For many years, “Infrastructure Week” was something of a joke on Capitol Hill. That changed under President Joe Biden, who made a $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure law a cornerstone of his administration, ushering in what some say is an “infrastructure decade.”
Last month marked the third anniversary of that legislation, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Now entering its final two years of implementation, the law has already allocated more than $695 billion for more than 74,000 projects across the United States. Key accomplishments include repairs on over 196,000 miles of roads, improvements to 11,400 bridges, and the replacement of 367,000 lead pipes. Yet, despite these successes, $294 billion remains unallocated, including $87.2 billion in competitive grants—a substantial sum that the second Trump administration will oversee. As the nation transitions from a Democratic to Republican presidency, the law’s future and the infrastructure projects it funds are under heightened scrutiny. And for construction professionals, policymakers and local communities, the hope is that America’s infrastructure decade continues to deliver on its promise.
IIJA was designed to deliver funding over five years using mechanisms like advanced appropriations and contract authority to ensure the stability of investments. According to Alex Etchen, vice president of government relations at the Associated General Contractors of America, much of the law’s funding is protected from political interference.
“A large majority of the funding is safe,” Etchen said, referencing the Highway Trust Fund and advanced appropriations that cannot be clawed back by the federal government. However, a decent percentage of the total funding relies on annual appropriations, making these funds vulnerable to potential shifts in congressional priorities.
Despite its protected funding, the IIJA has faced challenges during its implementation. One of the most visible issues is the delay in deploying broadband projects funded by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program. While the program has allocated $42.5 billion, actual construction isn’t expected to begin until late 2025 or early 2026. Zack Perconti, vice president of government affairs at the National Utility Contractors Association, says permitting challenges and slow approvals by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration have contributed to the delays.
“At the current pace, we aren’t expecting broadband projects to begin construction until late 2025 at the absolute earliest,” Perconti said. These delays are particularly frustrating given the urgent need for high-speed internet in rural and underserved areas.
As the Trump administration prepares to take over, questions loom about how its leadership might alter the direction of the IIJA. Historically, Trump’s infrastructure rhetoric has focused on roads, bridges and other traditional projects, often sidelining emerging priorities like climate resilience and renewable energy. IIJA, in contrast, allocated significant resources to addressing climate change, including funding for clean energy projects and resilience initiatives. Whether these programs will retain their current levels of support remains uncertain. Brookings Institution analysts Adie Tomer and Ben Swedberg have warned that the Trump administration could introduce more politicized criteria for awarding competitive grants, potentially prioritizing projects in Republican-leaning states or shifting resources away from climate-focused initiatives.
“There’s no guarantee the Trump administration’s awards will follow a similar political geography,” they wrote in a Nov. 25 article, highlighting the potential for ideological differences to influence grantmaking.
One area of consistent bipartisan agreement is the importance of water infrastructure. IIJA dedicated significant funding to State Revolving Funds for drinking and wastewater projects, which have long enjoyed bipartisan support. However, Perconti remains concerned about the adequacy of funding relative to national needs.
“Even the IIJA funding is just a drop in the bucket when compared to our nation’s water infrastructure needs,” Perconti said, referencing EPA estimates that put total water infrastructure costs at more than $1 trillion over the next two decades. Programs like the Lead and Copper Rule, which mandates the removal of lead service lines, require significantly more resources than currently allocated. “The IIJA dedicated $15 billion to lead service line replacement, but that isn’t nearly enough,” Perconti noted, adding that NUCA will advocate for Congress to reauthorize SRF funding in future legislation.
The construction industry is also grappling with workforce shortages that could impede the IIJA’s goals. Both Biden and Trump have promoted initiatives to address the labor gap, but their approaches differ. Biden’s focus has been on union apprenticeship programs, while Trump has historically favored more flexible pathways to construction careers. Etchen emphasized the need for a comprehensive strategy to attract and train workers.
“We need to look at an all-the-above approach to workforce development,” Etchen said, advocating for increased investment in career and technical education programs and expanded work authorizations for immigrant labor.
Meanwhile, inflation and supply chain disruptions have further complicated the rollout of IIJA-funded projects. Etchen pointed to these challenges as key reasons why some funds have been slow to translate into tangible results.
“We were just coming back from COVID, and state DOTs didn’t have the staff and resources to handle that influx of money,” he said. The resulting delays have fueled skepticism about the IIJA’s impact, particularly as stakeholders question why high-profile programs like broadband and rail have yet to break ground. “We’re three years since the passage of the IIJA, and they’re telling us 2026 until we see any projects,” Etchen said.
The IIJA’s expansive scope has been both a strength and a source of contention. Critics argue that broadening the definition of infrastructure has diluted the focus on traditional projects.
“I do believe it will go back to a narrower scope,” Etchen said, predicting that future infrastructure legislation under Trump might prioritize highways and bridges while scaling back investments in other areas. However, the unspent funds in sectors like broadband and rail may complicate efforts to justify additional appropriations, further narrowing the scope of future legislation.
Still, some believe the Biden administration’s emphasis on equity, environmental justice and sustainability has transformed how infrastructure is planned and executed in the United States. Proponents of Biden’s resume say programs like Justice40, which aims to direct 40% of federal investments to disadvantaged communities, have set a new standard for inclusive policymaking. These initiatives face an uncertain future under Trump, who has historically opposed regulations aimed at addressing climate change and environmental justice.
At the local level, IIJA’s implementation will continue to depend on the capacity of state and municipal governments to manage and execute projects. Many agencies have struggled with the administrative burden of applying for competitive grants, a process made more complex by shifting federal priorities. Perconti emphasized the importance of technical assistance to help communities navigate these challenges.
“The Biden-Harris Administration has made it a priority to help state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments effectively navigate the historic funding provided through the IIJA,” he said, pointing to programs like the EPA’s Get the Lead Out Initiative as examples of successful federal-local collaboration.
Looking ahead, the Trump administration will need to balance continuity with its own policy agenda. Trump’s appointees will have significant discretion over how funds are distributed. This presents both opportunities and risks for stakeholders. Tomer and Swedberg noted that predicting Trump’s criteria for awarding grants will be challenging, given the potential for political and ideological considerations to influence decision-making. “Simply put, predicting what Trump appointees want won’t be easy,” they cautioned, advising communities to prioritize understanding these criteria before submitting applications.
Despite these uncertainties, the IIJA’s legacy will ultimately depend on its ability to deliver long-term benefits for American communities. From repairing critical infrastructure to addressing systemic challenges like climate change and economic inequality, the law represents a bold vision for the future of US infrastructure. As Perconti succinctly puts it, “The IIJA funding will be felt through the rest of this decade, but what then?”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up for AGC SmartBrief for daily updates on the construction industry and NUCA SmartBrief for thrice-weekly updates on utility construction.