Democratic New Jersey Rep. Nellie Pou is taking a victory lap for “securing” millions in local project funding for her district despite voting against the legislation.
Pou, a freshman lawmaker representing a House seat President Donald Trump won by one point in 2024, said via a Thursday press release that she was “proud to secure” $14.4 million in community project funding for her district, arguing her “effective representation” was responsible for the federal dollars, commonly known as earmarks. What Pou did not mention was that she opposed the bipartisan spending deal allocating the money because it did not include myriad reforms to immigration enforcement demanded by Democrats.
“Not one more cent to [Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary] Kristi Noem’s ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and DHS until they adopt reforms, protect our communities, and end the recklessness,” Pou said in a statement explaining her “no” vote on the funding package that passed the House 217-214 largely along party lines on Feb. 3.
Three days later, Pou issued a celebratory press release taking credit for 15 community projects funded by the bill ranging from several youth recreation centers to a new parking garage in Passaic, New Jersey.
“I am proud to secure this additional round of multi-million dollar direct federal investments for communities across our district,” Pou said in a statement.
The congresswoman did not disclose her vote against the spending bill package in the release.
A spokesperson for Pou did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
It is not clear that the New Jersey Democrat played a role in requesting funding for 6 out of the 15 projects, amounting to nearly $4.7 million, mentioned in her release.
A $3.2 million earmark to build a homeless shelter and “hub for social services” in Paterson — the largest city in her suburban district — does not list Pou as one of the requesting lawmakers.
Rather, that earmark was requested by Democratic New Jersey Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, according to a House Appropriations Committee document listing the hundreds of projects included in the FY26 Transportation-Housing and Urban Development bill.
Pou also claimed credit for five projects totaling nearly $1.5 million funded by the FY26 Labor-Health and Human Services (L-HHS) appropriations bill.
A senior Republican aide told the Daily Caller News Foundation that the House of Representatives does not allow earmarks for this bill, meaning the five projects had to be requested by New Jersey’s senators.
Among the largest awards touted by Pou in the bill is a $675,000 earmark to provide technical upgrades for a small Catholic university in her district. Booker and Kim requested the funding, according to a copy of the earmarks included in the L-HHS bill.
Lawmakers boasting about community project funding — also known as earmarks — in funding measures they oppose has become a recurring pattern for some Democrats in the 119th Congress. Though conservative Republicans argue earmarks epitomize wasteful spending and should be prohibited, most lawmakers see the practice as a way to steer federal dollars to community needs and curry favor with local constituencies.
After nearly all House Democrats voted against the bipartisan funding deal that ended the record-breaking government shutdown in November, several Democrats claimed credit for the community project funding allocated to their districts without disclosing their opposition to the bill.
Democratic New York Rep. Josh Riley sent out a press release touting $2.6 million in federal dollars for his district despite voting against the bill.
“In Upstate New York, our first responders and health care workers show up for their neighbors every single day,” Democratic New York Rep. Josh Riley said in a statement. “This funding is about showing up for them.”
Riley’s New York colleague, first-term Rep. Laura Gillen, held an event outside a fire department in her Long Island district in November celebrating a $938,000 earmark for the purchase of a new fire engine. She did not disclose that she voted against the earmarked funding while posing for a photo with a massive check touting the project.
Riley and Gillen notably joined most Democrats in opposing the recent spending package despite the measure including millions in earmark funding requested by the duo. The package contained at least $2.8 million in project funding for Riley’s district and at least $8.6 million for Gillen’s district.
New York Rep. Tom Suozzi, a centrist Democrat facing a tough reelection fight, also opposed the spending deal despite the measure including more than $5 million in earmarks for his swing district.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), House Republicans’ campaign arm, sharply criticized the Democratic lawmakers for voting against the recent spending bill containing millions of dollars in earmarks for their districts.
“Out of touch freeloaders Nellie Pou, Josh Riley, Laura Gillen, and Tom Suozzi think they can vote no but take the dough,” NRCC spokeswoman Maureen O’Toole said in a statement. “Voters see right through their act, and they’ll hold them accountable for trying to block tens of millions in critical funding all in a callous and dangerous effort to defund federal law enforcement.”
All four Democrats supported the five appropriations bills earlier in January, but declined to ultimately support the White House-brokered deal over its inclusion of funding for federal immigration enforcement.
Republicans notably claimed credit for local projects in their districts funded by spending bills they opposed under former President Joe Biden. Republican South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace has repeatedly touted funding within the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act despite voting against the bill.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
