Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks

This executive order directs federal agencies to ignore non-statutory earmarks—those found in congressional committee reports, communications from lawmakers, or other non-binding sources—when committing or spending funds. It requires agencies to base funding decisions solely on statutory text and merit-based criteria, and mandates public disclosure of written congressional earmark requests within 30 days of receipt.

Federal Register Open PDF 73 FR 6417

Impact dates

Feb 28, 2008
Written congressional earmark communications must be publicly posted on Internet

Key directives

Agencies shall not commit, obligate, or expend funds on earmarks from non-statutory sources (committee reports, congressional communications, etc.) except when required by law or based on agency-determined merit
Agency earmark decisions must be based on text of laws, not non-statutory congressional statements
Agency earmark decisions must follow authorized, transparent, statutory criteria and merit-based decisionmaking per OMB M-07-10 Section II
No oral or written communications concerning earmarks shall supersede statutory criteria, competitive awards, or merit-based decisionmaking
Written congressional earmark communications must be made publicly available on the Internet within 30 days of receipt, unless agency head (non-delegable) consults OMB Director to preserve confidentiality
Agency heads must provide earmark and compliance information to OMB Director upon request

Who is ordered

Timeline

Immediate

EO effective for all appropriations laws enacted after January 29, 2008
agencies prohibited from obligating funds based on non-statutory earmark sources

Near term (90d)

agencies must establish procedures for 30-day public disclosure of written congressional earmark communications
agency heads must begin compliance reporting to OMB upon request

Long term

structural shift in executive-legislative dynamics on spending
potential reduction in total earmark volume
institutionalization of merit-based allocation processes

Risks & tensions

Potential constitutional tension: Congress may view this as executive encroachment on legislative power of the purse; non-statutory report language has traditionally carried significant practical weight
Definition of 'earmark' is broad and somewhat subjective—'circumvents otherwise applicable merit-based or competitive allocation processes' leaves room for agency discretion and potential inconsistency
Exception for agency head (non-delegable) to withhold disclosure after OMB consultation creates opacity risk; 'appropriate confidentiality between executive and legislative branches' is vague
EO applies only to legislation enacted after signing date—does not retroactively affect existing appropriations, limiting immediate scope
No enforcement mechanism specified beyond OMB oversight and agency self-policing
Political optics vs. practical impact: high symbolic value but actual earmark reduction depends on congressional behavior and statutory language