The upcoming years in the Trump administration mark a pivotal moment for infrastructure policy in the United States. The Biden administration’s key piece of legislation – the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) of 2022 – was an attempt to transform America’s infrastructure for the 21st century. It focused on addressing aging infrastructure—transportation, energy, communications, water and power supply, roads and bridges, even health and education systems—a society requires.
The BIL promoted electric vehicle charging networks and expanding broadband to rural communities. The Biden administration touted its progress on infrastructure reform, believing it to be an important method for outreach to rural, working-class communities who most needed improved infrastructure. However, progressives hijacked its priorities, leading to bureaucratic delays in funding disbursement, prioritizing unions over the public and serious security gaps for America’s critical infrastructure. These failures present opportunities now to modernize America’s infrastructure.
America’s Infrastructure Challenges
America’s infrastructure is aging and in desperate need of upgrades and replacements.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, in 2021, America’s infrastructure received a C- grade. Roads received a D grade, with 40 percent of roads across the country in poor or mediocre condition. Drinking water infrastructure, now faced with intense, unfunded federal mandates, has had an ongoing deferred maintenance crisis, and the average water pipe in the US is nearly 50 years old. America’s bridges face steep challenges as well. Forty-two percent of America’s bridges are at least 50 years old, and many lack modern features to accommodate larger cargo ships and increased port activity, leading to incidents like the 2024 Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Maryland. Additionally, as America continues to electrify, there is a serious lack of electrical grid building to accommodate increased demand from electric vehicles and data centers for artificial intelligence, leading to increases in blackouts and “brownouts.”
These challenges affect nearly all forms of infrastructure in the United States – from transportation to public buildings, and basic amenities like water. They amount to what the Volcker Alliance has called “America’s Trillion Dollar Repair Bill.” The report estimates $873 billion for repairs at the state level, and an additional $170 billion at the federal level, creating a total repair budget of just over $1 trillion. Much of this will fall on state and local budgets with much lower funds, which will then in turn expect federal funding to assist them. These funding challenges all exist on the backdrop of a $840 billion federal deficit and increased interest in cutting government spending under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). This desire to cut government waste, as seen through personnel changes and executive orders, could impact funding programs for infrastructure projects unless money is explicitly authorized by Congress in the following years.
In the process of cutting government spending, infrastructure excellence should not be sacrificed. In fact, there are ways to invest and support infrastructure in the United States that can save money in the long run, while making us richer and safer. The core tenets of a conservative infrastructure policy should focus on returning authority to states and localities, reducing permitting requirements, reducing the influence of burdensome unions, and ensuring infrastructure assets are protected from foreign cybersecurity threats.
Let States Decide
One of the key ways President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans can improve infrastructure policy in the US is shifting authority from federal government bureaucrats to states and localities wherever possible. Under the BIL, more discretionary grant programs were implemented, such as the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program. In order to receive federal funding, which is currently necessary for America’s transportation system, states had to shift their priorities to meet the policy preferences of the federal government. This not only distracts state officials from the projects they were originally focused on, but it makes financial planning for states difficult and introduces volatility.
Such uncertainty is uniquely risky for infrastructure projects. They can be easily derailed by changes in policy priorities as they often take many years to complete. In the Trump administration, future infrastructure funding should be shifted to an increased percentage of money coming from formula funding, which better allows states to allocate resources based on their own needs and plans. For example, state departments of transportation (DOTs) must produce five-year transportation plans called Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs). Without consistent funding, it is difficult for state DOTs to plan and predict future projects.
Another aspect of reform is generally shifting funding responsibility from the federal government to states and localities. Infrastructure still largely relies on federal funding, even for state- and locally-owned assets. In 2022, the federal government spent $52 billion on roads, mostly funded through the Highway Trust Fund. This fund, however, will be exhausted by 2028, and simply raising the federal gas tax is unlikely to sustainably fill the gaps as cars are increasingly fuel-efficient, hybrid, and electric. Similar funding challenges exist across the infrastructure sector as assets age, populations grow in general but decline in infrastructure-dense cities, and consumer preferences continue to shift to electric and fuel-efficient vehicles. As such, it is imperative that states and localities are empowered to find their own sources of revenue to create both more stability in financing of infrastructure, as well as ensuring funding reflects state and local priorities.
Shifting infrastructure policy from the federal government to states also prevents states from being forced into cultural or more politically-controversial programs. Under the BIL, funding was tied to certain demographic makeups with the goal of achieving racial and wealth “equity” through the Justice40 requirements within the law. Additionally, the BIL tied funding to achieving certain climate and environmentally related goals. Shifting power back to states and localities will allow them to prioritize the issues their residents care most about, rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all partisan vision for infrastructure on the entire country. This approach would allow California to spend and prioritize diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and climate initiatives in its goals, while Alabama could focus on attracting businesses, job growth and other issues that matter more to its residents.
Policymakers will have the opportunity to implement many of these changes in the transportation reauthorization bill, which is scheduled for 2026. The next two years can be a great opportunity to create an infrastructure policy driven by those working most closely on the issues at the local and state levels.
