Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Tina kotek cut some of ODOT’s funding?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Gov. Tina Kotek did not "cut" ODOT’s funding in the sense of unilateral reductions; rather, a larger transportation funding package failed in the regular 2025 legislative session, producing a roughly $300–$350 million shortfall that led ODOT to announce layoffs and service cuts and prompted Kotek to call a special session and later sign a stopgap bill to avert deeper cuts [1] [2] [3]. The crisis involved legislative stalemate over new revenue and adjustments negotiated in a special session rather than a single executive decision to take money away from ODOT [4] [5].
1. What actually happened: budget shortfall, layoffs and a special session
Oregon’s transportation agencies faced a sudden budget hole—variously reported as about $300 million to $350 million—after lawmakers did not approve a new funding package during the regular session; ODOT then initiated roughly 483 layoffs (part of a planned 600–700) and warned of service cuts, prompting Gov. Kotek to call a special session to shore up near-term funding [1] [2] [6] [5].
2. Did Kotek “cut” ODOT’s funding? No — the shortfall resulted from legislative inaction and negotiation
Available sources show the shortfall arose from the legislature failing to pass a funding plan and from longer-term revenue trends; Kotek’s response was to seek a new revenue package, delay layoffs, and ultimately sign a stopgap bill rather than unilaterally cutting ODOT’s budget herself [6] [5] [4]. Reporting frames the problem as a political and structural funding gap, not an executive-initiated cut [2] [7].
3. Kotek’s actions: delay layoffs, call special session, propose revenue increases
Kotek directed ODOT to postpone layoffs (initially 45 days, then an additional delay) while calling lawmakers back in August for a special session; she also unveiled and pushed a package that included a six-cent gas-tax increase and higher fees intended to fill the immediate hole and stabilize services [5] [8] [9].
4. What the special session produced and its limits
The special session produced a trimmed-down funding bill (House Bill 3991) that Kotek signed; reporting says it provided enough revenue to avert the most severe cuts and canceled nearly 500 layoffs, while raising about $4.3 billion over a decade through a mix of a six-cent gas-tax hike and fee increases — though the package was far smaller than the original multibillion-dollar proposal lawmakers debated [4] [3]. Critics and opponents signaled they would try to block or refer the measure, underscoring continued political contention [10].
5. Alternative perspectives in the reporting
Democratic leaders, including Kotek, characterized the action as necessary to prevent dangerous reductions in winter maintenance, pothole repairs and transit services [8] [3]. Republicans argued a tax increase was unnecessary and proposed repurposing existing funds or cutting programs instead; they also framed their opposition as fiscal restraint and skepticism about new taxes [5] [6]. Reporting records both sides: Kotek framed intervention as protecting basic services, while opponents urged alternatives like using emergency board funds or spending cuts [5] [9].
6. What this means for claims that Kotek “cut” ODOT funding
Calling the governor the party that “cut” ODOT funding misstates the timeline in these sources: legislators’ failure to pass a funding plan created the shortfall; Kotek then acted to delay layoffs and lead a special session to raise new revenue and sign a bill to avert deeper service cuts [6] [5] [4]. If someone says Kotek “cut” funding, available reporting does not support that as an accurate description of events and instead documents executive efforts to restore or stabilize funding [1] [4].
7. Outstanding questions and reporting limits
Available sources document the political dispute, the shortfall amounts, layoffs and eventual legislation, but they do not provide detailed line-by-line budget shifts or show any executive order where Kotek directly reduced ODOT appropriations herself; those specifics are not found in current reporting provided here [2] [11]. For a definitive accounting of who changed which line items when, legislative fiscal documents or ODOT budgetary statements beyond these news reports would be needed — not found in current reporting [11].
8. Bottom line for readers
The evidence in these reports: ODOT faced a revenue gap after lawmakers failed to pass a funding package; Kotek responded by delaying layoffs, calling a special session, proposing new revenue, and signing a stopgap bill that largely averted the worst cuts. Saying Kotek “cut” ODOT’s funding is inconsistent with the coverage here; the crisis was driven by legislative impasse and subsequent negotiation over new revenue [1] [5] [4].