Vought delivered the message during testimony before House appropriators as lawmakers pressed administration officials about plans to give political appointees greater authority over federal grant decisions.
The proposed rule changes would place presidentially appointed officials in a more direct role when determining whether grants to local governments, universities, nonprofit organizations and community groups are approved, modified or rejected.
The proposal has generated concern among some members of Congress who worry that executive branch officials could gain greater control over spending decisions traditionally influenced by lawmakers.
Vought sought to ease those concerns. “Sometimes you have an earmark to a specific person or a specific organization, and that would probably be at the top of the list that needs to be funded,” he told lawmakers. He added that congressionally directed projects are “not something that is impacted by this grant rulemaking.”
Congress approved thousands of such projects over the last year, representing nearly $16 billion in spending across transportation, infrastructure, education, public safety and community development initiatives.
After Republicans largely abandoned earmarks beginning in 2010, the practice gradually returned in recent years under revised transparency requirements. Many lawmakers view earmarks as an important congressional power, particularly as disputes continue over executive branch authority to delay, redirect or withhold funds approved by Congress.
The administration’s proposal stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump directing agencies to review how federal grants are awarded and to ensure spending aligns with administration priorities.
Supporters argue that elected administrations should have greater influence over how taxpayer dollars are distributed, especially when grants touch on policy areas central to presidential agendas.
Critics contend that increasing political oversight risks injecting partisan considerations into what have traditionally been more bureaucratic or merit-based funding decisions.
The public comment period on the proposed rule remains open, and Vought indicated that the administration has received a substantial number of responses.
“Probably record numbers of comments have come in,” he said. “We’re going to assess each one of those comments and make any changes that we need to.”
According to Vought, the administration’s broader objective is ensuring federal spending remains consistent with policies endorsed by voters through presidential elections. The proposal continues to move through the regulatory review process, with final decisions expected after public comments are evaluated.
The administration wants greater oversight of federal grants. Congress wants to preserve its constitutional power of the purse. Both sides are defending turf.
Vought’s testimony was essentially a message to lawmakers: “We’re not coming after your earmarks.” That’s important because there are few issues capable of uniting Republicans and Democrats faster than protecting projects they brought home to their districts.
The Constitution gives Congress authority to appropriate money. Presidents increasingly argue they should have greater authority over how that money is implemented. That tension has existed for generations, but it has intensified dramatically in recent years.
The political reality is that most Americans don’t spend much time thinking about grant regulations. They do care whether tax dollars are being spent wisely. The administration says these changes will improve accountability and ensure spending aligns with voter-approved priorities.
