Trump Initiates Potentially Complex Battle Over Biden's Infrastructure Funds
According to some experts, one of Trump's executive orders could threaten billions in funding for projects that states have already initiated.
TroibNews 
An executive order from President Donald Trump instructing agencies to halt funding for two significant Biden-era initiatives may disrupt a variety of infrastructure, transportation, and energy projects, some of which are already benefitting Republican-led states.
The order, issued on Trump's first day in office, directs agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds” related to former President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law and his 2022 climate legislation. This pause could jeopardize billions in funding for ongoing projects, ranging from roads and bridges to broadband and climate resilience, according to lawmakers and policy experts.
There are concerns that Trump, who has indicated he may defy established legal norms by obstructing congressionally approved spending, could take even more drastic measures, such as reneging on commitments made to states, cities, and other recipients.
The impact of this order extends beyond the projects Trump highlighted, including Biden's ambitious $7.5 billion initiative for nationwide electric vehicle charging stations.
Neither the White House nor key federal agencies like the Transportation and Energy Departments responded to inquiries regarding the executive order.
Democrats, such as Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, argue that the late-Monday directive indicates Trump is attempting to undermine Congress's control over public spending. Merkley emphasized, “The law is very clear that he has to do what has been passed by Congress,” adding, “He is not a king. ... I call on him to abide by the law.”
New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone echoed these sentiments, asserting that Trump’s actions represent an illegal attempt to withhold funds approved by Congress. Pallone stated, “Congress passed landmark infrastructure and climate investments, and now President Trump is attempting to illegally withhold that money from American businesses, communities, and workers.”
Chris Spear, president of the American Trucking Associations, pointed out that stopping the disbursement of funds from the infrastructure law would create significant complications for states, which have been promised financial resources via a long-standing federal formula benefiting transportation projects. He remarked, “A stop on the flow of funds gets really sticky, and I’m not sure if you want to do that. You could see strong objections from states with projects underway.”
Some Republican senators who supported the bipartisan infrastructure law expressed hope that Trump's order would not impede federal funds for their local projects. Senator Mike Crapo voiced his understanding that Trump was merely pausing funds, stating, “It’s a concern, but again I don't know how big a concern.” Similarly, Sen. Roger Wicker hoped the funding interruption would only be “a brief pause.”
The executive order halts funds pending a review of whether the relevant “processes, policies, and programs” align with the new administration's objectives.
Trump's management of the infrastructure and climate funding represents one facet of broader conflicts regarding Biden’s $1.6 trillion agenda aimed at curbing carbon emissions, revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, and modernizing infrastructure to better compete with China. The Biden administration sought to expedite the allocation of this funding before leaving office.
Currently, a pressing question looms over whether Trump will uphold the financial commitments made by the federal government.
Congress allocated $144 billion under the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, and $836 billion through the infrastructure law, according to available data. As of November 30, federal agencies had obligated $378 billion from the infrastructure law, including $162 billion already distributed, but no breakdown for IRA funding is available.
Projects funded through the infrastructure law could face particular challenges if Trump decides to halt allocated funds. This law guarantees a defined amount of infrastructure funding to each state, triggering projects in partnership with the federal government. States submit expenses for reimbursement as projects progress. Interrupting this funding could force states to find alternative financing or potentially shelve projects altogether.
Charlie Ellsworth, an adviser at the Congressional Integrity Project, highlighted that the order’s language does not differentiate between obligated and unobligated funds, creating ambiguity regarding future funding. He noted, "It's certainly even a step further than we thought the administration would go. Now they're violating contract laws as well as the Constitution."
Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican supporter of the infrastructure law, acknowledged that the executive order reflects Trump's priorities regarding certain expenditures. She noted, “billions spent on a handful of electric charging stations ... things like that are what the president told the people of this country he was going to look at and that’s what he’s doing.”
When asked about potential impacts on Nebraska projects, she expressed confidence in the robustness of her state's infrastructure initiatives while admitting uncertainty about how Trump's order might affect them.
Throughout his campaign, Trump pledged to unilaterally withhold congressionally approved spending he deemed unwise, a tactic referred to as “impoundment,” although a 1974 law renders this practice illegal. During his first term, Trump occasionally obstructed or diverted funds, notably withholding $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, which resulted in his first impeachment.
Russ Vought, Trump’s choice to head the White House Office of Management and Budget, has asserted that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional.
Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress criticized Trump’s order for potentially violating existing financial agreements. He explained, “What they said here, ‘no new disbursements,’ means it doesn’t even matter if they already signed. No money can go out the door. That causes us to be in breach of our contracts. That is extremely illegal.”
Transportation budget expert Jeff Davis warned that any move to restrict funding would lead to a wave of lawsuits against the government for non-payment of completed work as mandated by the Prompt Payment Act. He reiterated that if “disbursement” means halting outlays, it could halt numerous ongoing infrastructure projects.
While some experts remain skeptical about immediate repercussions, Nicholas Bagley, an administrative law professor at the University of Michigan, highlighted uncertainty surrounding the order's implications for legally mandated spending, suggesting that the aggressive rhetoric often accompanying such executive orders may not translate into significant changes in practice.
Andrew Rogers, formerly deputy federal highway administrator under Biden, recognized that reviewing funding is a common practice for new administrations. He added that most funds for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program are already allocated, providing a buffer against significant rollbacks. However, he noted that the broad nature of the order could result in unintended pauses across various transportation and infrastructure projects.
