In November 2021, former President Joe Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or Jobs Act), Pub. L. No. 117–58, 135 Stat. 429. This nearly $1.2 trillion infrastructure spending package, combined with the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Pub. L. No. 117-169, 136 Stat. 1818, has been a massive boon to transit projects across the country. A November 2024 estimate by the Brookings Institute determined that over $600 billion had been awarded to transportation programs thanks to these two bills, with about a quarter of total awards specifically allocated to rail and transit projects.
The second election of President Donald Trump represents a potential sea change for transit projects. While President Trump frequently touted “infrastructure week” and broadly promoted infrastructure construction during his first term, he never shared the same affection for transit projects. President Trump’s February 2020 budget proposed a 13 percent cut to discretionary transportation spending, including a $500 million cut to transit grants. Elon Musk, President Trump’s senior advisor, has shared this skepticism; in the past Musk has said that transit “sucks,” calling it “painful.”
The opening weeks of the second Trump administration have revealed several mechanisms that President Trump and other transit opponents may potentially lean on to disrupt transit projects.
On January 20, of this year, President Trump issued an executive order suspending the disbursement of all federal funds appropriated through the IRA and the IIJA. This broad directive was later narrowed by a subsequent interpretive memorandum, which stated that disbursement of funds should only be paused consistent with policies including “removing regulatory barriers to motor vehicle access” and “considering the elimination of unfair subsidies . . . that favor [electric vehicles] . . . .”
Initially, confusion over this order resulted in delays for a huge swath of federal transportation funds. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHA) initial interpretation of the order led to a freeze of all administrative activities related to the twin infrastructure bills; however, discussions between the administration and transportation trade organizations led to a resumption of funds to state departments of transportation.
Not all funding was restored though. On February 8, 2025, the FHA suspended the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program, which was designed to provide funding to states for the strategic deployment of an electric vehicle charging network. States have not responded to this suspension uniformly: some, like Alabama and Wyoming, have paused their rollout of electric vehicle infrastructure, while others like Illinois have recommitted state funding of electric vehicle chargers. (See Trump Has Thrown a Wrench Into a National EV Charging Program. Can He Make It Disappear?.)
Will transit funding see a similar fate? Maybe. In New Jersey, the spokesman for the Gateway Tunnel Project expressed confidence that President Trump’s executive orders would not delay the massive Hudson River tunnel megaproject. NJ Transit, for its part, has confirmed that federal funding for its infrastructure projects has thus far been unaffected.
In California, the maintenance of funding is less certain. Despite previously complaining of the country’s dearth of high-speed rail projects, both the Trump administration and Congress have moved to defund California’s high-speed rail project. A northern California congressman has introduced a bill to defund California high-speed rail, and the Federal Railroad Administration has initiated an audit of the project. This confluence of scrutiny to California, whatever the motivation, is likely to result in greater peril for the project’s funding.
The future of transit funding is equally uncertain. On January 29, 2025, Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued an order “updat[ing] and reset[ing] the principles and standards underpinning” Department of Transportation policy. This memo, among other directives, requires the department to prioritize funding in communities that “require local compliance or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement,” prohibit mask and vaccine mandates, and have “marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.”
The legality of such preconditions is debatable; nonetheless, communities are already taking notice. Transit agencies in Chicago have expressed fears that this executive order could endanger funding for its Red Line Extension project. Illinois ranks 42nd in fertility rate and Chicago is a sanctuary city, which would place it near the end of the line for federal funding under this order.
The threats to future transit funding are more concrete in New York City. New York’s signature transportation funding program is congestion pricing, a tolling program that charges vehicles entering the city’s central business district in Manhattan. The program, which raised $48.6 million in its first month, would provide a much-needed revenue source for the New York City subway and other area transit projects. Both President Trump and incoming Federal Transit Administration Administrator Marc Molinaro have sharply criticized the plan, and on February 19, 2025, Secretary Duffy terminated the FHA’s approval of the plan. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority immediately filed suit to block the termination. An ongoing challenge to the congestion pricing program by New Jersey has thus far failed to stop the program. It is too early to know how federal intervention will alter the trajectory of legal challenges to congestion pricing, but the future of New York’s transit projects likely depends on the outcome of this litigation.
Whether it be through administrative action, congressional legislation, or litigation, several threats to the funding of transit projects imperil their future. Time will tell whether these threats halt these projects, or whether alternative funding sources, including state, local, and private dollars, will be able to make up for any loss of federal funds.
