Earmark Kings: Murray, Fleischmann Named 'Porkers of the Month' Amid $24B Spending Surge

WASHINGTON, D.C. – May 28, 2026 – A prominent government watchdog group has singled out two of Congress’s most powerful appropriators, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Representative Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), for their prowess in securing hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarked funds for their home states.

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a nonpartisan fiscal watchdog, named the pair its May 2026 “Porkers of the Month,” citing their top rankings in the organization's latest exposé on pork-barrel spending. The designation highlights the staggering sums directed through earmarks, a controversial practice that has seen a dramatic resurgence since its formal restoration in 2021.

According to CAGW, Sen. Murray, the Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member, secured 96 earmarks totaling $484,654,000, the highest amount in Congress. Meanwhile, Rep. Fleischmann obtained 15 earmarks worth $251,378,000, the largest haul in the House of Representatives. Their combined total of over $735 million represents a significant portion of the nearly $24 billion in earmarks identified by the group for fiscal year 2026.

The High Price of 'Pork'

CAGW's annual Congressional Pig Book, now in its 33rd edition, serves as a comprehensive catalog of what the group deems wasteful spending. For fiscal year 2026, the report identified 8,595 earmarks costing taxpayers $24 billion. The organization defines an earmark, or “pork,” as a spending item that circumvents standard budgetary procedures, often benefiting a specific local interest without being competitively awarded or requested by the President’s administration.

The 2026 total represents the fourth-largest sum since the Pig Book was first published in 1991, underscoring the rapid growth of the practice since a decade-long moratorium was lifted.

“Sen. Murray and Rep. Fleischmann should be chastised for feeding at the trough and leading the way on the most corrupt, costly and inequitable costly practice in the history of Congress,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz in a statement accompanying the announcement. He argued that lawmakers who supported the return of earmarks in 2021 “willfully ignored or forgot why this practice was first subject to the moratorium.”

The report also highlights the influence of powerful committees in the appropriations process. Members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, who make up just 17% of Congress, were responsible for securing 38.8% of the total earmarked funds, reinforcing the idea that positions of power provide greater access to the federal purse.

Local Needs or National Waste?

The central tension in the earmark debate lies in the perception of the funded projects. While critics label them as “pork,” the lawmakers who secure them—and the communities that benefit—often view them as vital investments in local infrastructure and public services.

Sen. Murray’s largest single earmark, a $190 million allocation for the Howard A. Hanson Dam on the Green River in Washington, exemplifies this conflict. Managed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the dam is a critical piece of infrastructure providing flood control for the economically significant Green River Valley, which includes parts of the Seattle metropolitan area. Proponents frame such funding as an essential and proactive measure to ensure public safety and protect a major economic hub from catastrophic flooding.

Similarly, Rep. Fleischmann’s list is topped by a colossal $213 million earmark—the largest single earmark in Congress this year—for the Chickamauga Lock on the Tennessee River. The lock, located near Chattanooga, is a key component of the region’s commercial navigation system. The existing structure is aging and deteriorating, causing significant delays for barges transporting goods. The earmark contributes to a long-running project to build a larger, modern replacement lock, which supporters argue is crucial for regional commerce, job creation, and the efficient movement of bulk commodities.

For residents and businesses in Washington and Tennessee, these funds are not abstract figures but tangible investments in safety and economic stability. Lawmakers like Murray and Fleischmann defend their efforts to secure this funding, often rebranding the practice as “Community Project Funding” and arguing that members of Congress are better equipped than federal bureaucrats to identify and address the specific needs of their constituents.

The Contentious Return of Earmarks

The current surge in earmarked spending is a direct result of a 2021 decision by congressional leaders to formally end a ban that had been in place since 2011. The revival of the practice, albeit with new rules, was championed by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who argued it was a necessary tool for effective governance.

Proponents contended that restoring earmarks would reassert Congress's constitutional “power of the purse,” which they felt had been ceded to the executive branch. They also argued it could help grease the wheels of a gridlocked legislative process, providing incentives for members to compromise and pass essential spending bills.

To address past criticisms of corruption and backroom deals, the new system was designed with guardrails for transparency. Members must now publicly post their requests online, provide a detailed justification for each project, and certify that they have no financial interest. Furthermore, earmarks are now restricted to public entities and non-profit organizations.

Despite these changes, watchdog groups like CAGW remain unconvinced. They argue that even with transparency, the practice fundamentally encourages spending based on political clout rather than merit. The data showing appropriators receiving a disproportionate share of funds, and the sheer scale of the spending, has only fueled their criticism that the new system is simply a more public version of the same old “pork-barrel” politics.