USDOT’s historic failure to advance any new transit projects in 14 months may be a sign of things to come

As in their first term, it appears the Trump administration is again attempting to slow down or stop transit capital expansion projects across the country. Unlike those previous attempts in 2017-2018, from which they ultimately relented, they are employing new methods to flout the will of Congress on transportation yet again. Yet somehow, leaders from both parties are clamoring to send the administration more money via reauthorization.

The backstory 

During the first Trump administration, T4America’s Stuck in the Station raised the alarm about USDOT failing to advance transit capital expansion projects for which Congress was appropriating billions of dollars. During that time, USDOT publicly insisted they were faithfully advancing transit projects, but by 2018, USDOT had awarded less than 20 percent of the $2.3 billion Congress had appropriated for this specific purpose. “Future investments in new transit projects would be funded by the localities that use and benefit from these localized projects,” they said when defending their request for zeroing out the program in the president’s budget back in FY18.

After embarrassing hearings and public events where the FTA administrator had to answer for the slowdown, warnings from the Government Accountability Office that they were running “the risk of violating federal law,” and the unprecedented move by Congress of requiring FTA to obligate 85 percent of the transit capital program funds by the end of 2019, the administration finally relented and started signing grant agreements late in the first term. 

This time around, the Trump administration appears to be taking that hostility to a new level by tapping some novel mechanisms to achieve the same ends.

Considering the sorry state of transit in this country before these slowdowns and how the lack of quality transit affects mobility, the economy, and access to opportunity, alarm bells should be ringing big time on Capitol Hill. Consider the state of U.S. transit, via Yonah Freemark at the Urban Institute:

In 1990, 4 of the world’s 14 longest metro networks—or those that include monorail, subway, elevated, and automated light metro—were located in the United States. Today, not a single U.S. network sits on that list. Over the past few decades, the U.S. has not expanded its urban railway systems to keep up with population growth. Compared with other wealthy nations, where transit is much more available, a smaller share of our population has easy access to a subway or elevated station. Without transit alternatives, most Americans have little choice but to drive expensive, polluting cars. And those without access to a car might not have a safe, reliable way to get around. The lack of investment in urban rail contributes to the high carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. transport sector. It’s also left people in the U.S. spending a large share of their income on transportation, as many Americans struggle with the high costs of living.

As oil prices have continued to climb and new cars are reaching astronomical prices, the administration has responded by making electric cars more expensive, seizing the ability for cities to decide how to keep people safe on their streets and roads, and, as we will chronicle here, slowing down badly needed new transit projects. 

Some quick background on federal transit funding: 

Broadly speaking, transit gets federal dollars in two ways:

1) The most consistent source is annual formula dollars from the Highway Trust Fund (specifically the Mass Transit Account), which are used for capital expenses like buying new railcars or buses, making track upgrades, upgrading electrical equipment, or repairing/upgrading other aspects of hard transit infrastructure. Larger transit agencies get this money directly each year based on their population and levels of transit service, while smaller agencies might get it through their state DOT. But this money is not sufficient to cover the kind of big capital expenditures involved in building new transit service. To support these kinds of projects, money comes from… 

2) The transit Capital Investment Grants program, which comes from discretionary spending each year. The five-year authorization (like the IIJA) sets the basic levels, but unlike the trust fund formula money that flows automatically, appropriators in Congress have to set aside this money each year. There are three types of projects: New Starts for big multi-year projects, typically light or heavy rail; Small Starts, typically for bus rapid transit projects; and Core Capacity for doing things like costly capacity expansions on existing transit lines. 

Transit agencies apply and then wind through a (too long, complicated, and onerous) process within FTA to tick a million boxes and receive a grant agreement in which USDOT agrees to give X transit agency Y amount of dollars over a certain number of years to cover a share of the costs—typically no higher than 50 percent but more often closer to 30 or 40 percent. (Contrast that with the 80-90 percent of highway costs that are covered by the feds.)

The money appropriated by Congress each year is always intended to cover a mix of 1) payments for multi-year projects already approved by FTA, and 2) a suite of new transit projects expected to be approved for construction and funded over the next year. 

And this is where new problems are starting to arise.

An unprecedented slowdown in transit construction grants

The Trump administration is the first administration in at least three decades to fail to approve a new transit project in its first year, as noted back in early March by Yonah Freemark for Urban. Since taking office in January 2025, USDOT has not signed a single full-funding grant agreement for a new metro, light rail, or bus rapid transit line. This is even slower than their progress in the first term. 

