Compare infrastructure development between the first Trump administration and the Biden administration
Executive summary
The Biden administration passed the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and spent years setting up and awarding projects and grants; Brookings and Construction Dive note that several years and hundreds of billions of dollars remained to be awarded when the 2024 election turned power over to President Trump [1] [2]. After Trump took office in 2025 he signed executive orders pausing disbursement of remaining IIJA (and IRA) funds and his administration froze billions of dollars of projects—reports cite at least $28–$39 billion frozen during a 2025 shutdown—creating immediate uncertainty about project timing and winners [3] [4] [5].
1. Biden built the “infrastructure decade”; Trump inherited the spending pipeline
The Biden White House framed federal policy as beginning an “infrastructure decade,” using the IIJA to bundle multiple sectors and to create a clear five‑year spending horizon; Brookings documents the Biden administration’s emphasis on transparency and project‑level award tracking [1]. Construction‑industry coverage and analysis noted that when Biden left office a sizable chunk of IIJA funds—Brookings counted roughly $294 billion to still be awarded—remained for the incoming administration to allocate [2] [1].
2. Policy tools differed: legislation vs. executive action
Under Biden the large legislative vehicle (IIJA) set broad allocations and advance appropriations that constrained short‑term discretion, while the Biden administration layered agency guidance to direct equity and climate priorities [1] [6]. The Trump transition relied on executive orders to pause disbursements and to alter implementation guidance—moves that do not repeal the underlying statutes but can halt, reshuffle, or delay how funds are awarded [3] [6].
3. Immediate practical effects: freezes, pauses and political signaling
Multiple outlets reported concrete freezes and pauses after Trump’s orders: The Infrastructure Report Card and Governing documented an initial temporary halt to disbursements of IIJA and IRA funds and confusion among agencies and states [3] [6]. The Guardian and others later reported that the Trump administration froze tens of billions in transportation and energy projects—citing at least $28 billion already frozen and an additional announced $11 billion freeze—during a 2025 shutdown, demonstrating how executive discretion can rapidly affect on‑the‑ground work [4].
4. Winners, losers and the competitive grant bottleneck
A significant portion of IIJA money is competitive grants; analysts warned that the Trump team would personally determine many winners in remaining competitive rounds, which raises questions about policy priorities and geographic distribution [2] [1]. Legal authority for awards rests with agencies, so shifts in agency priorities or guidance can change which project types or states prevail [1] [2].
5. Political framing and credit-taking
Reporting documents a clear political contest over who is credited for projects: PBS, Rolling Stone and others describe Biden aides expecting Trump to inherit ribbon‑cuttings and make political claims, and later pieces highlight efforts to rebrand projects funded under Biden’s IIJA with Trump signage—illustrating the symbolic stakes of infrastructure delivery [7] [8]. Opponents point to Trump’s prior opposition to IIJA spending as a point of contention [8] [9].
6. Experts warn of uncertainty and investor concerns
Law firms and think tanks flagged that shifts in implementation, freezes, or altered grant criteria create policy and investment uncertainty for companies and state/local governments; Crowell noted that a new administration’s approach could contribute to investor unease, and Brookings emphasized that many implementation choices still mattered even with statutory constraints [10] [1].
7. Competing narratives: continuity vs. disruption
Some observers suggested Trump might continue many IIJA programs because they fund visible projects and create construction activity, while others highlighted the administration’s actions to pause funds, rescind Biden climate‑focused executive orders, and potentially reshuffle priorities—evidence of both potential continuity in funding and clear disruption in implementation [2] [3] [6].
8. Limits of available reporting and open questions
Available sources document large freezes, executive pauses, and the scale of remaining IIJA funds, but they do not provide a comprehensive, final accounting of which specific projects will be canceled, rescheduled, or fully restructured under Trump’s policies—those outcomes depend on subsequent agency decisions, Congressional appropriations, and legal challenges not fully detailed in the materials provided [4] [3] [1].
Bottom line: Biden created a statutory, multi‑year pipeline of infrastructure funding and implementation rules; Trump used executive authority early in his term to pause and reframe that pipeline, freezing tens of billions in projects and injecting political and operational uncertainty into how IIJA and related funds are awarded and spent [1] [3] [4].