty blockers and hormone therapies to minors. While the earmark is designated for a substance use disorder clinic, critics fear a fungible funding effect, where dollars freed up elsewhere could support controversial practices.
Even smaller allocations, like the $375,000 for arts education at Jacob’s Pillow in Massachusetts, requested by Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, have drawn ire for the organization’s heavy emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion principles. For many, this signals yet another instance of federal funds propping up progressive priorities over practical needs.
The split within the Republican conference is glaring, with top appropriator Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma voting against Norman’s amendment. This division isn’t just a numbers game; it’s a philosophical rift over whether earmarks, often seen as political pork, have any place in a party claiming fiscal restraint.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, meanwhile, has touted the return to regular order in passing appropriations bills ahead of the Jan. 30 funding deadline. He’s framed this as a victory over past Democratic-led budgets, promising a shift to spending levels aligned with previous Republican administrations. Yet, the earmark controversy undercuts this narrative of disciplined governance.
Norman, undeterred by the defeat, has long fought against earmarks, reintroducing legislation in January to ban them permanently in funding bills. His persistence highlights a growing frustration with Washington’s habit of tucking pet projects into must-pass legislation, a practice he believes undermines accountability.
As the funding package heads to the Senate, conservative members there may seize the opportunity to push back on these earmarks. The stakes are high, as public trust in how taxpayer money is spent hangs in the balance.
For many voters, this isn’t just about dollars and cents; it’s about the values reflected in government spending. The House vote reveals a party wrestling with its identity—caught between pragmatic deal-making and principled stands.
Until the Senate weighs in, the debate over these earmarks will simmer, a reminder of the tightrope Republicans walk in balancing governance with ideology. The outcome could shape how the party defines fiscal responsibility in the months ahead.