While it may be true that transit projects are just simply not ready to sign an agreement and proceed to construction, it’s hard to believe that not a single project was ready to go over the last 14 months. It’s also important to remember that successfully shepherding projects through the federal process quickly and successfully is FTA’s mission.

Tracking the “pipeline” of projects

USDOT is required by law to issue a report by February (which is always late) detailing the ratings for all transit capital projects in the pipeline, a list of projects with recommended funding amounts, and an overview of the program’s next three years. It’s incredibly striking to see the evolution in the detail FTA provides in this annual report to Congress over the last few years.

Here’s what the detailed page of projects and budget requests looks like in the report from the last year (FY25) of the Biden administration, for which they requested a total of ~$4 billion for the upcoming fiscal year to cover five ongoing projects with full funding agreements, plus five new New Starts projects and ten Small Starts projects slated for approval—mostly BRT projects.  (p. 4 in the March 2024 report)

We would compare that to the same page in this year’s FY27 report from Trump’s USDOT, but it doesn’t actually exist. This is what the comparable page looks like from this year’s report: 

Just by comparison, even in last year’s report—the first issued after taking office—the administration was requesting a typical amount of money for projects likely to be getting approved: 

• $1.4b for existing New Starts grant agreements, and $2.4 billion for new grant agreements for New Starts, Core Capacity, and Small Starts transit capital projects “that may become ready for a construction grant agreement” in the year ahead. They even listed 15 separate projects that may become ready.

Fast forward a full year later, after not signing a single grant agreement or awarding a single dollar of that $2.4 billion to any of those 15 projects, here’s their request for the upcoming fiscal year from this year’s report:

• “$1.202 billion for existing FFGAs and other projects that may become ready for construction funding during FY 2027”

Keep in mind that Congress has now appropriated nearly $6 billion for advancing these transit projects. $1.2 billion—their request for the year ahead—is basically what is needed to fulfill their existing contractual agreements to ongoing projects with grant agreements. While they mention “projects that may become ready for construction,” they are requesting only enough money to fulfill current obligations.

New strategies to stonewall transit projects 

Despite the polarization, Congress has continued to provide USDOT with billions for transit construction each year. But this is where some of the newer shenanigans are emerging. 

Even though Congress has appropriated more than $6 billion for ongoing and new transit capital projects, the Office of Management and Budget has employed a new strategy of apportioning only a fraction of that amount. (Simply put, apportionment means transferring it into the USDOT bank account.) While it’s relatively normal for OMB to make available only what’s needed for payments in any given year, or even by month, in this case, they’re holding back far more than is normal. 

Without those funds available to them, USDOT couldn’t approve a new transit project if it wanted to.

Though Congress was expecting USDOT to spend roughly $2.4 billion on new projects expected to sign a grant agreement during this current fiscal year, OMB has sent (apportioned) just $500 million more than the $1.2b they owe to ongoing projects. That means OMB is stonewalling $4.9 billion that Congress has appropriated. While OMB may just be holding onto those funds until USDOT is ready to approve a project or shifting them into the next fiscal year, it could also represent a new tactic for stalling out new transit expansions for the duration of this administration. 

If USDOT doesn’t sign grant agreements, there are points of pressure that Congress can tap, as they did back in 2018-2020. But if USDOT doesn’t have the money available in its bank account, that’s another thing entirely. This issue has been popping up elsewhere, as it’s become a new form of rescissions from the administration. 

It certainly appears that the administration is laying the groundwork to stop all transit capital construction in this program.

Is Congress asleep at the switch?

It’s been fairly shocking to share these developments on Capitol Hill and be met with looks of surprise from various offices. Members should be livid, raising the alarm on another way that the administration is flouting Congress’s duly passed laws and budgets. Instead, Democrats on the House transportation committee are rolling ahead to support a reauthorization proposal that will look a lot like the expiring IIJA—at the precise moment that the administration is failing to faithfully implement the existing bipartisan bill, and their negotiating partners on reauthorization are silent about it.

Why strike a bipartisan deal when it’s only your priorities that get cast aside the next day? Why negotiate in good faith with those who are not doing the same?

It’s time to call a few committee hearings, send some letters to USDOT, and mandate more information about the progress of transit projects in the pipeline. Congress needs to wake up and remember that they make the laws, and the executive branch implements them. If they allocate money to advance and approve new transit projects, that needs to happen, or someone at USDOT needs to explain why it’s not.

The truth is that when transit projects get artificially slowed down by bureaucrats and political appointees in Washington, it’s not the political opposition that pays the price. It’s the taxpayers who have to pay inflated costs for needlessly delayed projects, and the riders who have to wait for new or expanded transit service that will improve connections and access where they live—those who are again going to be stuck in the station.