Sam Ogozalek contributed to this report.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
The order, issued on Trump's first day in office, directs agencies to “immediately pause the disbursement of funds” related to former President Joe Biden’s 2021 infrastructure law and his 2022 climate legislation. This pause could jeopardize billions in funding for ongoing projects, ranging from roads and bridges to broadband and climate resilience, according to lawmakers and policy experts.
There are concerns that Trump, who has indicated he may defy established legal norms by obstructing congressionally approved spending, could take even more drastic measures, such as reneging on commitments made to states, cities, and other recipients.
The impact of this order extends beyond the projects Trump highlighted, including Biden's ambitious $7.5 billion initiative for nationwide electric vehicle charging stations.
Neither the White House nor key federal agencies like the Transportation and Energy Departments responded to inquiries regarding the executive order.
Democrats, such as Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, argue that the late-Monday directive indicates Trump is attempting to undermine Congress's control over public spending. Merkley emphasized, “The law is very clear that he has to do what has been passed by Congress,” adding, “He is not a king. ... I call on him to abide by the law.”
New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone echoed these sentiments, asserting that Trump’s actions represent an illegal attempt to withhold funds approved by Congress. Pallone stated, “Congress passed landmark infrastructure and climate investments, and now President Trump is attempting to illegally withhold that money from American businesses, communities, and workers.”
Chris Spear, president of the American Trucking Associations, pointed out that stopping the disbursement of funds from the infrastructure law would create significant complications for states, which have been promised financial resources via a long-standing federal formula benefiting transportation projects. He remarked, “A stop on the flow of funds gets really sticky, and I’m not sure if you want to do that. You could see strong objections from states with projects underway.”
Some Republican senators who supported the bipartisan infrastructure law expressed hope that Trump's order would not impede federal funds for their local projects. Senator Mike Crapo voiced his understanding that Trump was merely pausing funds, stating, “It’s a concern, but again I don't know how big a concern.” Similarly, Sen. Roger Wicker hoped the funding interruption would only be “a brief pause.”
The executive order halts funds pending a review of whether the relevant “processes, policies, and programs” align with the new administration's objectives.
Trump's management of the infrastructure and climate funding represents one facet of broader conflicts regarding Biden’s $1.6 trillion agenda aimed at curbing carbon emissions, revitalizing U.S. manufacturing, and modernizing infrastructure to better compete with China. The Biden administration sought to expedite the allocation of this funding before leaving office.
Currently, a pressing question looms over whether Trump will uphold the financial commitments made by the federal government.
Congress allocated $144 billion under the climate law, known as the Inflation Reduction Act, and $836 billion through the infrastructure law, according to available data. As of November 30, federal agencies had obligated $378 billion from the infrastructure law, including $162 billion already distributed, but no breakdown for IRA funding is available.
Projects funded through the infrastructure law could face particular challenges if Trump decides to halt allocated funds. This law guarantees a defined amount of infrastructure funding to each state, triggering projects in partnership with the federal government. States submit expenses for reimbursement as projects progress. Interrupting this funding could force states to find alternative financing or potentially shelve projects altogether.
Charlie Ellsworth, an adviser at the Congressional Integrity Project, highlighted that the order’s language does not differentiate between obligated and unobligated funds, creating ambiguity regarding future funding. He noted, "It's certainly even a step further than we thought the administration would go. Now they're violating contract laws as well as the Constitution."
Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican supporter of the infrastructure law, acknowledged that the executive order reflects Trump's priorities regarding certain expenditures. She noted, “billions spent on a handful of electric charging stations ... things like that are what the president told the people of this country he was going to look at and that’s what he’s doing.”
When asked about potential impacts on Nebraska projects, she expressed confidence in the robustness of her state's infrastructure initiatives while admitting uncertainty about how Trump's order might affect them.
Throughout his campaign, Trump pledged to unilaterally withhold congressionally approved spending he deemed unwise, a tactic referred to as “impoundment,” although a 1974 law renders this practice illegal. During his first term, Trump occasionally obstructed or diverted funds, notably withholding $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, which resulted in his first impeachment.
Russ Vought, Trump’s choice to head the White House Office of Management and Budget, has asserted that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional.
Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress criticized Trump’s order for potentially violating existing financial agreements. He explained, “What they said here, ‘no new disbursements,’ means it doesn’t even matter if they already signed. No money can go out the door. That causes us to be in breach of our contracts. That is extremely illegal.”
Transportation budget expert Jeff Davis warned that any move to restrict funding would lead to a wave of lawsuits against the government for non-payment of completed work as mandated by the Prompt Payment Act. He reiterated that if “disbursement” means halting outlays, it could halt numerous ongoing infrastructure projects.
While some experts remain skeptical about immediate repercussions, Nicholas Bagley, an administrative law professor at the University of Michigan, highlighted uncertainty surrounding the order's implications for legally mandated spending, suggesting that the aggressive rhetoric often accompanying such executive orders may not translate into significant changes in practice.
Andrew Rogers, formerly deputy federal highway administrator under Biden, recognized that reviewing funding is a common practice for new administrations. He added that most funds for the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program are already allocated, providing a buffer against significant rollbacks. However, he noted that the broad nature of the order could result in unintended pauses across various transportation and infrastructure projects.
Sam Ogozalek contributed to this report.
Thomas Evans contributed to this report for TROIB News