Advancing Energy
The failures of the Biden administration present an opportunity for the current administration to create an infrastructure policy that builds something new. Trump and congressional Republicans can build on Biden’s progress by promoting permitting reform. Permitting reform has become a bipartisan hot topic for the past few years, with congressional members on both the left and right proposing it. The most significant reform that can be achieved with bipartisan support is specifically exempting clean energy and energy projects significant to national security from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires environmental reviews for any federal infrastructure or energy project managed or funded by a federal agency. These permitting requirements significantly delay project delivery, often taking up to 4.5 years to complete. These time delays increase project costs and uncertainty around project delivery.
President Trump has already signed an executive order demanding agency heads review permitting processes and use emergency permitting to complete projects. However, to ensure these reforms are strengthened and established for years to come, the administration should be working closely with Congress to pass bipartisan reform. This can be built on 2024 legislation that proposed policies to streamline a broad range of energy projects, including natural gas, electrical transmission, geothermal, and renewable.
These reforms will be necessary, not just to meet Trump’s “Build, baby, build” campaign goals, but also for the Republican Party to claim itself part of the environmental conversation. Through this “all-of-the-above” permitting reform legislation, Republicans can ensure America maintains its energy independence and increases energy exports, while simultaneously streamlining clean energy projects and protecting the electrical grid.
Infrastructure for the Public, not Unions
The core goal of infrastructure policy should be to produce high-quality infrastructure projects that serve the public writ large. In America, much of infrastructure policy, especially transportation and transit policy, is focused more on appeasing union labor pressures. Unions often block efficiency enhancements to transportation, like automated vehicle (AV) technology or improved service schedules. Additionally, due to federal regulations, projects that receive federal transit grants are generally required to protect existing transit unions at recipient agencies. The costs of union labor account for two-thirds of transit operating budgets, inflate project cost overruns, and prevent transit agencies from becoming more cost-effective.
The unions prevent transit and transportation from modernizing to meet current riders’ needs due to hybrid work schedules, while continuing to increase the costs to maintain and operate transportation. Under President Biden, projects over $35 million had project-labor agreements (PLAs) explicitly requiring projects to use union labor. Still, many state and localities will require PLAs for specific projects, raising costs and cutting much of the private-sector labor force out of infrastructure projects.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has already blocked PLAs on future projects as of January 2025, but more can be done to prevent unions from capturing the value of infrastructure investment in the United States. Davis-Bacon requirements that federal construction workers be paid union wages can be repealed. Additionally, the federal government can follow on the heels of the 25 states that have already banned PLAs by banning them nationwide.
Protecting Infrastructure from Foreign Threats
The Trump administration possesses a window of opportunity to bolster critical infrastructure security across the nation. Given the growing complexity of the threat landscape, federal leadership can help unify private and public entities under a more robust and proactive security framework. By emphasizing stronger coordination among federal agencies including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the administration can lay the groundwork for better protection of vital assets in the energy and water sectors. This coordinated effort is essential for ensuring resilience and sustainability in critical services that millions of Americans rely on every day.
Over the past few years, the United States has witnessed an increase in cybersecurity attacks, particularly targeting energy and water utilities, with a 70 percent surge in 2024. Smaller, local water utilities are especially vulnerable due to limited resources, outdated technologies, and insufficient training. The American Water Works Association reports that many small utilities lack robust cybersecurity protocols, leaving them unprepared to combat advanced threats. These vulnerabilities not only risk service disruptions but also compromise the safety of public water supplies and energy systems. As malicious actors become more sophisticated, the potential for widespread damage grows, underscoring the urgent need for federal investment and guidance.
To address these challenges, the administration should prioritize funding that enhances both technological capabilities and workforce readiness within utilities. This includes replacing antiquated systems with modern, more secure hardware and software, as well as investing in cybersecurity training for utility staff. Furthermore, it is critical to ensure that the national security apparatus remains focused on identifying, mitigating, and deterring cyberattacks at all levels of government and within the private sector. This should be based on a holistic approach that uses public-private partnerships, utilities, and cybersecurity specialists to develop national standards for different critical infrastructure assets. By doing so, the Trump administration can strengthen the nation’s critical infrastructure and safeguard essential services for communities across the country.
Conclusion
America is at a pivotal moment for infrastructure policy. The BIL was the biggest investment in American infrastructure since the Interstate Highway System was established in the 1950s. However, due to delays in funding disbursement and burdensome permitting requirements, many infrastructure projects have yet to break ground. Additionally, America faces new threats and challenges, such as cybersecurity attacks on critical infrastructure, as well as ever increasing strains on the electrical grid. All of this on top of aging transportation and water systems developed in the mid-20th century, leaving essential infrastructure assets that Americans use daily at risk of failure.
While President Trump may have appeared uninterested in infrastructure reform in his first term, his administration has already signaled a shift in the second term. Executive orders on permitting reform and removing DEI requirements from infrastructure funding have already indicated a major step forward. This creates an opportunity for the administration to work with Congress to pass infrastructure policy that protects America’s necessary hard and soft assets from both foreign threats and degradation. Additionally, through infrastructure policy, there is an opportunity to establish a bipartisan consensus that allows states and localities to drive infrastructure policy in the future, while maintaining fiscal sustainability.
Elijah Gullett is a master’s student earning his degree in Public Policy at George Mason University.
